Thread by @Tak_Horigoshi

In which it is shown that Craig Wright tweeted a phony "extract" from his "pre-Bitcoin" BlackNet paper to trick people into believing he had authored the Bitcoin whitepaper. In his recent COPA Defense he finally admits it was written AFTER Satoshi published the whitepaper.

Here is the original tweet by CW:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190211035419if_/https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1094654753911508992

And this is the sham "extract", which is nearly identical to the abstract of the Bitcoin whitepaper:

A classic rule of deception is to mix lies in with the truth. In this case Wright used existing documentation for his early "Blacknet" project as a pretext to give his fake "Abstract" the appearance of credibility. If the one is verifiable, the other might slip by undetected.

To be clear, there is nothing extant that provably ties Wright's actual Blacknet project to Bitcoin or anything related to Bitcoin.

Note Wright's failure to own up to his trickery, even while admitting it:

"Wright did not assert that the extract published on Twitter was from a version written in 2001 and it was not"

"My stupidest mistake was going to the Australian government in 2001 and filing this sh_t"

To be clear, Wright's attempt to deceive was not successful and was immediately exposed for what it is: an incompetently contrived piece of flimflam.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1095716256370647045?s=20

Even so he managed to rope in some of his followers, whom while ostensibly being fully grown adults were apparently born yesterday. Now that it's admitted he was misleading them, will they care? Will they even blink at being made his unwitting stooges?

Don't hold your breath!

Coingeek's Chief Bitcoin Historian Kurt Wuckert Jr. assigned more evidential weight to the Blacknet Abstract––if authenticated––than would a signature from Bitcoin's genesis block in proving Wright is Satoshi. Apparently Wright's trick really did the trick for some people.

Now that we know Wright's "Blacknet Abstract" was an ill-conceived trick, what does that suggest about his "LLM proposal" which also suddenly appeared in 2019 and is sprinkled with lines from the Bitcoin whitepaper––while purporting to have been submitted by Wright in 2007?

The LLM proposal papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… suffers from the same inconsistency Wright made when composing the Blacknet Abstract: the passages shared with the Bitcoin whitepaper match the 2009 version rather than the 2008 version while purporting to predate them both.

Just as Wright had blustered about his Blacknet flimflam being "dropped in court" [only to fumble and disavow it when the moment of truth came], he has done about the LLM proposal. It remains to be seen how that will play out...