why would someone claim to be satoshi fully knowing he won't be able to prove it when the time comes
did he really think we'd take gavin's word " i verified his key " as irrefutable proof?
nope i dont think so. lets see how this all develops, but to outright refuse the possibility seems extremely childish to me.
ImI..... you seem to be giving way too much benefit of the doubt to the possible truth of these claims.
Yeah, right, I can understand that you don't want to jump to conclusions too soon, but really, why do these guys provide shady, non-provable, indirect and easily fabricated "evidence" rather than some direct and irrefutable evidence that clearly would be within their ability to do..?
The reason is because they are being less than genuine in respect to how they are treating this kind of claim, which provides a considerable amount of inference that they are engaging in a kind of attempted fraud on the public (and more directly the bitcoin community).
Yes, it is possible that Wright could be Satoshi; however, after what we have seen as the evidence, we should recognize that possibly to be about less than 1%... and accordingly such claim should not be getting so much benefit of the doubt.