“我不是克雷格·怀特。我们每个人都是中本聪（I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi）。”
康奈尔大学的教授Emin Gün Sirer就表示：
Renewed suspense! Bitcoin inventor Ben Cong: the Australian uncle is not me
About bitcoin founder Nakamoto So, the new story appears again today, and extremely reversal. The real "China smart" in bitcoin development discussion mailing list position:
"I’m not Craig White. Each of us is Nakamoto So (I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi)."
The statement account associated mailbox ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’, is the "2009 birth bitcoin Nakamoto used to publish the white paper, Nakamoto more than once published important information in this position, so this news is naturally from real Nakamoto" the mouth.
This is reminiscent of the American reporter confirmed as true Nakamoto the Japanese Americans, the ending of the story is "Nakamoto" I stand out to deny. But obviously, this incident will not end because of the denial of "Cong Zhong cong", because Wright is suspected to be "Chinese master" in the process, there are too many questions.
So, Wright has concluded that is a liar?
In the Wired report, authors Greenberg and Gwern Branwen made it clear:
"Most likely, there are two situations: either Wright invented bitcoin, or he was a very clever game player with a lot of tricks and calculations, and it was very successful for us to suspect that he was" Cong Zhong Cong. "."
Now that the real "Zhong Cong cong" said Wright is not him, then can you come to the conclusion that he is a liar? Not necessarily, from Nakamoto’s statement we can see only a small part.
More and more close to the truth, perhaps, Ben Cong is a group of people
Known as "Nakamoto Japanese American name is" Dorian – – prentice Satoshi Nakamoto ", was" the similar statement "I not force an article." In contrast, this position is obviously more than one sentence: "we are all Ben Cong."". Think carefully, the content of this sentence is incredible.
Even if there is a lot of evidence that Wright is not Nakamoto So, the source of Wright and its friend’s 1 million 100 thousand – bit trust fund can not be easily explained. Moreover, "our" these two words seem to have hinted that "Zhong Cong cong" is not just a person.
Of course, it’s very difficult for a person to keep a secret. If the "Cong cong" is a group, the biggest and the key question is how to hide a big secret for 7 years. What’s more interesting is that Wright was invisible after he was exposed, and even the Australian Tax Bureau didn’t find him
Do we really need "Zhong Ben cong"?
Aside from bitcoin to the center of not mention, what is the existence of the "smart" for bitcoin what is the point? In the TechCrunch report, they even take the Linux to carry on the analogy: "the founder of Linux Linus Torvalds was not the first to use the open source code, but this market is the need for a origin story, but the key is that this technology can make you do not have to spend a large amount of money to hire a professional server, but the use of their own the computer as a server"
Cornell University professor Emin G n Sirer said:
"Most important of all, what did the Chinese Master bring?". Our banking architecture is very old and has been largely unchanged since the Y2K outbreak. There is also no transparency or audit in the financial system.
Retail banking has had some precious little advances from 1959 to recent years. To this day, banks have managed our funds in bad ways. Of course, I’m not sure that a virtual currency like bitcoin is the ultimate solution, or a comparison of what is possible.
Bitcoin can not be extended globally, even if it is considered a recent upgrade in some of its plans, and it has a lot of security challenges. But "Zhong Ben cong" and some of his predecessors have brought some new technological ideas which can be applied to our global society.
Responsible media should let go of the "middle man", but pay more attention to technology and its influence. That’s what we really need to do."
Don’t look for it, let the "Cong Cong cong" disappear in history!
In numerous attempts in 7 years, every time to "pursue Nakamoto himself will only lead to more questions and uncertainties. Yes, the question will come to an end someday, and perhaps the problem is no longer important. But one thing will not change:
Bitcoin is also a tool that is available to all, and it does not belong to anyone.