This is more of a dramatic happening than full-blown drama, although there is a lot of bickering and shorter slap fights in almost all the threads.

Background

Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin and patron saint of the /r/bitcoin community. No one ever saw Satoshi in person or knows who he is. Today, BBC and The Economist reported that Australian entrepeneur Craig Wright came forward and claimed to be Satoshi. Apparently, he identified himself by providing some kind of technical proof to the newspapers:

At the meeting with the BBC, Mr Wright digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of Bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto.

A couple of former co-developers/team members (Gavin Andresen & Jon Matonis) also confirmed that he is indeed Satoshi Nakamoto.

In addition, Craig Wright himself wrote a blog post about him being Satoshi in which he explains the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys. I assume that this is the process by which he identified himself to the newspapers and Gavin Andresen. He provides a set of signatures/keys (I really have no idea what I'm talking about) as examples for this explanation that are not unique to Satoshi, which is quickly found out by the bitcoin community.

Wright never claimed explicitly that the signatures used as examples in his blog post were proof that he is Satoshi, though, and the newspapers never refer to the blog post but say that he provided evidence in person.

Where the drama starts

/r/bitcoin is having none of it. Craig Wright's signature is worthless (about the signatures used in his blog post) is made a sticky and gilded. The Economist actually published a new article in response to it, demanding better proof of Wright.

Meanwhile, the whole front page of /r/bitcoin is full of threads about this. Most people don't believe Wright's claim.

But there are a few who at least give Wright the benefit of the doubt. Then we have the conspiracy theorists.

The whole story is a setup to discredit Bitcoin and come up with fedcoins... Is part of the plan with Silk Road. And I think Gavin is pushed/forced to say that... The only prove is that he will move the 1 million coins... And that clown will never prove that he can move them.

Then we have the people who dissect Wright's blog post

Craig was a bit clever here. He did not cheat, and did not use modified command line tools. He indeed posted a message signed by Satoshi's key, that validates correctly. This might explain how he fooled a few people. However, that message just so happens to be a hash of an early Bitcoin transaction, not anything proving his identity. Here's how he did it.

/r/btc, the part of the bitcoin community who left /r/bitcoin after the topmod (/u/theymos) of /r/bitcoin squashed all discussion about a change in block size (don't ask me, I still don't know what I'm talking about), is a bit more ready to believe that Wright is Satoshi, mainly because they apparently like Andresen more than /r/bitcoin does since he is on their side re block size (they call the other side "smallblockers", lol). Doesn't mean that there is no discussion, though. /r/btc's frontpage is littered with selfposts requesting extra proof from Wright (e.g. Signed message, move coins, or GTFO) or even claiming that he's trolling. This must obviously be the case since

He is using Windows with Notepad. Why the hell would Gavin take him seriously?

I for one don't know.

They have their conspiracy theories, too.

Bitcoin isn't one man, guys. It really isn't this guy. So stop looking at this guy and away from Bitcoin - he's doing exactly what he and whomever he's working with want, which is to get you to look away.

So, what's being hidden? Isn't there some big meetup going on right now? Doesn't this pattern sound familiar?

There is a whole 'nother drama about Gavin Andresen. He wrote his own blog post confirming that Wright is Satoshi which lead to drama on /r/bitcoin. Later he made a comment explaining how Wright proved his identity to him on /r/btc.

Andresen's credibility is on the line now and he talks to Wired, again confirming his belief that Wright is Satoshi. Some people on /r/btc and /r/bitcoin believe all of it is actually a conspiracy to remove Andresen from the core development team.

People are also unsure what if anything would convince them that Wright is Satoshi.

And finally, we have Andreas Anatonopoulos, apparently another bitcoin celeb, who said that he was asked to verify Wright being Satoshi but declined because it doesn't matter who Satoshi is. This leads to /r/bitcoin fellating him vigorously agreeing with him completely as if they hadn't just spent 12 hours or so losing their minds over it.

Breaking news: Now someone claims that Wright didn't write the technical part of his blog post himself but stole it from him. You can't make this shit up.

..........

Disclaimer: A few/some/all details in this might be wrong since I'm actually not that interested in bitcoin, I just like the drama surrounding it.

Signature: 49 20 77 61 6e 74 20 74 68 65 20 6c 61 73 74 20 74 77 6f 20 68 6f 75 72 73 20 6f 66 20 6d 79 20 6c 69 66 65 20 62 61 63 6b 2e 20