In the book of Silverman, the below proof is given of the above :
$$a= q_1b + r_1$$ $$b =q_2 r_1+ r_2$$ $$r_1 =q_3r_2 + r_3$$ $$\vdots$$ $$r_{n-3} = q_{n-1}r_{n-2} + r_{n-1}$$ $$r_{n-2} = q_n r_{n-1} + r_n$$ $$r_{n-1} = q_{n+1}r_n + 0$$
But why is $r_n$ the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$? Suppose that $d$ is any common divisor of $a$ and $b$. We will work our way back down the list of equations. So from the first equation $a = q_1b + r_1$ and the fact that $d$ divides both $a$ and $b$, we see that $d$ also divides $r_1$.
Then the second equation $b = q_2r_1 + r_2$ shows us $d$ must divide $r_2$.
Continuing down line by line, at each of the i-th step, we will know $d$ divides the previous two remainders $r_{i-1}$ and $r_i;$ and the i-th step $r_{i-1} = q_{i+1}r_i+ r_{i +1}$ will tell us that $d$ also divides the next remainder $r_{i + 1}$.
Eventually, we reach the penultimate line $r_{n-2} = q_nr_{n-1} + r_n$, at which point we conclude that $d$ divides $r_n$. So we have shown that if $d$ is any common divisor of $a$ and $b$, then $d$ will divide $r_n$. Therefore, $r_n$ must be the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$.
Say, $b = 32, a=32*8=256, r_n = b = \gcd(a,b)= 32, r_1=0, d= 4$.
$a=32*8 + 0$, with $b=32, q_1=8.$
Get, $d=4\mid r_n(=32)$.
Or, $b=32, a=33*8.$ Get, $a = b*8(=q_1) + 8(=r_1).$ Then, $b = 4(=q_2)*8(=r_1) + 0(=r_2 = r_{n+1}).$
Get, $d = 4\mid r_n(=8).$
But, it appears unconvincing to me from the very start.
May be a contradiction based proof would have worked better, by taking the prime factorization of $a,b$, and showing that a non-common divisor would not divide at any step, at least two of the three terms.
Or, may this approach is not proper.