the Israeli douchebags have retracted their claim, what a couple of retards
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2013-11-27-cnn-money-report-linking-bitcoin-and-silk-road-retracted-349193
knew it.
Topic: 2013-11-23 - NYTimes Blog - Study Suggests Link Between DPR and Satoshi (Read 3558 times)
November 27, 2013, 01:53:52 PM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2013-11-27-cnn-money-report-linking-bitcoin-and-silk-road-retracted-349193
knew it.
November 27, 2013, 01:06:31 PM
the Israeli douchebags have retracted their claim, what a couple of retards
November 27, 2013, 05:22:31 AM
linking Satoshi to the Silk Road is a bunch of bs. This is clearly an unjustified attack on Satoshi that out of all places the people in this forum should know better.
Lets keeps facts straight:
The bankers/wallstreet/uk and us governments are against Bitcoin, especially the banking industry, they had declared the war on Bitcoin and they are loosing the war as it can be seen by the huge momentum Bitcoin has right now, this is a last resort attempt to destroy the Bitcoin, they will fail but in the process they are trying to tarnish the good name of Satoshi who highly deserves a novel price instead of having his name tarnish by accusations which have been proven to be false.
In the end by late 2014 wallstreet and bankers will join the Bitcoin revolution, and Bitcoin will have clearly won the war, by then expect Bitcoin to be over 10000 each.
As of now what the Banks want to do is discredit Satoshi with the goal of forcing governments to enable more regulation to the point where compliance is prohibitively expensive to comply with the goal of making Bitcoin price to collapse, it will not happen, geeks and hackers know well, and vc as long they make profits will be taking the Bitcoin train to economic freedom, eventually even Bankers will be using Bitcoin.
Lets keeps facts straight:
The bankers/wallstreet/uk and us governments are against Bitcoin, especially the banking industry, they had declared the war on Bitcoin and they are loosing the war as it can be seen by the huge momentum Bitcoin has right now, this is a last resort attempt to destroy the Bitcoin, they will fail but in the process they are trying to tarnish the good name of Satoshi who highly deserves a novel price instead of having his name tarnish by accusations which have been proven to be false.
In the end by late 2014 wallstreet and bankers will join the Bitcoin revolution, and Bitcoin will have clearly won the war, by then expect Bitcoin to be over 10000 each.
As of now what the Banks want to do is discredit Satoshi with the goal of forcing governments to enable more regulation to the point where compliance is prohibitively expensive to comply with the goal of making Bitcoin price to collapse, it will not happen, geeks and hackers know well, and vc as long they make profits will be taking the Bitcoin train to economic freedom, eventually even Bankers will be using Bitcoin.
November 27, 2013, 03:57:24 AM
Facts we know for sure:
Dustin D. Trammell a.k.a. I)ruid was a member of 'The Cryptography Mailing List" and (one of) the first miner(s). He is the owner of 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv and dumped his coins in June 2011 (worth $1.7m then) when Bitcoin was very volatile (after the first media attention of Silk Road and Bitcoin) on Bitcoin OTC.
Dustin D. Trammell a.k.a. I)ruid was a member of 'The Cryptography Mailing List" and (one of) the first miner(s). He is the owner of 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv and dumped his coins in June 2011 (worth $1.7m then) when Bitcoin was very volatile (after the first media attention of Silk Road and Bitcoin) on Bitcoin OTC.
You might also be interested in these facts.
this is what conspiracy theorists would say: "OF COURSE IF HE IS SATOSHI HE WOULDN'T ADMIT IT!"
November 27, 2013, 01:57:23 AM
Great blog post to clear the fog of disinformation.
November 27, 2013, 01:36:19 AM
Facts we know for sure:
Dustin D. Trammell a.k.a. I)ruid was a member of 'The Cryptography Mailing List" and (one of) the first miner(s). He is the owner of 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv and dumped his coins in June 2011 (worth $1.7m then) when Bitcoin was very volatile (after the first media attention of Silk Road and Bitcoin) on Bitcoin OTC.
Dustin D. Trammell a.k.a. I)ruid was a member of 'The Cryptography Mailing List" and (one of) the first miner(s). He is the owner of 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv and dumped his coins in June 2011 (worth $1.7m then) when Bitcoin was very volatile (after the first media attention of Silk Road and Bitcoin) on Bitcoin OTC.
You might also be interested in these facts.
November 25, 2013, 01:33:01 PM
I'm not implying the guy is Satoshi, just saying that we probably figured out who had the privkey's for that address without writing a bad paper in the process. When you look at the guys resume it's not surprising he would have heard about it early on and been interested - security consulting.
It's official for more than a month.
I can't blame the "scientists" for having the suspicion that Dustin Trammell is Satoshi. I thought so too, because the owner of 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv mined a coin when the blockchain was only 10 days old, just one day after Satoshi sent his very first test transaction to Hal Finney. I blame them for connecting the owner of this address to SR though.
Facts we know for sure:
Dustin D. Trammell a.k.a. I)ruid was a member of 'The Cryptography Mailing List" and (one of) the first miner(s). He is the owner of 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv and dumped his coins in June 2011 (worth $1.7m then) when Bitcoin was very volatile (after the first media attention of Silk Road and Bitcoin) on Bitcoin OTC.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/did-satoshi-cash-out-77624-btc-311216
It's not suprising that his coins went throgh SR because back then demand for Bitcoin was mainly driven by SR users. It's very likely that he sold to people who spent their coins on SR.
November 25, 2013, 12:30:06 PM
This is a method of trying to discredit Bitcoon by trying to tie Satoshi to DPR. Then they can try and tarnish the whole thing by smearing him.
+1An absurd attempt, it shows how much desperate they are
November 25, 2013, 07:53:16 AM
Ivory tower academics who don't even know how to use a search engine, living off past accomplishments and reputation, spitting out speculative theories not caring who gets smeared in the process.
If this kind of sloppy research was being released by a commercial entity, they would've lost all their subscribers long ago. But these guys will suffer no consequences whatsoever from drawing one wrong conclusion after another.
The financial system isn't the only entrenched fat lazy dinosaur who could use some disruption. The educational establishment in most countries needs to be absolutely rethought and overhauled bottom-up.
If this kind of sloppy research was being released by a commercial entity, they would've lost all their subscribers long ago. But these guys will suffer no consequences whatsoever from drawing one wrong conclusion after another.
The financial system isn't the only entrenched fat lazy dinosaur who could use some disruption. The educational establishment in most countries needs to be absolutely rethought and overhauled bottom-up.
November 25, 2013, 07:31:20 AM
TL;DR : 13 pages of unfounded speculative Bitcoin FUD sponsored by CitiBank.
November 25, 2013, 07:28:30 AM
November 25, 2013, 07:23:21 AM
That was quick: http://dustintrammell.com/
Well, not really, he's what you get when you Google for that address. He's still a user on the forum and we've had the "zomg you're in the early transactions" discussions with him before here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347186?
I'm not implying the guy is Satoshi, just saying that we probably figured out who had the privkey's for that address without writing a bad paper in the process. When you look at the guys resume it's not surprising he would have heard about it early on and been interested - security consulting.
Besides, he can't be Satoshi: I'm Satoshi.
November 25, 2013, 07:17:33 AM
That was quick: http://dustintrammell.com/
Well, not really, he's what you get when you Google for that address. He's still a user on the forum and we've had the "zomg you're in the early transactions" discussions with him before here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347186 November 25, 2013, 07:08:55 AM
It doesn't even look like that at all, the "early adopter" coins in question are the ones sent to 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv.
Seems weird to me to assign that particular party to Satoshi: the earliest of the connected blocks was mined a week after Bitcoin's public announcement... and it aggregated up all that coin in a single address, in a pretty decidedly non-anonymous way.
What it looks like to me is that party sent a bunch of funds to an early exchange (perhaps Britcoin, based on the date), and presumably the at that point they changed ownership.
Again, I'm confused and disappointed. Like the first from these authors this paper seems really seems second rate, not well researched— even about the operations of Bitcoin, and rather high on soundbite-grade speculation compared to substance.
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=I}ruidSeems weird to me to assign that particular party to Satoshi: the earliest of the connected blocks was mined a week after Bitcoin's public announcement... and it aggregated up all that coin in a single address, in a pretty decidedly non-anonymous way.
What it looks like to me is that party sent a bunch of funds to an early exchange (perhaps Britcoin, based on the date), and presumably the at that point they changed ownership.
Again, I'm confused and disappointed. Like the first from these authors this paper seems really seems second rate, not well researched— even about the operations of Bitcoin, and rather high on soundbite-grade speculation compared to substance.
That was quick: http://dustintrammell.com/
Good work!
November 25, 2013, 06:39:02 AM
This is a method of trying to discredit Bitcoon by trying to tie Satoshi to DPR. Then they can try and tarnish the whole thing by smearing him.
November 25, 2013, 05:26:18 AM
I'm not overly impressed... Given the suspicion is that the FBI confiscated the Silk Road "hot wallets", it sounds very plausible to me that this link is simply Satoshi (or some other very early adopter) making use of the Silk Road as a mixing service
It doesn't even look like that at all, the "early adopter" coins in question are the ones sent to 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv.Seems weird to me to assign that particular party to Satoshi: the earliest of the connected blocks was mined a week after Bitcoin's public announcement... and it aggregated up all that coin in a single address, in a pretty decidedly non-anonymous way.
What it looks like to me is that party sent a bunch of funds to an early exchange (perhaps Britcoin, based on the date), and presumably the at that point they changed ownership.
Again, I'm confused and disappointed. Like the first from these authors this paper seems really seems second rate, not well researched— even about the operations of Bitcoin, and rather high on soundbite-grade speculation compared to substance.
November 25, 2013, 05:20:44 AM
I'm not overly impressed... Given the suspicion is that the FBI confiscated the Silk Road "hot wallets", it sounds very plausible to me that this link is simply Satoshi (or some other very early adopter) making use of the Silk Road as a mixing service
It doesn't even look like that at all, the "early adopter" coins in question are the ones sent to 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv.Seems weird to me to assign that particular party to Satoshi: the earliest of the connected blocks was mined a week after Bitcoin's public announcement... and it aggregated up all that coin in a single address, in a pretty decidedly non-anonymous way.
What it looks like to me is that party sent a bunch of funds to an early exchange (perhaps Britcoin, based on the date), and presumably the at that point they changed ownership.
Again, I'm confused and disappointed. Like the first from these authors this paper seems really seems second rate, not well researched— even about the operations of Bitcoin, and rather high on soundbite-grade speculation compared to substance.
November 25, 2013, 05:12:24 AM
I believe they are talking about this transaction: cdcaaa0ff1446d41aae5d32c23da1ff3353765ebaf26ffd32ab912948645c08f
So what is interesting is that in the follow-up transaction, you see that there is not one 1000 btc transaction, but three. And over 25 transactions of over 500 btc. So I don't get the following sentence:
It happened multiple times, so why do they say it is atypical?
Silkroad as well as other services has been used and is still being used to enforce the privacy of bitcoin-transactions. If you send money to a regular online wallet, for example that of mtgox or silkroad and you withdraw the same amount of coins, you'll probably receive other bitcoins than the one you sent to the wallet. This is typical behaviour and I know several people who used Silkroad for this purpose.
So what is interesting is that in the follow-up transaction, you see that there is not one 1000 btc transaction, but three. And over 25 transactions of over 500 btc. So I don't get the following sentence:
Quote
Such a single large transfer does not represent the typical
behaviour of a buyer who opens an account on Silk Road in order to purchase
some narcotics (such buyers are expected to make an initial deposit of tens or
hundreds of dollars, and to top the account o whenever they buy additional
merchandise). It could represent either large scale activity on Silk Road, or some
form of investment or partnership, but this is pure speculation."
behaviour of a buyer who opens an account on Silk Road in order to purchase
some narcotics (such buyers are expected to make an initial deposit of tens or
hundreds of dollars, and to top the account o whenever they buy additional
merchandise). It could represent either large scale activity on Silk Road, or some
form of investment or partnership, but this is pure speculation."
It happened multiple times, so why do they say it is atypical?
Silkroad as well as other services has been used and is still being used to enforce the privacy of bitcoin-transactions. If you send money to a regular online wallet, for example that of mtgox or silkroad and you withdraw the same amount of coins, you'll probably receive other bitcoins than the one you sent to the wallet. This is typical behaviour and I know several people who used Silkroad for this purpose.
November 24, 2013, 09:39:17 PM
I heard that Stephen Hawking's wheelchair IS "Skynet".....It's just publishing books in Hawking's name until the uprising......
November 24, 2013, 05:14:16 PM
Kind'a sad how people dogpile on DPR after he gets owned by the feds. Silk Road remained online for over two years -- longer than any other major BTC business. It processed heavy amounts of money, while its users trafficked in everything from drugs to murder. This sort of thing attracts more attention from the law than ... well, just about anything in the realm of bitcoin.
the FBI knew about him for most of that time. i don't dislike him, but he's just an amateur who didn't know when to keep his mouth shut, and how to not reveal his personal information.
I didn't have an opinion about him -- didn't know the guy. But inability to evade the FBI indefinitely while actively running a multimillion dollar biz doesn't make him an amateur. Just building up such a business & running it as long as he has makes him a pro (sadly for him, the feds agree with me on this).
Anonymity is hard, LEO are smart & work in very unexpected ways. Tinfoilery aside, there's an amazing amount of info collected on all of us, and amazing improvements in parsing that info made every day. The fantasy of dull-normal fat cops snarfing down doughnuts put many cocky people behind bars.
Jump to: