A selection of CSW's websites dating back as far as 2009, most are registered between 2013-2016.
All but 3 have disappeared from the web (even cached pages)
2 cached pages and 1 page still up
craigswright.acm.org
CLUBZUHL.COM
bitc01n.net
b1tc01n.co
signiaenterprises.com
b1tc01n.org
tuliptrading.net
ezas.biz
ezas.co
demorgan.co
RIDGES-ESTATE.COM
rcjbr.com
ang-pow.com
Hong-Bao.co
Integyrz.biz
information-defense.com
c01n.net
agrisci.net
coin-exch.com
hotwirepe.com http://web.archive.org/web/20150212124604/http://hotwirepe.com/about_us.html
interconnectedresearch.com http://web.archive.org/web/20151122153216/http://www.interconnectedresearch.com
http://www.financialguidanceforeducators.com/ (Still up)
I also came across loads of (in my opinion fake) news articles extolling the virtues of working with Dr. Craig and his companies.
Topic: BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED! - page 14. (Read 42360 times)
Fresh update.
Gavin's latest comment:
https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-provable-con-man/
Quote
...So I mailed Gavin Andreson, Chief Scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, “What the heck?”:
"What is going on here?
There’s clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you’re lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?"
He replied as follows, quoted with permission:
Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and don’t yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
"What is going on here?
There’s clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you’re lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?"
He replied as follows, quoted with permission:
Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and don’t yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
How much time needs to pass before Gavin admits he was duped by a skilled conman, and that he should have stuck with what he understands: public, cryptographic proof.
And relatedly, how can we maximally humiliate the BBC and other media outlets for having such low journalistic standards?
Fresh update.
Gavin's latest comment:
https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-provable-con-man/
Quote
...So I mailed Gavin Andreson, Chief Scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, “What the heck?”:
"What is going on here?
There’s clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you’re lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?"
He replied as follows, quoted with permission:
Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and don’t yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
"What is going on here?
There’s clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you’re lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?"
He replied as follows, quoted with permission:
Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and don’t yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
How much time needs to pass before Gavin admits he was duped by a skilled conman, and that he should have stuck with what he understands: public, cryptographic proof.
And relatedly, how can we maximally humiliate the BBC and other media outlets for having such low journalistic standards?
Fresh update.
Gavin's latest comment:
https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/03/the-cryptographically-provable-con-man/
Quote
...So I mailed Gavin Andreson, Chief Scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, “What the heck?”:
"What is going on here?
There’s clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you’re lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?"
He replied as follows, quoted with permission:
Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and don’t yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
"What is going on here?
There’s clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you’re lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?"
He replied as follows, quoted with permission:
Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the ‘proof’ as anyone, and don’t yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I’m lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
Okay...At this point, I don't think that I would be able to accept a single transaction from a single early block as enough evidence because that doesn't rule out, albeit a very tiny, possibility that a private key was somehow brute forced by a couple super computers fully dedicated to the task.
I want to see a transaction from block #1 to block #9 and from block #9 back to block #1. This would at least establish that more than one private key, known to be generated by Satoshi Nakamoto, is in play. It would increase the weight of the evidence, and reduce the likelihood that the keys were somehow hacked into existence.
I want to see a transaction from block #1 to block #9 and from block #9 back to block #1. This would at least establish that more than one private key, known to be generated by Satoshi Nakamoto, is in play. It would increase the weight of the evidence, and reduce the likelihood that the keys were somehow hacked into existence.
I like this standard of proof. It seems reasonable and raises the bar for would be bad actor-impersonators.
...
One does not simply become director of an LTD prior to the LTD's existence.
One does not simply become director of an LTD prior to the LTD's existence.
? Incorporation date was 11th October 2012, he was appointed 3 days after.
You are correct. The shell company was incorporated on October 11, 2012, by a Bryan Thornton: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/A5QhPITlnFAaWImiT7MnZ4v9jCVtfRuVtIspIGk_0eE/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIMJNUPUJXYVDPMOQ&Expires=1462312150&Signature=ZhuXqE3tHPjXifkv4nHqoRLu0GM%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEEwa4AOfnklkeUTpk23GPy7FAriLFo113YfqjHR8i0VzRikL6MwtuYBWWqTuP4UJFuB2Vvb1e7wV4iFX4eQl%2BhVrukzdFQi%2FgUxtfv7DwbHiQl0MAFNK%2F97uSZko4aKxqeyA4%2BUu7LQtt6Rv9vAKw29uvxPwrn07Ab7MtpGR%2BblcJEoEU%2BxLG4B%2F1lQF0HKyKR6jUhEoGLqZ7tB%2Bg%2FpZdxF5QDPmailnIlabqOa0vLZGR2Nq8aoQuV9XJDrb7zYXUwSbTOCSKd4wMeyP3KHT%2B53gUcxPFtPIRyefn5OdsE9jVxwD5yNqIyMD4Hwp55CjJ2VFo5ITQXdqF2dG5xDS8wWnc7F5CZZG%2BETbe0VHquTTVZSyhpnGhkBYVNsAvPR3611IMLlSLiiuiSG9lTQ4bQJqq66%2BmwVNa9tXoYsu%2FSgqKM7tFCKTRnObaP3sfv%2B4m6ExpgFGvIObB2BVAce7t2T5uTP9VAQ%2BGnPqbqpnA0BZg%2FieGPz7yhR67CneT6ZmiPoC6hRNWmLexjb2WlpZf6OpyuS5WArWykZNGCPdJz5hzH6n2oz03CSAaD9VaJudt5soq7AtPntiWKA4ujZbvn5fEuCCCiL2A9P4%2BiBm%2B61SxBapKOwOzImZBdlaA2tQagEKsaUg39%2BjuQU%3D
[...]How many "days" does he need to prepare his next magic trick? [...]How gullible can anyone be?
In two weeks™. 
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1207670
Quote
My life continued and I started to look for a new project to begin again. A fresh start. I'm on a good track now, trying to put the past behind me.
I'll bet you Craig Steven Wright thinks he is...
can you see it? two spaces after a sentence already. not beetween two words. a habbit of both of them.
Right thats approximately meaningless. Now the original or minimal difficulty is 2^32 so 7,673,000 x 2^32 is approx 2^55. How easy is that in comparison because 7,673,000 ~ 2^23. (I guess I must've mistranslated it before 55 not 52 bits)
And when you see a bitcoin in hex (like with hashcash because that is what the coin is) you can visually *see* those 55 bits. This is the latest hash from the block explorer:
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000e3d3268e05a9901759c1452590d0838a80aeb8abaea59f1e9f
and bingo I can count 0s (14 of them) multiply by 4 (bits per hex nibble) and I know that is a 56bit hashcash collision. (You get lucky and an extra 1 bit half the time, 2 bits 1/2 time etc).
Adam
A longer interval than 10 minutes would be appropriate for BitDNS.
So far in this discussion there's already a lot of housekeeping data required. It will be much easier if you can freely use all the space you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in Bitcoin's chain. Some transactions:
Changing the IP record.
Name change. A domain object could entitle you to one domain, and you could change it at will to any name that isn't taken. This would encourage users to free up names they don't want anymore. Generated domains start out blank and the miner sells it to someone who changes it to what they want.
Renewal. Could be free, or maybe require consuming another domain object to renew. In that case, domain objects (domaincoins?) could represent the right to own a domain for a year. The spent fee goes to the miners in the next block fee.
Well, difficulty is a real number, its not a referance number
I fully agree that we need a more "human interpretable" form of a difficulty stat, Telling someone that the difficulty is 7,673,000 and that its going to rise up around by 1-2million more Really doesnt mean much to them, its just confusing to hear that "a bitcoin is now 7673000x harder to get than it was when it was first released" it really doesnt tell us much.
I fully agree that we need a more "human interpretable" form of a difficulty stat, Telling someone that the difficulty is 7,673,000 and that its going to rise up around by 1-2million more Really doesnt mean much to them, its just confusing to hear that "a bitcoin is now 7673000x harder to get than it was when it was first released" it really doesnt tell us much.
Right thats approximately meaningless. Now the original or minimal difficulty is 2^32 so 7,673,000 x 2^32 is approx 2^55. How easy is that in comparison because 7,673,000 ~ 2^23. (I guess I must've mistranslated it before 55 not 52 bits)
And when you see a bitcoin in hex (like with hashcash because that is what the coin is) you can visually *see* those 55 bits. This is the latest hash from the block explorer:
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000e3d3268e05a9901759c1452590d0838a80aeb8abaea59f1e9f
and bingo I can count 0s (14 of them) multiply by 4 (bits per hex nibble) and I know that is a 56bit hashcash collision. (You get lucky and an extra 1 bit half the time, 2 bits 1/2 time etc).
Adam
Hi
Digging myself out of the newbie jail. But a real question - why is difficulty not expressed in bits?
With hashcash I always used eg 20bits. I think bitcoin is currently at 52. As bitcoin mining is hashcash mining plus an extension to allow fractional bits (rather than to find k 0 bits, to find a number < 2^k where can be fractional).
But its hard to be 100% certain if I even correctly converted that because this page is unnecessarily complex for a very simple actual problem: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
and bits are very easy to read. If one looks at the hash output in hex just multiply the leading 0s by 4 (and the next nibble figure out if it is >7 = 4 bits, > 3 = 3 bits, > 1 = 2 bits and 1 = 1 bit (and obviously 0 would be another leading 0). QED trivial, human comprehensible difficulty that can be handchecked. That was part of the design aim for hashcash to simplify the computational, programming and human verification.
Adam
Digging myself out of the newbie jail. But a real question - why is difficulty not expressed in bits?
With hashcash I always used eg 20bits. I think bitcoin is currently at 52. As bitcoin mining is hashcash mining plus an extension to allow fractional bits (rather than to find k 0 bits, to find a number < 2^k where can be fractional).
But its hard to be 100% certain if I even correctly converted that because this page is unnecessarily complex for a very simple actual problem: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
and bits are very easy to read. If one looks at the hash output in hex just multiply the leading 0s by 4 (and the next nibble figure out if it is >7 = 4 bits, > 3 = 3 bits, > 1 = 2 bits and 1 = 1 bit (and obviously 0 would be another leading 0). QED trivial, human comprehensible difficulty that can be handchecked. That was part of the design aim for hashcash to simplify the computational, programming and human verification.
Adam
additional block chains would each create their own flavor of coins, which would trade with bitcoins on exchanges? These chain-specific coins would be used to reward miners on those chains, and to purchase some kinds of rights or privileges within the domain of that chain?
Right, the exchange rate between domains and bitcoins would float.A longer interval than 10 minutes would be appropriate for BitDNS.
So far in this discussion there's already a lot of housekeeping data required. It will be much easier if you can freely use all the space you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in Bitcoin's chain. Some transactions:
Changing the IP record.
Name change. A domain object could entitle you to one domain, and you could change it at will to any name that isn't taken. This would encourage users to free up names they don't want anymore. Generated domains start out blank and the miner sells it to someone who changes it to what they want.
Renewal. Could be free, or maybe require consuming another domain object to renew. In that case, domain objects (domaincoins?) could represent the right to own a domain for a year. The spent fee goes to the miners in the next block fee.
...
One does not simply become director of an LTD prior to the LTD's existence.
One does not simply become director of an LTD prior to the LTD's existence.
? Incorporation date was 11th October 2012, he was appointed 3 days after.
Would the anonymous Satoshi, in Jan 2014, change a company name from something very nondescript (Moving Forward in Business LIMITED), to CO1N LTD? Makes no sense. And who is the 24 year old Ms Uyen T Nguyen?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kleiman
Quote
Dave Kleiman (1967 – April 26, 2013) was a noted Forensic Computer Investigator, an author/coauthor of multiple books and a noted speaker at security related events. He died in his home in April 2013 of complications from MRSA.
For what it's worth, Dave can still vote in Chicago, mostly likely for Democrats.
That date refers to 'electronic format' entry date. Check the date on the cert (14-10-2012). And check the termination cert above (26-04-2013).
Nearly
See my post above. I'm alluding to Craig backpedaling.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/TJ_Whj-miVRKa_Cchu3P54cFsjy1N4664qkSHz1BhmM/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIEKFELCI2ZQPCPVA&Expires=1462309711&Signature=j5qHMrSByCa2OFZYYLvhv%2FCX85g%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEEoa4AOhj07OomuzxVkDQGChkhkvQPwYIjQK0iehPr04XsfWKXfp0zrz%2Bj7pBpmlxyqcKQM8MKKhaCDHiz5LvD7hKyiV0Qz9EIIktPvxmKyj6MDObnWWNGaGcC7LxNWaZ7QYlx8%2FyICdC9OeFajc1UMZ74Npo6JldDd7xgqUqwrIc3ks6rnJvgfhkbND50brziRVomw%2Fu5G6F7EofU8tWyIfyElmoGTCZqR%2FMth%2BSodvIoMbyb%2FHPdxi5ZvVU%2FZt0xbljCzK9QQfGxPe1YkULQ0AyGq0O%2BMWlZ%2Br7OStxP4NKVsQj2BNHP2S%2FPUZLpC2NsDTvL%2FpEPzn4yV039%2FvoZRnvX4rECQSeBT75FZD9M8MqwKBhaI6%2FCF%2BkXdm2l%2BVfSwtpX5ZhdqDsXASkfO1BMuPvl8nj5aCoDLYn7n4DltyYOrMHSklku5N9TRxFrUXE3PQci8QjdDu1nr54rsIXXEijETe%2FG5vx1R7UYYdVqO0FPLmRFSxBY%2B0jED6ACxPJpGnR%2BmPiUJEph%2BOxXurxQDSrOmyz5FtGugtNiefXx2FBBSlTg0EU%2B3lpVrdJfnvxRIE2sqpvZ9oO1qOUq6%2BpqAIh9zXWElYAAmLNEmKAYZ5gF7u7FoAAIvlYOiSBODidlVMF1Qgq6ejuQU%3D
One does not simply become director of an LTD prior to the LTD's existence.
This is still all just speculation in this thread.
Non of it has been proved to be factual although there is some evidence asGavin has approved it who is said to be on the main development team of Bitcoin.
Non of it has been proved to be factual although there is some evidence asGavin has approved it who is said to be on the main development team of Bitcoin.
next big thing will be a dr.wright client with GA as the lead developer.
mark my words!
Before that there will definitely be an alcoin called wrightcoin or similar. mark my words!
Gleb are you ale to find this InfoWorld article about Bitcoin in early 2010?
i want to know if it could be true or if the basement of Gavin Andresens involvement into Bitcoin has something to do with his visit in Australia.
EDIT: found it.
i want to know if it could be true or if the basement of Gavin Andresens involvement into Bitcoin has something to do with his visit in Australia.
EDIT: found it.
On my short list, bud, upon seeing it first posted. Allow me to get caught up. I have 20 taps opened now and my head is exploding. I just got back to my hotel room and told my wife that I'm doxxing Satoshi.
I wonder why did he remain anonymous for such a long time? Wasn't he a member of this forum too? If he's the creator, he should be the one promoting this currency instead of hiding his identity.
an e-currency with a creator would have been same as any other shitcoin.
BTC had a mistery...that sold LOLWould the anonymous Satoshi, in Jan 2014, change a company name from something very nondescript (Moving Forward in Business LIMITED), to CO1N LTD? Makes no sense. And who is the 24 year old Ms Uyen T Nguyen?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08248988/filing-history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kleiman
Quote
Dave Kleiman (1967 – April 26, 2013) was a noted Forensic Computer Investigator, an author/coauthor of multiple books and a noted speaker at security related events. He died in his home in April 2013 of complications from MRSA.
For what it's worth, Dave can still vote in Chicago, mostly likely for Democrats.
Here's a screenshot from the PDF listed directly above the one sited: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/_rpItmAzjiP4sDsPvxTVcNflwOY0IUSbrWfq8StfXh0/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAIOPUEUBQBUIT5S7A&Expires=1462308256&Signature=cYreyM27SVVis1sYo%2FBKRwikdb8%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEE0a4AN6zz0AenMgzWDu4CuNBPgisyZ3e2gR3p%2FFq5Wp6drCs92820%2FjSgI8J35QKglzyUDTH%2F%2FxX1yJgNIIKreEODlcxBYmjmDNzf6KwUC6GL6VYnv9WN3%2BJrNTCXsIH0mnBan6iP8GTQPAmEUzwZHx%2BPPeAF9GJo%2Fcqn07JQku%2FFfzFImMzaazu1pLORZyeGTJbLqe3H38HNjTxJmvpLZELjbJQW6hNx8Na19rMND1Kkh8CASnLt7TMU9rvPKQzSgAxMjJWplRASag2jc6jPw09YFack%2F0gpIf5xR0FabYGOkxpaivGT1dNJVix07tf888crN5iJ8mZEjZbzUXKJXx5OUXA8jQmGr0u1zAt1TpkX%2BCjMqnStTalcwz8MOiL6bqfx8%2Bq5HLCa7eqia7Mw%2FD0fnQ10b%2B50FqpqR3bviui7FA5wY6xrl%2B8pQScvLlSq0CrzUe4VBS2rt9PHmQM17Wbzu8GlsPbMqo6U1QaSKnIPBFirr06REFxpsTJt2Ez1cfHYc1gezuVZYkRuOsTnugTdo%2BEX1n%2BYBHjsM4jyEp%2BIKmjEXrq32DGfwst8wJKZBOn8xRNFCS0xIsYhS5lpqyUD0wCnV8yF%2Fn8dtfk5CEc1WtxGMaGQKKvw%2BZerKMhmWFnlggvICkuQU%3D
"That bastard! He terminated David."
https://vimeo.com/149035662
So we should all believe that Satoshi would be boasting ideas about how the future of Bitcoin allows the "counsel" to track the fact that you dropped your can in a harbor and littered so they can shame you??? Yep... sounds like Satoshi.
So we should all believe that Satoshi would be boasting ideas about how the future of Bitcoin allows the "counsel" to track the fact that you dropped your can in a harbor and littered so they can shame you??? Yep... sounds like Satoshi.
I wonder why did he remain anonymous for such a long time? Wasn't he a member of this forum too? If he's the creator, he should be the one promoting this currency instead of hiding his identity.
Why is this being dragged out so long,if he is the dude he could make it obvious very quickly.
My mother called me and the first thing she tells me is they found out who created bitcoin and she now claims to know more than me about it. She tells me it is actually a Chinese currency they needed as a alternative to their current setup. Shes a old lady and I amuse her but now I am starting to wonder about the general publics view on this.
Get on with it already!
My mother called me and the first thing she tells me is they found out who created bitcoin and she now claims to know more than me about it. She tells me it is actually a Chinese currency they needed as a alternative to their current setup. Shes a old lady and I amuse her but now I am starting to wonder about the general publics view on this.
Get on with it already!
"Get on with it already!"
WTF sort of article is that?!
Yada yada yada... zero proof...
Yada yada yada... zero proof...
Okay...At this point, I don't think that I would be able to accept a single transaction from a single early block as enough evidence because that doesn't rule out, albeit a very tiny, possibility that a private key was somehow brute forced by a couple super computers fully dedicated to the task.
I want to see a transaction from block #1 to block #9 and from block #9 back to block #1. This would at least establish that more than one private key, known to be generated by Satoshi Nakamoto, is in play. It would increase the weight of the evidence, and reduce the likelihood that the keys were somehow hacked into existence.
I want to see a transaction from block #1 to block #9 and from block #9 back to block #1. This would at least establish that more than one private key, known to be generated by Satoshi Nakamoto, is in play. It would increase the weight of the evidence, and reduce the likelihood that the keys were somehow hacked into existence.
I'd say this that theory is highly more likely then what Crackhead presented about Satoshi being killed by 3-LAs.
Jump to: