BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED! - page 18.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: CIYAM on May 03, 2016, 11:01:07 AM

Quote from: ibminer on May 03, 2016, 10:56:46 AM

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

This is such BS...

Yup - considering that his first example of "extraordinary proof" was to simply copy and paste a signature from Satoshi (which anyone could do as that signature is in the blockchain) and then lie that he created that signature himself using the private key (as well as lying that the hash being signed was that of a Sartre document rather than simply the hash of the tx content of Satoshi's tx).

Ontop of all that, why the hell do we have to sit here for the next several days while they trickle out this "proof"

Quote

For some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation. This is the nature of belief and swimming against this current would be futile.

You should be sceptical. You should question. I would.

I will present what I believe to be “extraordinary proof” and ask only that it be independently validated.

if it were extraordinary proof, it wouldn't be in quotes Cheesy

AND it would be released already!

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Lauda on May 03, 2016, 10:52:36 AM

The 'genesis block' can't change hands as you've mentioned, therefore your analogy does not make sense (ergo, wrong). Those coins can not be spent.

The 16 extra BTC there can though? I am sure the transaction wouldn't need to be over that amount.

Yes - the extra funds can be transacted (only the 50 BTC "coinbase" amount is not indexed and so can't be spent).

xhomerx10

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 7912

Quote from: CIYAM on May 03, 2016, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Cuidler on May 03, 2016, 10:59:50 AM

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far.

The fact that Gavin has said he believes this guy to be Satoshi when his false signature claim was debunked within hours shows that Gavin has lost all credibility (where is Gavin's response to the debunking?).

Someone who (still?) likes to call himself the Chief Bitcoin Scientist (although he should not be using such a title as he doesn't even have commit access to the repo now) should lose all credibility for simply being so easily fooled.

I'm hoping Gavin wasn't really there because he was out taking in the London scenery while the meeting took place and he was simply using second-hand info garnered from Jon.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Cuidler on May 03, 2016, 10:59:50 AM

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far.

The fact that Gavin has said he believes this guy to be Satoshi when his false signature claim was debunked within hours shows that Gavin has lost all credibility (where is Gavin's response to the debunking?).

Someone who (still?) likes to call himself the Chief Bitcoin Scientist (although he should not be using such a title as he doesn't even have commit access to the repo now) should lose all credibility for simply being so easily fooled.

xhomerx10

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 7912

Quote from: crazywack on May 03, 2016, 07:00:07 AM

All I can say is that it was a poor attempt to convince people...

Seriously who did he think he was fooling?

This guy (Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Scientist and lead developer)

This guy (Jon Matonis - Bitcoin Foundation founding director)

This guy (Rory Cellan-Jones - Tech correspondent)

and This guy (me)

possibly others.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ibminer on May 03, 2016, 10:56:46 AM

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

This is such BS...

Yup - considering that his first example of "extraordinary proof" was to simply copy and paste a signature from Satoshi (which anyone could do as that signature is in the blockchain) and then lie that he created that signature himself using the private key (as well as lying that the hash being signed was that of a Sartre document rather than simply the hash of the tx content of Satoshi's tx).

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Gyrsur on May 03, 2016, 10:44:55 AM

they issue here is: Gavin Andresen's creditability is gone completely forever!

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far. He did not even provided all the info why he thinks Crigh Wright might be Satoshi. And without signing genesis block address, nobody can prove it without any doubt anyway - which seems this cause, otherwise Crigh Wright would have no issue convincing everyone and anytime just by signing any new message with this address.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

This is such BS... they've got more evidence they've been holding onto to try and discredit people but I'm pretty sure your never going to get a signed genesis block.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Gyrsur on May 03, 2016, 10:44:55 AM

they issue here is: Gavin Andresen's creditability is gone completely forever!

That's not the issue, that's the benefit of this. It is time for GA to depart.

Quote from: ebliever on May 03, 2016, 10:39:52 AM

But the Genesis block signing would still be key.

I do agree, it is 'almost impossible' to determine who mined the following blocks. It could be anybody.

Quote from: iv4n on May 03, 2016, 10:39:36 AM

But I`m afraid that this will affect on people that doesn't know nothing about bitcoin.

It always has an effect on sheep.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I am talking about block 0, the genesis block, last I checked there were 50 coins in it and they went to this address. 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

The 'genesis block' can't change hands as you've mentioned, therefore your analogy does not make sense (ergo, wrong). Those coins can not be spent.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

There is more coming in this story... I can just feel it! Shocked

Out of curiosity, does anyone here know the relationship between Satoshi & theymos towards the end of Satoshi's time here? From what I've seen, it seemed like a good relationship?... I get the feeling Satoshi wasn't happy with Gavin with relation to the government talks but I haven't seen any ill feelings towards theymos.

Gyrsur

legendary

Activity: 2856

Merit: 1520

Bitcoin Legal Tender Countries: 2 of 206

Quote from: ebliever on May 03, 2016, 10:39:52 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: aurigae on May 03, 2016, 10:31:25 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: aurigae on May 03, 2016, 10:22:27 AM

For the records, Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Cant wallets/keys change hands? I miss a double proof, for example ISP records.

While writing i read laudas comment, interesting too. Pushing post anyways ...

That takes things too far, there would be no way to verify anyone. Essentially I think the owner of the genesis block unless publically stating he has bought the private key should be regarded as satoshi.

This would be the biggest hurdle. But to overcome any residual doubts it would be reasonable to also ask a person who provided a Genesis block signature to provide other information that Satoshi would know. Gavin himself (!!!) gave a good rundown on what would constitute proof in his mind a month or two ago, and it included things like providing details from his private emails to Satoshi in 2009-2011. So it would be reasonable to ask for data like that, to be confirmed by the appropriate people, as supplemental proof. But the Genesis block signing would still be key.

they issue here is: Gavin Andresen's reliability is gone completely forever!

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: aurigae on May 03, 2016, 10:31:25 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: aurigae on May 03, 2016, 10:22:27 AM

For the records, Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Cant wallets/keys change hands? I miss a double proof, for example ISP records.

While writing i read laudas comment, interesting too. Pushing post anyways ...

That takes things too far, there would be no way to verify anyone. Essentially I think the owner of the genesis block unless publically stating he has bought the private key should be regarded as satoshi.

This would be the biggest hurdle. But to overcome any residual doubts it would be reasonable to also ask a person who provided a Genesis block signature to provide other information that Satoshi would know. Gavin himself (!!!) gave a good rundown on what would constitute proof in his mind a month or two ago, and it included things like providing details from his private emails to Satoshi in 2009-2011. So it would be reasonable to ask for data like that, to be confirmed by the appropriate people, as supplemental proof. But the Genesis block signing would still be key.

iv4n

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1179

They are just making the big news for stupid masses. Smart people will not believe in this things and their reports. But I`m afraid that this will affect on people that doesn't know nothing about bitcoin.

I see one positive thing in all this and its a commercial for btc. Free one. People who wish to inform they will find a way to read smart and truthful things. And that is very important, now people will hear about btc. Like Merlin Monro said: " Its not important what they say, if they spell her name correctly ".
Here we have the same case. Just let them wrote BITCOIN everywhere, on their front pages and news reports. They are doing a favor to us.

aurigae

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: aurigae on May 03, 2016, 10:22:27 AM

For the records, Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Cant wallets/keys change hands? I miss a double proof, for example ISP records.

While writing i read laudas comment, interesting too. Pushing post anyways ...

twister

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 502

Hoax or not, this is definitely attracting everyone's attention. Btw, If any coins get moved, will it really prove that he is satoshi? Which address(es) are known to be his?

Oh.. and where can I nominate my address to be the receiver of the satoshi coins Cheesy

? Or will they again be moved to one of Gavin's address?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Wrong. Any block, after block 0, could have been mined by anyone. We don't know whether Satoshi mined it, Craig mined it, my cat mined it. It is even quite possible that Craig somehow attained access to one of Satoshi's private keys.

Quote from: aurigae on May 03, 2016, 10:22:27 AM

Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

It does not.

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on May 03, 2016, 10:10:35 AM

Moving some bitcoins should proof something , no ?

Not necessarily, but definitely better than what we've had so far.

aurigae

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10