well any proof at all would be nice...
anyone could claim it and if it was really him just do anything that
he "could" do to prove it
Topic: BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED! - page 22. (Read 42371 times)
As I said before: in the heat of this "revelation" under main article attached sub:"What is Bitcoin?" & "Use of Bitcoins" is the positive side of it for sure.
One of the biggest hoaxes in recent history I would say.
A hoax would have a fun component, which I don't find here. This looks like a well planned covert op to take control over the Bitcoin code.
One of the biggest hoaxes in recent history I would say.
I saw this news on the front page of my newspaper ! Sharing its picture below :
Its the second time I saw news related to bitcoin in newspaper.
Really? Second time? Man you should read it more thoroughly, you will find more news related to it more often.Its the second time I saw news related to bitcoin in newspaper.
Also yesterday even DD News(they in past 4 years have never given a crap about bitcoin) were also showing that the identity of Satoshi has been revealed.
Okay, who woke up Crackhead? http://pastebin.com/6TAyryqH
Quote
Many of you know me as cryptcracker, the bounty hunter that is uncovering the truth behind the Crypty "hack" and bringing the perpetrators to justice. However I have been doing this kind of work far before the cryptsy incident, I am making this dispatch today to reveal crucial information on the sudden news about Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and the plot Gavin Andresen has been involved in.
Satoshi was the greatest mind that I have seen in ages always calm and collected a real genius. Notice that I said was, that's because I'm sorry to say Satoshi Nakamoto was murdered by Gavin Andresen and his CIA associates. The CIA saw the transparency of the blockchain and they thought this would be a good way to track their "dirty subordinates". Let me explain, the CIA gives money, guns and drugs to terrorists so they can do things like stage a coup and overthrow governments this is well documented. The CIA saw the transparency of bitcoin and got the idea to start using bitcoin as one of the ways they fund these dirty subordinates.
Gavin was given the task of identifying Satoshi and flipping on him which he did. Once Satoshi was found and about to be captured I was informed 1 of 2 things happened, Satoshi committed suicide or the authorities were successful in capturing Satoshi and Satoshi was tortured and then killed. I am sorry for not being 100% certain on which one it is but it was one of the two I know this because my sources also relayed documents to me showing Satoshis dead body and classified CIA files.
Craig Wright was chosen as the CIA's front man to act like he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Gavin Andresen was to use his position in the community to pass this off. However these fools completely botched there plan because 1. they don't have the keys to the best of my knowledge and 2. they over estimated their manipulative tactics. The CIA got used to pulling these tactics on the general population but they didn't understand something this transparent wouldn't work against the bitcoin Community since it's much more tech savvy.
This was one of the saddest stories that I have known about for a while and I think it needs to get out there. I am currently hesitant in releasing the confidential CIA files because if Satoshi's identity is know his friends and family will be in danger along with my sources. I will attempt to secure them so they are not in danger once that is done I might be able to release the files.
Thank you for your time, another dispatch will be coming soon.
Satoshi was the greatest mind that I have seen in ages always calm and collected a real genius. Notice that I said was, that's because I'm sorry to say Satoshi Nakamoto was murdered by Gavin Andresen and his CIA associates. The CIA saw the transparency of the blockchain and they thought this would be a good way to track their "dirty subordinates". Let me explain, the CIA gives money, guns and drugs to terrorists so they can do things like stage a coup and overthrow governments this is well documented. The CIA saw the transparency of bitcoin and got the idea to start using bitcoin as one of the ways they fund these dirty subordinates.
Gavin was given the task of identifying Satoshi and flipping on him which he did. Once Satoshi was found and about to be captured I was informed 1 of 2 things happened, Satoshi committed suicide or the authorities were successful in capturing Satoshi and Satoshi was tortured and then killed. I am sorry for not being 100% certain on which one it is but it was one of the two I know this because my sources also relayed documents to me showing Satoshis dead body and classified CIA files.
Craig Wright was chosen as the CIA's front man to act like he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Gavin Andresen was to use his position in the community to pass this off. However these fools completely botched there plan because 1. they don't have the keys to the best of my knowledge and 2. they over estimated their manipulative tactics. The CIA got used to pulling these tactics on the general population but they didn't understand something this transparent wouldn't work against the bitcoin Community since it's much more tech savvy.
This was one of the saddest stories that I have known about for a while and I think it needs to get out there. I am currently hesitant in releasing the confidential CIA files because if Satoshi's identity is know his friends and family will be in danger along with my sources. I will attempt to secure them so they are not in danger once that is done I might be able to release the files.
Thank you for your time, another dispatch will be coming soon.
OK. That crackkhead read my theory about what happened to SN and changed it a little bit. There are some inconsistencies:
- CIA doesn't need Gavin to identify Satoshi - apart from the fact, that Gavin never met Satoshi, they have a lot of surveillance technics to do that job.
- This sentence: "Bitcoin for The CIA saw the transparency of bitcoin and got the idea to start using bitcoin as one of the ways they fund these dirty subordinates." makes no sense. Why should the CIA use a "transparent" currency to "fund dirty subordinates"
Wouldn't it be too transparent for "dirty" jobs?The reason why it was worth finding SN was the Bradley Manning/Wikileaks/Paypal/Bitcoin story.
Btw. Satoshi didn't like the fact, that Wikileaks started accepting Bitcoins, because of the sudden raise in popularity, which lead to being a visible spot on the govs radar.
Mike Hearn seems to be noticeable quiet on this breaking news.
Damn I am tempted to go buy a local paper newspaper today to see if the editors have already written a piece on Craig Wright being the real Satoshi Nakamoto 
I think it doesn't matter any more what motives Craig has to fake this story because this is free publicity for Bitcoin on a global scale.
I think it doesn't matter any more what motives Craig has to fake this story because this is free publicity for Bitcoin on a global scale. Yep, free publicity, right up there with Mt Gox and Paul Vernon's Cryptsy. Oh, and John Fitzpatrick being the cause for getting two university admins to resign in Oregon.
Damn I am tempted to go buy a local paper newspaper today to see if the editors have already written a piece on Craig Wright being the real Satoshi Nakamoto I think it doesn't matter any more what motives Craig has to fake this story because this is free publicity for Bitcoin on a global scale.
I think it doesn't matter any more what motives Craig has to fake this story because this is free publicity for Bitcoin on a global scale.
if you think you can publicly announe "i have $400 million dollars" (of whatever)
and you are going to be left alone lol
governments dont let that type of amounts slide
and you would quickly be detained until they find a "legal solution"
The BBC is also a government agency (controlled business)
The UK top brass would know about this before it got aired
and if it were true they (MI6, NSA, CIA) would have got him before he could sit in front of a camera
the guy cannot even finish his own website
seems like 2 clicks in softaculous to install phpBB is too much for him
his haircut gives him away for me.
and you are going to be left alone lol
governments dont let that type of amounts slide
and you would quickly be detained until they find a "legal solution"
The BBC is also a government agency (controlled business)
The UK top brass would know about this before it got aired
and if it were true they (MI6, NSA, CIA) would have got him before he could sit in front of a camera
the guy cannot even finish his own website
seems like 2 clicks in softaculous to install phpBB is too much for him
his haircut gives him away for me.
I am also casting my lot as doubting the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto as being that of Dr. Craig Wright.
http://cryptoyeti.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/
http://cryptoyeti.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/
YAY YAY !!! SATOSHI IS FOUND !!!!
AND
HE"S AN AUSSIE!!!!!
[/color]AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE !!!!
[/color]but wow ...what an angry dude !!!
Nothing like the spiritually enlightened financial guru I'd imagined!
THIS GUY IS SERIOUSLY PISSED OFF !!!
....Bit of a disappointment really ..
He seems like a bit off a tosser to me.
Maybe he should change his handle to something more apt now
How about :
SARCASI LAKSAMOJO
SHITOFFI PICSRNONO
IDIDINTWANTTOBEKNOWNI BUTSHOTMYMOUTHOFFINMYBLOGGANYWAYO
Wonder if anyone has informed the Australian Taxation Office about this...
I'm sure Mr. Wright already planned out how to deal with the ATO, what kind of manoeuvre he's playing out with the government is more interesting in the coming days.
As he proclaimed to be the one, he can also claim that he lost all his keys in a boating accident. What kind of taxation consequence would he face?
If I lost the money a customer paid me with, my government still wants - and will take - their portion. They'll seize bank accounts, investments and securities, insurance payments, real estate, personal property for public sale, etc.
what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.
Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with. From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.
This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger? And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain? Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?
The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.
Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now. Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054) ?
Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?
zeroThat's what I thought. So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately assess that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block. Correct? If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right? (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)
That's what I surmised. So, none of this media posturing "amounts to a hill of beans" because we know that if the claim was valid, it could be publicized in a more convincing manner for less than a nickle, instead of the price of a transatlantic airline ticket and an uber to the BBC newsroom.
I saw this news on the front page of my newspaper ! Sharing its picture below :
Its the second time I saw news related to bitcoin in newspaper.
Its the second time I saw news related to bitcoin in newspaper.
what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.
Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with. From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.
This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger? And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain? Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?
The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.
Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now. Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054) ?
Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?
zeroThat's what I thought. So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately access that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block. Correct? If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right? (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)
Craig is now capable of convincing some rich mark with a low IQ (fuck, even a high IQ for that matter since its been demonstrated that'll work) that he does have control of the first block by sending U$100 worth of BTC to it as proof to grander a U$10M loan thanks to Gavin's endorsement.
what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.
Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with. From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.
This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger? And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain? Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?
The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.
Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now. Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054) ?
Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?
zeroThat's what I thought. So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately access that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block. Correct? If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right? (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)
what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.
Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with. From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.
This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger? And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain? Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?
The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.
Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now. Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054) ?
Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?
zeroThat's what I thought. So, if we assumed that Gavin's assessment of the proof presented to him was genuine and we assumed that Gavin's competent enough to accurately assess that evidence without being fooled, then we can assume that Wright does have the private key associated with the address in the genesis block. Correct? If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason why a transaction cannot be published from that address right? (unless, of course, transactions from block #0 are not accessible for some reason)
what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.
Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with. From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.
This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger? And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain? Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?
The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.
Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now. Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054) ?
Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?
zero... easily convincing the third party that the keys transferred were indeed capable of unlocking the coins, offering up proof via some techno spaghetti sans peer review, i.e., Gavin Andresen to confirm with, "Yep, thems proof enough for me. Give Craig whatever he wants." The mark felt comfortable enough to not warrant putting Gavin on a plane for a private meetup to confirm the techno mumble-jumble in person.
what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.
Gavin apparently was able to personally verify the signature of a signed message signed by 12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX which received the block subsidy of the first block after the genesis block. From what I have read, an administrative assistant to Wright purchased a new laptop and USB stick that Gavin then used to download a copy of electrum and verify the signed message. It is possible that the laptop was in fact not newly purchased but was instead previously tampered with. From what I can gather, some people are trying to make this somewhat of a blocksize debate instead of a debate of how realistic it is that Wright is in fact satoshi.
This may be a naive question (in fact, I'm sure of it!), but if this event took place, why can't we see evidence of it on the ledger? And, why wouldn't the proof have been published on the block chain? Isn't that the purpose of the ledger....to remove the third party from the system?
The purpose of the ledger/blockchain is to have a record of all of the bitcoin transactions, it protects you against the double spending of the same money.
Although I'm still confused by the method Wright chose to attempt to prove his identity, I get it now. Assuming Gavin's conviction is genuine, might it be possible that Wright does have access to the private keys but doesn't have access to the funds due to a multisig contract (was multisig even available on the early protocol) requiring a second signature that he can't access yet because its locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere (maybe this guy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054) ?
Also, considering that Wright has two super computers, what is the probability that he brute forced the private keys for the address at block #0?
zero
Craig recently deleted one of his Twitter accounts: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SsT1QaIIxIIJ:https://twitter.com/c01nblog+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/10/the-search-for-the-godfather-of-bitcoin-does-not-end-with-craig-wright/#gref
Craig: I don't want fame or fortune. Okay, so I do want fame and WILL use my supposed fortune to secure loans.
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/10/the-search-for-the-godfather-of-bitcoin-does-not-end-with-craig-wright/#gref
Craig: I don't want fame or fortune. Okay, so I do want fame and WILL use my supposed fortune to secure loans.
Jump to: