Topic: BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED! - page 32. (Read 42371 times)

another link about this news here :  http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/05/02/craig-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-createur-bitcoin-bbc_n_9819160.html

here too : http://www.leparisien.fr/flash-actualite-economie/le-veritable-createur-de-la-monnaie-numerique-bitcoin-est-craig-wright-un-entrepreneur-australien-02-05-2016-5760707.php#xtref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.fr%2F2016%2F05%2F02%2Fcraig-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-createur-bitcoin-bbc_n_9819160.html

 it looks like there's some part of truth in this news at the moment...  

I have since learnt that Gavin was paid for his participation.  His site did not get hacked - but he received a little something for playing along.  Gavin knows how to check whether a message was properly signed.  He did not get fooled.  He did not get hacked.  He got paid.  

For 10 seconds I thought this was real and that we (us bitcoiners) would be very busy today and the following time... but after just looking a little into this article, I still don’t see the proof?? And isn’t it the second time this man is in the media claiming that he is Satoshi Nakamoto?? Jesus, this man just want to be famous or sell something, how stupid are people and how stupid are journalists??

I have since learnt that Gavin was paid for his participation.  His site did not get hacked - but he received a little something for playing along.  Gavin knows how to check whether a message was properly signed.  He did not get fooled.  He did not get hacked.  He got paid.  

Is it possible Gavin was hacked and the blog post was made by someone else?

https://mobile.twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/727078284345917441

Doubt it tho, as it looks like his writing style.

Just stay cool, this is an attack on bitcoin, i don't know who is behind it but it is obvious lie.
And suddenly we have many newbies here who shiting on bitcoin, over and over again. What we can do with them?

Pretty much. Nothing was shown/proved in the BBC article. I'm sure a laymen could easily be fooled but what is more concerning is Gavin Andresen seemingly buying this bullshit. Very alarming.

Craig: Hi.

Gavin: Who r u?

Craig: I'm Satoshi.

Gavin: Ok, sign this with the privkey to the coinbase in the genesis block: "I, Craig Steven Wright, am Satoshi Nakamoto. 1 May 2016."

Craig: Nah, why don't I fly you to London and I'll show you.

Gavin: Sounds great! I love London!

Craig: lol

Gavin: lol

FYI, @gavinandresen's commit access just got removed - Core team members are concerned that he may have been hacked.

Satoshi or not.... he seems like a bit of a cunt doesn't he?

That document is a thoroughly confused rant written by some fraudster.

What the "paper" is pointing out is that although the hash preference list or "8 2 9 10 11" and the other metadata were not conceived of or implemented until a year after the claimed date (as I pointed out); it was possible, by a long series of complex manual commands to manually override the preferences and punch in whatever ones you wanted, even the 'future' ones.

You may note that it take great care to provide no citation to my actual comments, in fact it quotes me but uses an image for the text-- making it more difficult to even search for it. Allow me:

"The suspect keys claim to be October 2008; the commit was July 2009. So no, not without a time machine. It's possible that the settings could have been locally overridden to coincidentally the same defaults as now." https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsm1yo?context=2

-- so the whole theory that this "paper" writes for pages and pages as if it were some great concealment on my part is a possibility I explicitly pointed out.

The problem with it is that it requires the user to have executed a long series of complex commands to override the preferences and have to have guessed the exact selection and ordering of the preferences that wouldn't be written for a year-- when if they preferred a particular cypher they would more likely have taken the existing "2 8 3" and stuck their choice on the front.  Not only that, but they would have had to have done so on the same day that they created a totally ordinary key and published it, yet this other key-- which looks exactly like one created with post-2009 software and entirely unlike the well known one-- was provided to no one for years, not placed on public key servers and until now and otherwise has no evidence of its prior existence. Come on, give me a break.

It's "possible", a fact a pointed out explicitly back then, but this possibility thoroughly fails Occam's razor-- especially on top of the evidence presented by others: Archive.org showed the subtle "hint dropping" added in blog entries was back-dated, added in 2013, SGI reported that the published letter on their letterhead was fake, the lack of cogent technical commentary from that party, etc.

Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising.