Topic: BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED! - page 34. (Read 42371 times)
"I am not Craig Wright"
Guys it's also on CNN http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/02/technology/bitcoin-creator-craig-steven-wright/index.html
Wow it's on CNN so it must be true!
CNN, BBC, really have no credibility: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/
Al Jazeera is a little better, at least they said in the title "there are some doubts".
In fact, it is 100% he is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
And who in the right mind passes 1M BTC to a "trust fund" and doesn't keep a copy of the keys. You can have a clause that if any of them move, the fund is void or some similar penalites.
Nothing adds up tbh.
Nothing adds up tbh.
Craig already admitted that he can use and move the funds as well -
"yet gives Wright the freedom to borrow them for applications including “research into peer-to-peer systems” and “commercial activities that enhance the value and position of bitcoin.”
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/
Before he could use the funds , now he can't because....
To not mention: who the "f" would run a trust fund for an, at the time, valueless currency?!
If he were satoshi, why disclose himself after so many years? Why now? Does not make sense.
Just because someone has Satoshi's keys, or coins, doesn't make them Satoshi. Not that I have seen such a thing though.
Unfortunately, in the digital world, your identity is only as good as your private key.
Moving some of Satoshi's original Bitcoins is equivalent of watching someone move a mountain.
Sure, he might not be God but to all intents and purposes he might as well be.
Keys can be transferred from person to person or found with non-mainstream computing methods. It's not the equivalent of moving a mountain.
The identity isn't good for me when I'm hearing bullshit like 340gb blocks. I don't care if he has proof that he is Satoshi. I mean 340gb blocks? We need hours or days to just download and verify the 70gb blockchain.
With 340gb blocks, if, say, you have a scenario where 2 such blocks are found in a period of 1 minute, then you need 100gbps of bandwidth to upload it to just another 2 nodes - without even including any verification which would obviously take way more time.
Then you have the intended target of "banks". Why would banks need an inefficient (intended-to-be-decentralized blockchain that was then turned to centralized), when the client-server model is better for their needs?
Then you have stuff like "the coins are in a trust fund"... yeah because being your own bank doesn't work with bitcoin.
WTF.
^ THIS
Satoshi create Bitcoin to get around the banks, then this guy talks like he supports them.
And who in the right mind passes 1M BTC to a "trust fund" and doesn't keep a copy of the keys. You can have a clause that if any of them move, the fund is void or some similar penalites.
Nothing adds up tbh.
Other than shorting Bitcoin, where does Craig make a gain from all this?
Gavin was likely socially engineered or willing to use craig to push his agenda.
Craig could be going for the long con as he suggests he has 1.1 million btc in a trust, thus allowing him to scam investors, garner undeserved fame and respect, and create his own "etf" with his fake coins.
Maybe he made a mistake?
Some people say he was hacked but that's much less likely. The hacker would need to be collaborating with Craig and if that's the case, Gavin would be able to refute the blog post within 24 hours and Craig would be facing criminal charges. Other than shorting Bitcoin, where does Craig make a gain from all this?
From his previous attempt to pose as Satoshi we know that he lost most his bitcoins at MtGox. We also know he was running some bitcoins based investment funds. By loosing everything he got the creditors on his heels. Now he is trying to buy some time and calm them down with his mystical fortune that is somehow locked in a trust fund until 2021...
Just because someone has Satoshi's keys, or coins, doesn't make them Satoshi. Not that I have seen such a thing though.
Unfortunately, in the digital world, your identity is only as good as your private key.
Moving some of Satoshi's original Bitcoins is equivalent of watching someone move a mountain.
Sure, he might not be God but to all intents and purposes he might as well be.
Keys can be transferred from person to person or found with non-mainstream computing methods. It's not the equivalent of moving a mountain.
The identity isn't good for me when I'm hearing bullshit like 340gb blocks. I don't care if he has crypto proof that he is Satoshi (I haven't seen such). I mean 340gb blocks? We need hours or days to just download and verify the 70gb blockchain.
With 340gb blocks, if, say, you have a scenario where 2 such blocks are found in a period of 1 minute, then you need 100gbps of bandwidth to upload it to just another 2 nodes - without even including any verification which would obviously take way more time.
Then you have the intended target of "banks". Why would banks need an inefficient (intended-to-be-decentralized blockchain that was then turned to centralized), when the client-server model is better for their needs?
Then you have stuff like "the coins are in a trust fund"... yeah because being your own bank doesn't work with bitcoin.
WTF.
Soon: Satoshi: "I am not Craig Wright"
Only problem, from which account because his p2pfoundation might have been hacked. (Or a setup of his own creation)
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o
Only problem, from which account because his p2pfoundation might have been hacked. (Or a setup of his own creation)
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o
You realize that a persons writing style can, and is, used in solving crimes (if relevant to the crime) to reduce the number of suspects.
A persons writing style is akin to a signature and is generally unique from person to person.
I'm aware that it's used in criminal investigations but I'm not writing expert and sure, you could run a statistical analysis on the writing to determine if the styles are different but the analysis you're referring to is actual handwriting where the writing is unique.
Let's face it though, there's going to be no proof more solid than a digitally signed message. It would be irrelevant what his writing style is.
To prove/disprove that it's not the same person based on a small sample of text and a single space between 'blockchain' is as watertight as the current claim. If you've run the analysis on the handwriting samples then sure but otherwise, this is all muddying of the waters.
If he can produce a signed message then your analysis is wrong. If he can't produce the signed message then your analysis is of no consequence because he hasn't proven anything.
Ultimately, a signed message is all we're looking for.
(This isn't an attack on you, just that people are going to debate back and forward endlessly about this issue when he could easily just prove himself in one action.)
You can use plain text analysis too, which I did some research on for a project some time ago. Natural language processing techniques, sentiment and gramatical analysis amongst others are sufficient these days to achieve 85%+ identity certainty on text alone. You do need quite a lot of it from both parties, but a few hundred Satoshi posts and some blogs postings from Mr.Wright would probably be sufficient.
Think about the complexity of the English language, and the myriad of ways to write just one sentence. With just a few hundred sentences, there are billions of combinations of words, punctuation, etc. Too much for a human, easy for a computer.
I'm not saying that my 'blockchain formatting' should be taken as absolute proof, but when you apply that discrepancy to the many others that seem to be apparent, then I personally am strongly biased towards a "NO!"
Of course, you're correct that the only way to be sure it is Satoshi, is with a digital signature (preferably multiples!), which I think we wont ever see.
Easy to dupe some journalists with technical ramblings and a "fake" signature so that they post an article declaring your sovereignty.
What I'm confused at is why in the world would Gavin Andresen write in his blog that he was "reasonably certain" that Wright is Satoshi himself? Everyone involved in bitcoin is eager to know the why's, how's, what's, and when's on this story.
consider the possibility of gavin's blog getting hacked
What I'm confused at is why in the world would Gavin Andresen write in his blog that he was "reasonably certain" that Wright is Satoshi himself? Everyone involved in bitcoin is eager to know the why's, how's, what's, and when's on this story.
Maybe he made a mistake?
Some people say he was hacked but that's much less likely. The hacker would need to be collaborating with Craig and if that's the case, Gavin would be able to refute the blog post within 24 hours and Craig would be facing criminal charges. Other than shorting Bitcoin, where does Craig make a gain from all this?
Just because someone has Satoshi's keys, or coins, doesn't make them Satoshi. Not that I have seen such a thing though.
Unfortunately, in the digital world, your identity is only as good as your private key.
Moving some of Satoshi's original Bitcoins is equivalent of watching someone move a mountain.
Sure, he might not be God but to all intents and purposes he might as well be.
What I'm confused at is why in the world would Gavin Andresen write in his blog that he was "reasonably certain" that Wright is Satoshi himself? Everyone involved in bitcoin is eager to know the why's, how's, what's, and when's on this story.
He's not even using double spaces like Satoshi did.
This isn't even remotely reliable as proof or disproof and only muddies the water further.
Stick with digitally signed messages. Nothing else short of this will be sufficient.
I'm operating under vastly different "assumptions".
Satoshi might be anonymous to nearly every common people, but he certainly wasn't anonymous to the government and secret services because they have means at their disposal which common people don't.
This means that secret services can catch him, tell him "cooperate or else" and then take his keys and tell a pretender to play Satoshi with the original Satoshi's keys - while Satoshi is killed or jailed.
I would need either multi-threaded proofs or at least a high level of consistency in Satoshi's behavior.
Single-threaded proofs aren't very reliable for my preference, even "extraordinary proof". Case in point: I once asked a friend of mine... what would it take for you to believe someone is god? Would you believe they are a God if they commanded natural phenomena like the weather - on command? He said yes. I then showed him the sky. I told him to pick any white cloud he liked and point it to me. He told me ok, that's the one. Alright I said, wait a bit. 80-90 seconds later he was like "W T F, how are you doing this" (the cloud was dissolving). I told him "well, obviously I'm god...". Next day, and after I had explained to him the mechanism, he's like "oh it's easy, I was dissolving clouds all morning". So what was enough to declare me a "god" a day prior, the next day was "easily done by anyone". So even the benchmark of "extraordinary proof" can be bullshit, under circumstances.
Just because someone has Satoshi's keys, or coins, doesn't make them Satoshi. Not that I have seen such a thing though.
Damn I am very surprised that he came through with his claims. So after reading the article it seems some people have already verified his identity by Wright signing a message and showing the proof to them in a private session but when will the public like us get to see the real facts? I mean the media can regurgitate the news all day long but I want to see the signed message myself.
We don't need it to be signed from any address, we know Satoshi's PGP Public Key...
is he have the pgp public key ? i think no
Apparently not, he is going by far fetched messages found at block chain...
You realize that a persons writing style can, and is, used in solving crimes (if relevant to the crime) to reduce the number of suspects.
A persons writing style is akin to a signature and is generally unique from person to person.
I'm aware that it's used in criminal investigations but I'm not writing expert and sure, you could run a statistical analysis on the writing to determine if the styles are different but the analysis you're referring to is actual handwriting where the writing is unique.
Let's face it though, there's going to be no proof more solid than a digitally signed message. It would be irrelevant what his writing style is.
To prove/disprove that it's not the same person based on a small sample of text and a single space between 'blockchain' is as watertight as the current claim. If you've run the analysis on the handwriting samples then sure but otherwise, this is all muddying of the waters.
If he can produce a signed message then your analysis is wrong. If he can't produce the signed message then your analysis is of no consequence because he hasn't proven anything.
Ultimately, a signed message is all we're looking for.
(This isn't an attack on you, just that people are going to debate back and forward endlessly about this issue when he could easily just prove himself in one action.)
Damn I am very surprised that he came through with his claims. So after reading the article it seems some people have already verified his identity by Wright signing a message and showing the proof to them in a private session but when will the public like us get to see the real facts? I mean the media can regurgitate the news all day long but I want to see the signed message myself.
We don't need it to be signed from any address, we know Satoshi's PGP Public Key...
is he have the pgp public key ? i think no
Jump to: