Let's wait for some proofs 
No matter what he proves , that dousche cannot be the creator of such a thing.
Topic: BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED! - page 9. (Read 42371 times)
No matter what he proves , that dousche cannot be the creator of such a thing.
Let's wait for some proofs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hx3q9/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/
Quote
submitted 8 hours ago * by apoefjmqdsfls
As /u/winlifeat posted here, Craig was user 'e62d5e53-0dbc-44be-9591-725cd55ca9dd' at the Mtgox exchange. With this identifier, it's possible to look up his trades in the 2014 leak. I posted the raw data in this pastebin, you can import it into spreadsheet software like Excel to play with it yourself.
He started trading at 22/04/2013, this is just after the crash of the April 2013 bubble (or the 'Cyprus bubble'). He lost interest pretty quickly, because activity stopped 27/04, only to come back 25/11 around the peak of the last bitcoin bubble. His average price is actually $120 and he bought around 50 bitcoins, but his last buy was 17 bitcoins at around $1200. He ends up with a balance of just under 15 bitcoins when mtgox shuts down, so he probably lost another few bitcoins with trading. (The trade data in the leak stops at November 2013)
As /u/winlifeat posted here, Craig was user 'e62d5e53-0dbc-44be-9591-725cd55ca9dd' at the Mtgox exchange. With this identifier, it's possible to look up his trades in the 2014 leak. I posted the raw data in this pastebin, you can import it into spreadsheet software like Excel to play with it yourself.
He started trading at 22/04/2013, this is just after the crash of the April 2013 bubble (or the 'Cyprus bubble'). He lost interest pretty quickly, because activity stopped 27/04, only to come back 25/11 around the peak of the last bitcoin bubble. His average price is actually $120 and he bought around 50 bitcoins, but his last buy was 17 bitcoins at around $1200. He ends up with a balance of just under 15 bitcoins when mtgox shuts down, so he probably lost another few bitcoins with trading. (The trade data in the leak stops at November 2013)
The signature he posted is bytes taken from transaction 828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe.
No you didn't.
That's looking unlikely.
Maybe you're complicit eh, Gavin?
Quote
Part of that time was spent on a careful cryptographic verification of messages signed with keys that only Satoshi should possess.
No you didn't.
Quote
But even before I witnessed the keys signed and then verified on a clean computer that could not have been tampered with, I was reasonably certain I was sitting next to the Father of Bitcoin.
That's looking unlikely.
Maybe you're complicit eh, Gavin?
Finally got to know your alt account ,Termos
http://vitalbet.com/sport/match/577428
Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37
Aυτός είναι o ένας Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37
Δε νoμιζω / don't think so
People will definitely pull out antminer S5s that are underclocked and ESPECIALLY if it is also for heat. If the big boys stop mining they will sell that hardware and for cheap, supply and demand.
If they aren't running them now, then they aren't going to be running them tomorrow unless price increases. Whatever advantage you gain by a decrease in difficulty is always countered by a drop in price. This turns the screw on efficiency, and knocks out the inefficient players.
Anyway, I'm probably veering off-topic now. Back to that scoundrel Wright.
http://vitalbet.com/sport/match/577428
Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37
Aυτός είναι o ένας Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37
http://vitalbet.com/sport/match/577428
Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37
Book closes 31.05.2016, 16:00
DR. CRAIG WRIGHT TO PROVE HE IS SATOSHI?
Yes 2.76
No 1.37
It would bring difficulty down enough home miners would be able to pull their old miners out from the garage and make some btc again.
Difficulty simply cannot drop enough for those inefficient relics to be pulled from the garage. Lower prices would increase the pressure on hashes per joule, not decrease it.
Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?
No not at all, the only "fatal" thing would be a million coin dump and once that sell order was ate through it would rise again.He doesn't even have to dump it, simply proving that he can could trigger massive panic-selling.
By noobz perhaps. The 1mn coin uncertainty is always priced in, as a fundamental. These coins are considered to exist - not coins that have been destroyed or lost. If they exist, then they have the same potential of moving around as other coins. If tomorrow satoshi moved 1mn coins to bitcoin eater address, price would rise to reflect this. How much would that rise be? A few percent perhaps. So I don't see why would it "crash" if satoshi had an intention to sell some (nobody dumps the whole lot, all at once - that's not how it works). And even if he did dump to the ground, selling his coins for ..300-200-100-50-10$-1$, then the mid-term impact would be less as he would have absorbed less buying power from the market, compared to slowly selling 10k coins for 450-450-450-450 etc.
Many people just thinks on BTC to fiat, as if bitcoin isn't a currency on its own or as if its survival was somehow tied to its fiat value.
I mined with a block reward of $0,00050 (if it was that much), still it didn't took me down, like me many...
I mined with a block reward of $0,00050 (if it was that much), still it didn't took me down, like me many...
Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong. Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher. He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail. At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.
Your thinking is logical if we are to believe his intention has always been to come off as Satoshi which I don't think is the case. My thinking he didn't wish to be known as Satoshi in 2015 and falsified evidence to instill doubt to be dismissed as a Satoshi candidate by the sharp minds of the community. This legacy is coming to haunt him now that he changed his mind, but doesn't make him less of a personality to be the great Satoshi if he presents proof. I understand this revelation may not be what more Satoshi-pious bitcoiners among us like to hear, they expect a messiah like figure and here we have a fallible guy. I understand how this can shake the belief system
Well, see. That's the question....what standard of proof will be accepted? A one private key transaction published on the ledger?....two keys?....three keys? All that will prove is that he somehow attained some of the private keys to Satoshi NaKamoto's stake in the project. It could not prove that he is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto. That's where the human element comes into play and the quality of his character becomes significant. That's where his character will be considered and vouched for by those who had a private personal relationship with him. And, at this point, his character has come into question.
The standard of proof depends on who you ask.
Nothing could ever be undeniable proof he is Satoshi, now or before he came out of the blue last year.
The open nature of these internet trustless systems presupposes that we do not rely on people's opinions on the personality, instead we should judge by deeds. Honestly I have yet to see something about his personal characteristics that contradicts the spirit of Bitcoin and would turn me away from considering him as unworthy to be the great Satoshi. As for deeds, I am as eager as everyone to see some proof, meanwhile I appreciate the puzzles and fun
Agree, in part. I think that his appeal to a third party instead of relying on THE ledger system contradicts the philosophy of bitcoin....But, I agree that we should judge the validity of his claims by his deeds. Plagiarism, backdating, tax fraud, code manipulation...etc He has done much to devalue his credibility which will raise the bar as to providing an acceptable standard of proof associated with his contributions to the project.
Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?
No not at all, the only "fatal" thing would be a million coin dump and once that sell order was ate through it would rise again.He doesn't even have to dump it, simply proving that he can could trigger massive panic-selling. And 1m dump + panic-selling could easily mean double digit price range. Sure, things would eventually get back to normal, possibly in the long-run it would even be a good thing if that happened, but how would miners survive long period of mining at massive loss (especially with halving few months away)?
Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong. Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher. He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail. At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.
Your thinking is logical if we are to believe his intention has always been to come off as Satoshi which I don't think is the case. My thinking he didn't wish to be known as Satoshi in 2015 and falsified evidence to instill doubt to be dismissed as a Satoshi candidate by the sharp minds of the community. This legacy is coming to haunt him now that he changed his mind, but doesn't make him less of a personality to be the great Satoshi if he presents proof. I understand this revelation may not be what more Satoshi-pious bitcoiners among us like to hear, they expect a messiah like figure and here we have a fallible guy. I understand how this can shake the belief system
Well, see. That's the question....what standard of proof will be accepted? A one private key transaction published on the ledger?....two keys?....three keys? All that will prove is that he somehow attained some of the private keys to Satoshi NaKamoto's stake in the project. It could not prove that he is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto. That's where the human element comes into play and the quality of his character becomes significant. That's where his character will be considered and vouched for by those who had a private personal relationship with him. And, at this point, his character has come into question.
The standard of proof depends on who you ask.
Nothing could ever be undeniable proof he is Satoshi, now or before he came out of the blue last year.
The open nature of these internet trustless systems presupposes that we do not rely on people's opinions on the personality, instead we should judge by deeds. Honestly I have yet to see something about his personal characteristics that contradicts the spirit of Bitcoin and would turn me away from considering him as unworthy to be the great Satoshi. As for deeds, I am as eager as everyone to see some proof, meanwhile I appreciate the puzzles and fun
Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?
We should all be worried :0
Only joking, I don't think we should be panic, its all good.
I suggest core don't get too distracted by this, there is an ongoing effort to make bitcoin centralized and it is becoming more and more obvious.
Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong. Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher. He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail. At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.
Your thinking is logical if we are to believe his intention has always been to come off as Satoshi which I don't think is the case. My thinking he didn't wish to be known as Satoshi in 2015 and falsified evidence to instill doubt to be dismissed as a Satoshi candidate by the sharp minds of the community. This legacy is coming to haunt him now that he changed his mind, but doesn't make him less of a personality to be the great Satoshi if he presents proof. I understand this revelation may not be what more Satoshi-pious bitcoiners among us like to hear, they expect a messiah like figure and here we have a fallible guy. I understand how this can shake the belief system
Well, see. That's the question....what standard of proof will be accepted? A one private key transaction published on the ledger?....two keys?....three keys? All that will prove is that he somehow attained some of the private keys to Satoshi NaKamoto's stake in the project. It could not prove that he is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto. That's where the human element comes into play and the quality of his character becomes significant. That's where his character will be considered and vouched for by those who had a private personal relationship with him. And, at this point, his character has come into question.
I remember Dorian Nakamoto story, I dismissed him as a Satoshi candidate at once. This time, I feel, is different.
Can't argue with truthiness.
Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?
I think there's a bigger picture. Bitcoin has a pretty robust network and I believe it could overcome any type of market correction. The solutions to implementing an "electronic cash system which is fully peer to peer, with no trusted third party" is something that will be written about in history books. The person who sent that first email containing that concept will be honored with a permanent position in the history of mankind....it's transcendental! The real question is: to whom does that honor belong? And, what standard of proof are we going to accept by which to bestow that honor?
Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong. Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher. He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail. At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.
Your thinking is logical if we are to believe his intention has always been to come off as Satoshi which I don't think is the case. My thinking he didn't wish to be known as Satoshi in 2015 and falsified evidence to instill doubt to be dismissed as a Satoshi candidate by the sharp minds of the community. This legacy is coming to haunt him now that he changed his mind, but doesn't make him less of a personality to be the great Satoshi if he presents proof. I understand this revelation may not be what more Satoshi-pious bitcoiners among us like to hear, they expect a messiah like figure and here we have a fallible guy. I understand how this can shake the belief system
Jump to: