BREAKING NEWS: Satoshi moved coins on April 30, 2016. How was this missed?

noormcs5

hero member

Activity: 2814

Merit: 618

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 05, 2016, 11:00:50 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 10:34:51 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 05, 2016, 10:14:19 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 09:58:18 PM

well, i am not an expert but as far as i know (with the help of AgentofCoin explanation and google) every transaction has a time attribute inside of it which you can set it manually like this even into the future (don't panic when seeing 2035 Cheesy

) and when the tx is included in a block then there will be another time (the block mined time) which then the explorer will calculate that time difference this way

and in this case i think the -54 min difference is just the daylight saving time difference between the sender and the miner (6 minutes to get included in the block)

No, the time that is displayed is how long blockchain.info thinks it took for that individual tx to get 1 confirmation.
In your example of https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616,
blockchain.info is reporting that the tx took 22 years before it was placed into a block. Lol. Which of course is impossible.

I am not aware that tx data contains timestamping of when it was transmitted, and thus can be manipulated.
My understanding is the timestamping comes from the first node that detected it and then the block found timestamping.
Maybe someone with their own purposefully backdated/timed node pushed their own tx to a blockchain.info node,
so that blockchain.info thought the tx was pending for 22 years. But really I have no idea, I'm not an expert either.

well, again i am not an expert so maybe someone like CIYAM should come along and explain it much better. but again there is a timestamp in each transaction that you can change in case of the said transaction it has a timestamp of 2063836859 in UNIX format which is Sun, 27 May 2035 00:00:59 GMT (http://www.onlineconversion.com/unix_time.htm)

https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616?format=json

relevant: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/block-in-future-timestamp-1164293

I see what you are saying now. You are mostly correct except that the part of the json,
where it says "time":2063836859," I believe is not part of the tx information and is just
internal blockchain.info data. Blockchain.info is claiming they received the tx in 2035,
even though they clearly show it being placed into a block in 2013 ("block_height":237173,").

I think the senders node is sending the "time":2063836859,", it is not in the tx.

Its pretty strange on the part of Block Chain . Blockchain.info is claiming they received the tx in 2035. Unbelievable

MisO69

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1005

My mule don't like people laughing

Quote from: Enotche on May 06, 2016, 12:49:33 AM

The journalist was asked to send a certain number of btc on the purse specified in the very first transaction. And then Craig would send funds back to the journalist, proving that he was indeed the same Satoshi. It would be the first transaction with the specified Bitcoin address since 2009.

This was done, the journalist sent 0.017BTC. John Matonis and Gavin Andresen do likewise. And then the three of them waited. And wait. Then the phone rang, and the team of Craig said that the operation is paused, without giving any reason.

18 hours later, a reverse payment has not arrived.

And later Craig deleted my site, saying goodbye to everyone. Why he did it, and why did not carry out the promised transaction? The question is rhetorical.
https://blockchain.info/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

I read somewhere that the Australian authorities had searched Craig's house and questioned Craig regarding taxes owed. One possibility is that Craig was told by his attorney to drop this whole i'm satoshi thing, thus preventing any sort of legal action against him for tax evasion.

here is the article. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police

After all, he did say that he wants to be left alone, he doesn't want money and he just wants to work.

Luviasst

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

He has give up to prove him, so end the case.

AGD

legendary

Activity: 2070

Merit: 1164

Keeper of the Private Key

OK Bruno. Stop it already. Everything makes sense when you are Satoshi Nakamoto. I have found out that, the letters of Gleb Gamow are NOT leading to Satoshi Nakamoto, which is the ultimate proof:
The real Satoshi would always use a nickname that couldn't be associated with his Satoshi nick.
/thread
Donations go here, thanks:

1Ez69SnzzmePmZX3WpEzMKTrcBF2gpNQ55

Enotche

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

The journalist was asked to send a certain number of btc on the purse specified in the very first transaction. And then Craig would send funds back to the journalist, proving that he was indeed the same Satoshi. It would be the first transaction with the specified Bitcoin address since 2009.

This was done, the journalist sent 0.017BTC. John Matonis and Gavin Andresen do likewise. And then the three of them waited. And wait. Then the phone rang, and the team of Craig said that the operation is paused, without giving any reason.

18 hours later, a reverse payment has not arrived.

And later Craig deleted my site, saying goodbye to everyone. Why he did it, and why did not carry out the promised transaction? The question is rhetorical.
https://blockchain.info/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

So what OP is saying is.. If Craig is Satoshi and he owns a Bitcoin Address linked to MtGox, and coins on that address moved, he must be Satoshi. I think I will rather wait for a message on the Genesis block, than accepting this logic.

I think this is more meant as a tongue in the cheek statement than anything else. Gleb has a good sense of humor.

staysecure

hero member

Activity: 1472

Merit: 505

We are cryptocurrency

It quite simple move these coins https://blockchain.info/sl/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX and you are are without a doubt satoshi.
Block 2! https://blockchain.info/block/00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: franky1 on May 05, 2016, 11:53:23 PM

dont worry about time stamps.. they can be played with..

just look at the blockheight.

EG although
https://blockchain.info/tx/f40754ef64b9c977e08f5f63afcd8ec4ad6a4ec241363b275a7879f67d01f836
"appears" to be most recent..

it was a transaction included in block
271332

where as
https://blockchain.info/tx/66026538c5eb7d6e13022ce056034e4c1a4d5ae14bf0d9a0ff8802f40ea62b38
"appears" to be the first transaction..

it was a transaction included in block
271346

so based purely on blockheights ( the most important thing) it starts to make sense,
funds came in..
271332: https://blockchain.info/tx/f40754ef64b9c977e08f5f63afcd8ec4ad6a4ec241363b275a7879f67d01f836
and then spent 14 blocks later
271346: https://blockchain.info/tx/66026538c5eb7d6e13022ce056034e4c1a4d5ae14bf0d9a0ff8802f40ea62b38

even though its erroneously displayed due to time stamp manipulation. it is actually correct based on block order

so ignore the time stamps and just look at the blockheights the tx's were included

Yes, when it is included in the block is all the really matters, but
what I don't know for sure is the timestamping reported by blockchain.info.

Is that faulty date/time from the first node that relayed the tx and blockchain.info
sees and just grabs that bad info and runs with it? Or does it come from somewhere else?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

dont worry about time stamps.. they can be played with..

just look at the blockheight.

EG although
https://blockchain.info/tx/f40754ef64b9c977e08f5f63afcd8ec4ad6a4ec241363b275a7879f67d01f836
"appears" to be most recent..

it was a transaction included in block
271332

where as
https://blockchain.info/tx/66026538c5eb7d6e13022ce056034e4c1a4d5ae14bf0d9a0ff8802f40ea62b38
"appears" to be the first transaction..

it was a transaction included in block
271346

so based purely on blockheights ( the most important thing) it starts to make sense,
funds came in..
271332: https://blockchain.info/tx/f40754ef64b9c977e08f5f63afcd8ec4ad6a4ec241363b275a7879f67d01f836
and then spent 14 blocks later
271346: https://blockchain.info/tx/66026538c5eb7d6e13022ce056034e4c1a4d5ae14bf0d9a0ff8802f40ea62b38

even though its erroneously "displayed" due to time stamp manipulation/ bad thought out programming by BC.info. it is actually correct based on block order

so ignore the time stamps and just look at the blockheights the tx's were included in

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 10:34:51 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 05, 2016, 10:14:19 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 09:58:18 PM

well, i am not an expert but as far as i know (with the help of AgentofCoin explanation and google) every transaction has a time attribute inside of it which you can set it manually like this even into the future (don't panic when seeing 2035 Cheesy

) and when the tx is included in a block then there will be another time (the block mined time) which then the explorer will calculate that time difference this way

and in this case i think the -54 min difference is just the daylight saving time difference between the sender and the miner (6 minutes to get included in the block)

No, the time that is displayed is how long blockchain.info thinks it took for that individual tx to get 1 confirmation.
In your example of https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616,
blockchain.info is reporting that the tx took 22 years before it was placed into a block. Lol. Which of course is impossible.

I am not aware that tx data contains timestamping of when it was transmitted, and thus can be manipulated.
My understanding is the timestamping comes from the first node that detected it and then the block found timestamping.
Maybe someone with their own purposefully backdated/timed node pushed their own tx to a blockchain.info node,
so that blockchain.info thought the tx was pending for 22 years. But really I have no idea, I'm not an expert either.

well, again i am not an expert so maybe someone like CIYAM should come along and explain it much better. but again there is a timestamp in each transaction that you can change in case of the said transaction it has a timestamp of 2063836859 in UNIX format which is Sun, 27 May 2035 00:00:59 GMT (http://www.onlineconversion.com/unix_time.htm)

https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616?format=json

relevant: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/block-in-future-timestamp-1164293

I see what you are saying now. You are mostly correct except that the part of the json,
where it says "time":2063836859," I believe is not part of the tx information and is just
internal blockchain.info data. Blockchain.info is claiming they received the tx in 2035,
even though they clearly show it being placed into a block in 2013 ("block_height":237173,").

I think the senders node is sending the "time":2063836859,", it is not in the tx.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 05, 2016, 10:14:19 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 09:58:18 PM

well, i am not an expert but as far as i know (with the help of AgentofCoin explanation and google) every transaction has a time attribute inside of it which you can set it manually like this even into the future (don't panic when seeing 2035 Cheesy

) and when the tx is included in a block then there will be another time (the block mined time) which then the explorer will calculate that time difference this way

and in this case i think the -54 min difference is just the daylight saving time difference between the sender and the miner (6 minutes to get included in the block)

No, the time that is displayed is how long blockchain.info thinks it took for that individual tx to get 1 confirmation.
In your example of https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616,
blockchain.info is reporting that the tx took 22 years before it was placed into a block. Lol. Which of course is impossible.

I am not aware that tx data contains timestamping of when it was transmitted, and thus can be manipulated.
My understanding is the timestamping comes from the first node that detected it and then the block found timestamping.
Maybe someone with their own purposefully backdated/timed node pushed their own tx to a blockchain.info node,
so that blockchain.info thought the tx was pending for 22 years. But really I have no idea, I'm not an expert either.

well, again i am not an expert so maybe someone like CIYAM should come along and explain it much better. but again there is a timestamp in each transaction that you can change in case of the said transaction it has a timestamp of 2063836859 in UNIX format which is Sun, 27 May 2035 00:00:59 GMT (http://www.onlineconversion.com/unix_time.htm)

https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616?format=json

relevant: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/block-in-future-timestamp-1164293

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 09:58:18 PM

well, i am not an expert but as far as i know (with the help of AgentofCoin explanation and google) every transaction has a time attribute inside of it which you can set it manually like this even into the future (don't panic when seeing 2035 Cheesy

) and when the tx is included in a block then there will be another time (the block mined time) which then the explorer will calculate that time difference this way

and in this case i think the -54 min difference is just the daylight saving time difference between the sender and the miner (6 minutes to get included in the block)

No, the time that is displayed is how long blockchain.info thinks it took for that individual tx to get 1 confirmation.
In your example of https://blockchain.info/tx/d2c39af85861f8cc1ee236919335f30f190ab2a9fcccf7bcaa9597432d7aa616,
blockchain.info is reporting that the tx took 22 years before it was placed into a block. Lol. Which of course is impossible.

I am not aware that tx data contains timestamping of when it was transmitted, and thus can be manipulated.
My understanding is the timestamping comes from the first node that detected it and then the block found timestamping.
Maybe someone with their own purposefully backdated/timed node pushed their own tx to a blockchain.info node,
so that blockchain.info thought the tx was pending for 22 years. But really I have no idea, I'm not an expert either.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

well, i am not an expert but as far as i know (with the help of AgentofCoin explanation and google) every transaction has a time attribute inside of it which you can set it manually like this even into the future (don't panic when seeing 2035 Cheesy

) and when the tx is included in a block then there will be another time (the block mined time) which then the explorer will calculate that time difference this way

and in this case i think the -54 min difference is just the daylight saving time difference between the sender and the miner (6 minutes to get included in the block)

valkir

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1004

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 05, 2016, 09:32:59 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 09:19:44 PM

i am sorry but what are you guys trying to say in this whole topic i don't quite understand it?
can anybody fill me in, especially on what do you want to conclude from the negative time?

I'm not going to speak for Gleb, but if you look at what I posted above,
which is basically following CSW withdrawal from MTGOC (which Gleb pointed out),
there comes a point where the txs get very messed up.

If you look at mine above, according to the info, address 1g45rAM6Ci1gKSVabr7Eua5dsyNvd77y8
has a withdrawal from the address before it actually has a deposit. That is not possible
so there must be an issue somewhere. You can not get a output before you have an input. There have
been problems with blockchain.info's block explorer reporting false info, but I just checked
blockexporer.com and they report the same basic thing. So there is a weird bug here.
Probably related to timestamping.

So simply, the time it took from relay to confirmation in a block was negative 56 minutes,
meaning that that txs was placed into a block 56 minutes before the network mempool
even detected its existence and circulate that pending tx.

Hum how can this be possible curious to have a expert answer on that.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2016, 09:19:44 PM

i am sorry but what are you guys trying to say in this whole topic i don't quite understand it?
can anybody fill me in, especially on what do you want to conclude from the negative time?

I'm not going to speak for Gleb, but if you look at what I posted above,
which is basically following CSW withdrawal from MTGOX (which Gleb pointed out),
there comes a point where the txs get very messed up.

If you look at mine above, according to the info, address 1g45rAM6Ci1gKSVabr7Eua5dsyNvd77y8
has a withdrawal from the address before it actually has a deposit. That is not possible
so there must be an issue somewhere. You can not get a output before you have an input. There have
been problems with blockchain.info's block explorer reporting false info, but I just checked
blockexporer.com and they report the same basic thing. So there is a weird bug here.
Probably related to timestamping.

So simply, the time it took from relay to confirmation in a block was negative 56 minutes,
meaning that that txs was placed into a block 56 minutes before the network mempool
even detected its existence and circulate that pending tx.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

i am sorry but what are you guys trying to say in this whole topic i don't quite understand it?
can anybody fill me in, especially on what do you want to conclude from the negative time?

NoBit

sr. member

Activity: 326

Merit: 250

Quote from: fenican on May 05, 2016, 07:35:49 PM

It would be funny if CSW was Satoshi and the private key is hidden in that ridiculous equation

yes very

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on May 05, 2016, 06:24:33 PM

...
Meanwhile...

https://blockchain.info/address/1aiTubGdDYjVSR5zhtj5LozqtsGd1hcFv

Leave it to Craig Steven Wright-cum-Satoshi Nakamoto to break the blockchain.

Here is another one CSW broke below.

https://blockchain.info/tx/f40754ef64b9c977e08f5f63afcd8ec4ad6a4ec241363b275a7879f67d01f836
Also see in above link: "271332 ( 2013-11-24 22:34:21 + -56 minutes )" where CSW's tx confirmed in negative 56 mins.

fenican

hero member

Activity: 1395

Merit: 505

It would be funny if CSW was Satoshi and the private key is hidden in that ridiculous equation

Gleb Gamow

vip

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1145

Quote from: daniobg on May 05, 2016, 06:55:25 PM

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on May 05, 2016, 06:42:56 PM

This thread is based on CSW claiming to be SN, something I DON'T believe.

Well it looked like you are serious at the beginning, don't get mad because no one understood the "satire" behing it. Anyway we have too much threads about that clown already I don't know why you opened another one...

To conduct forensics on CSW's bitcoin wallet addresses is basically the theme of this thread. To date, some interesting things have already been gleaned.

Topic: BREAKING NEWS: Satoshi moved coins on April 30, 2016. How was this missed? (Read 2322 times)