Topic: Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen - Summary of the Story (Read 2638 times)
Interesting case, I still have my doubts
Here's another interesting article, this time from the Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee189834-12a0-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html
Not sure if tongue in cheek!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee189834-12a0-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html
Quote
Forget Satoshi Nakamoto, are we sure this is the real Craig Wright?
Not sure if tongue in cheek!
I thought the following article by Ian Grigg was very interesting:
http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001593.html
He basically says that "Satoshi" was actually a team, and Craig Wright was a member.
Interesting read, but if "Satoshi Nakamoto'' is really codename for a team of scientists behind bitcoin. I have couple thoughts about it.http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001593.html
He basically says that "Satoshi" was actually a team, and Craig Wright was a member.
1. Who else was part of this team beside David Keiman (RIP) and Craig Wright? They must have been really good at keeping things secret.
2. It is surprising that after Keiman's death in rather enigmatic circumstances other team members still want to reveal truth about bitcoin origin (Wright statements)
3. Who was the leader? Wright? Who coordinated all the work, how come that everyone agreed on hiding this whole project?
I thought the following article by Ian Grigg was very interesting:
http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001593.html
He basically says that "Satoshi" was actually a team, and Craig Wright was a member.
http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001593.html
He basically says that "Satoshi" was actually a team, and Craig Wright was a member.
He is not satoshi.
https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170
https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md
https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170
https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md
That is a jumbled analysis which doesn't explain well the situation.
I already explained it more clearly:
Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:
The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.
And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology. 
Let me unpack that more for n00bs. The point is that every Bitcoin signature signs the hash (of a hash) of the transaction. And so if someone can create two transactions that have the same hash, then one can use the same signature for both, i.e. no need to have the private key to generate a new signature.
What Craig did was reuse an existing signature from the block chain which is attributed to Satoshi, and supplied it as the signature for a new transactions. Specifically the new transaction is some text written by Sartre but the key point is that normally it should impossible to find a new set of data which can generate the same hash, because of the preimage resistance security property of the SHA256 cryptographic hash function.
Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague.
Listen to the first few minutes of the BBC interview
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165
"You're going to show me that Satoshi is you?"
Craig - "yes"
Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is.
Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin.
Is Satoshi after all of Blockstream?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/
Quote
I have had no communication with Mr Wright at all, let alone signed anything. I understand that there is some information sheet Wright is giving reporters that specifically attacks me, however!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/
Hey dufus - why don't you look at the BBC article itself: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto."
Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi?
It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto."
Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi?
You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that.
Butthurt idiot. Bye.
I see you locked your thread again. You are an emotional basketcase.
I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.
It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).
And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).
You are just butthurt.
It is very relevant.
Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate.
Butthurt by what exactly?
(perhaps due to seeing your same post spammed in every topic?)
Don't pretend you've forgotten when you closed the technical thread where we were debating and told me in PM that you never wanted to talk to me again.
I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye.
It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.
You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.
Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.
Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi. And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.
I think bringing in a dead person into this is just a scapegoat by Craig Wright to confuse spectators. If this is true, why would he pretend being Satoshi by signing a fake message? Until Craig comes up with this extraordinary proof he says, I refuse to believe anything that came from him.
Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.
Reading this, quite interesting:
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692
One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:
Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.
So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.
Thoughts pro and con?
Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.
So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.
Thoughts pro and con?
I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.
Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?
It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...
Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?
It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...
I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.
"It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his - I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify," Mr Andresen told security researcher Dan Kaminsky
That is really strange, lets not make anymore mistakes and be sure. Makes me think this was to crash the market and was it really worth it?, $10-$20 down and now back up.
If I were Satoshi I might be tempted to sign a message stating that I am Craig Wright. I would then disappear again and be less worried that ever about being discovered. It would be quite a shock to Craig also, assuming he in not Satoshi. 
was thinking the same lol (even thought that might have been half gavins reason for backing wrights claim help the real satoshi stay anon)
only flaw is Wrights trying too (and has) commit fraud
If I were Satoshi I might be tempted to sign a message stating that I am Craig Wright. I would then disappear again and be less worried that ever about being discovered. It would be quite a shock to Craig also, assuming he in not Satoshi.
The only logical explanation for this is, " Gavin got drugged or hypnotized to confirm his story " or " He joined Craig in London and they end up in a Pub, where Gavin got shit faced and he confirmed his story
when he was still inebriated " or " Craig has something on Gavin, and he is forcing him to confirm his story " .... Whatever was done, they both underestimated the intelligence of the skilled Bitcoiners. The days
are gone, where you only had a few dev's who could say and do anything and it was just accepted... We now have shitloads of spectator detectives and semi-skilled technical people, who questions everything.
when he was still inebriated " or " Craig has something on Gavin, and he is forcing him to confirm his story " .... Whatever was done, they both underestimated the intelligence of the skilled Bitcoiners. The days
are gone, where you only had a few dev's who could say and do anything and it was just accepted... We now have shitloads of spectator detectives and semi-skilled technical people, who questions everything.
in my feeling, i don't believe that craig wright is founder of bitcoins, i dont know why but i don't believe even if he can prove that he have all document about bitcoin from beginning starting the project.
why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know
why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know
economical problems
i guess its not about economical problems
Hehe, that was fast - thanks! ;-)
Gavin has backpedaled from his claims about Wright: (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guardian-squashes-craig-wrights-nakamoto-claim-as-a-scam-1459596 - I've seen this a couple places, but does anyone have the original source?)
Dan Kaminsky -> Andresen:
``` What is going on here?
There's clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you're lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?
```
Andresen:
``` Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the 'proof' as anyone, and don't yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I'm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
Dan Kaminsky -> Andresen:
``` What is going on here?
There's clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you're lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?
```
Andresen:
``` Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the 'proof' as anyone, and don't yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I'm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
the OP's post is not a summary. because it doesnt show the hoax part
-snip-
-snip-
With all due respect to your legendary status, but I think Gavin knows more than you.
If he says he has proof, is because he has proof, Gavin is not stupid.
no offense to your noob status.
but did you see the way gavin was smirking when saying he "thinks" its him. and how no one can be 100% sure
Still, Gavin seems to believe he really is Satoshi
Im fine with this, what is frustrating is.. is Gavin expecting us to just take his word for it? he cant expect that from us its not the bitcoin way.
bulista, between here and Reddit and dozens of blogs there has been a tremendous amount of research and speculation regarding the Craig Wright saga. And you manage to studiously avoid all of it with your three links. That's not even remotely helpful. I suggest you stop posting for a while and start reading and digesting what has already been established.
I'm sorry, but you do know what a "summary" is, right?
(not saying whether OP's summary is good (enough) or not, didn't look at the links)
Even a cursory glance at his links should show you it's not a "summary". A summary provides a balanced overview of the state of something. Not a careful selection of just a sliver of the evidence. A person who only views those three links will be clueless about the fraudulent nature of the entire first link, the back-dating fraud in Wright's December expose, Gavin's backpedaling from his claim that Wright is Satoshi, the possibility that Wright's dead associate Dave Kleiman is the real Satoshi, the Electrum report that no one downloaded their files in the UK the day of Wright's private meeting in London, and on and on.
The OP is either naïve, dishonest or ignorant. Thus my recommendation (assuming #1 or #3 is the case) that he read up before misleading people more. I suggest starting with _this_ Summary of links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459343.0;topicseen
bulista, between here and Reddit and dozens of blogs there has been a tremendous amount of research and speculation regarding the Craig Wright saga. And you manage to studiously avoid all of it with your three links. That's not even remotely helpful. I suggest you stop posting for a while and start reading and digesting what has already been established.
I'm sorry, but you do know what a "summary" is, right?
(not saying whether OP's summary is good (enough) or not, didn't look at the links)
bulista, between here and Reddit and dozens of blogs there has been a tremendous amount of research and speculation regarding the Craig Wright saga. And you manage to studiously avoid all of it with your three links. That's not even remotely helpful. I suggest you stop posting for a while and start reading and digesting what has already been established.
in my feeling, i don't believe that craig wright is founder of bitcoins, i dont know why but i don't believe even if he can prove that he have all document about bitcoin from beginning starting the project.
why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know
why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know
economical problems
in my feeling, i don't believe that craig wright is founder of bitcoins, i dont know why but i don't believe even if he can prove that he have all document about bitcoin from beginning starting the project.
why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know
why he shown himself? is it better that he stay on the shadow of the knight? is he need famous and glamor? i just don't know
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/03/craig-wright-bitcoin-founder-claim-labelled-scam-satoshi-nakamoto
guardian label him as a scammer
and something else
Dan Kaminsky -> Andresen:
``` What is going on here?
There's clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you're lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?
```
Andresen:
``` Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the 'proof' as anyone, and don't yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I'm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
guardian label him as a scammer
and something else
Dan Kaminsky -> Andresen:
``` What is going on here?
There's clear unambiguous cryptographic evidence of fraud and you're lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation could should or must remain private?
```
Andresen:
``` Yeah, what the heck?
I was as surprised by the 'proof' as anyone, and don't yet know exactly what is going on.
It was a mistake to agree to publish my post before I saw his– I assumed his post would simply be a signed message anybody could easily verify.
And it was probably a mistake to even start to play the Find Satoshi game, but I DO feel grateful to Satoshi.
If I'm lending credibility to the idea that a public key operation should remain private, that is entirely accidental. OF COURSE he should just publish a signed message or (equivalently) move some btc through the key associated with an early block.
Feel free to quote or republish this email.
Jump to: