Topic: Craig Wright IS ACTUALLY Satoshi Nakamoto. It's REAL. (Read 3322 times)
Ssshhh, explaining the joke ruins it!
He did a bit of misdirection that anybody could do on any laptop.
If you find a collision in SHA256 - ANY collision - EVER - publish it. Seriously. Doesn't even matter how you find it. Even if you don't explain how you got it, everybody will quit using SHA256.
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.
Hahahaha nope.
Read and weep idiot.
The real Satoshi Nakamoto hasn't started cashing out his/her Bitcoins yet because either it's a group of people and they have an agreement between them not to touch the coins at the moment or Satoshi is probably dead or he/she has enough money at present and doesn't need to liquidate the funds locked in Bitcoin. Maybe Craig Wright needs the permission of others to move the coins or maybe he is faking it all I don't know but something is very strange about this whole endeavor. He better have more conclusive proof the next time he goes public again.
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.
Hahahaha nope.
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.
No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that).
And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).
Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?
And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).
Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?
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.
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.
I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.
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.
Quote
Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them
hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys
Quote from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609812
Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.
To understand what is really going on, you need to read carefully what Craig Wright has always said and continues to reiterate:
In his initial blog post, Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues.
If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.
I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.
Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,
Satoshi is dead.
But this is only the beginning.
I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.
Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,
Satoshi is dead.
But this is only the beginning.
You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, he has claimed that his former colleague (who died) was Satoshi. He claims he was backing his colleague's the development of Bitcoin.
This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin
Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hq3rz/david_kleiman_craig_wrights_friend_more_likely/
David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto
OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.
OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.
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.
Realize that he has probably promised to endorse Andresen's block chain scaling preferences and thus probably why Gavin wants him to be Satoshi:
Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.”
That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.
That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.
Remember that after his death, David Kleiman's family recovered his USB flash drive and gave it to Craig Wright. Thus likely Craig Wright may have an unpublished transaction but not the actual private key. So he may be about to fool the world into thinking he is Satoshi, or making some proof that he was the man behind the man who was the real Satoshi.
The nicest thing anybody could do for Satoshi would be to convince the world that the Satoshi pseudonym was his.
Wright will fail in this, but it's nice of him to try.
Wright apparently has large amounts of Bitcoin of unexplained origin. It seems likely to have reached his hands via a ransomware scam - he started telling people that he was an early miner to account for the coins, and now it's looking like he's escalated to the point of claiming to be Satoshi.
If only enough suckers would believe him, the original Satoshi could rest easier at night.
Wright will fail in this, but it's nice of him to try.
Wright apparently has large amounts of Bitcoin of unexplained origin. It seems likely to have reached his hands via a ransomware scam - he started telling people that he was an early miner to account for the coins, and now it's looking like he's escalated to the point of claiming to be Satoshi.
If only enough suckers would believe him, the original Satoshi could rest easier at night.
Craig Wright could well be Satoshi...Well i never trust this.
We need Proof OP
We need Proof OP
I actually do not think that he is satoshi nakamoto. Also news have surfaced that he has a created false proofs of him being nakamoto. It is also beleived that the PGP key he had given turned out to be a fake and had been generated by Wright. Also I think that if he was media conscious then he wouldn't be interested in making this statement even now.
Is it really real, really? Craig Wright is SN...hmm Ok, I mean why not.
It doesn't cost anything to the real satoshi to sign a message "Craig Wright is not Satoshi" and clear all this mess up. I don't believe craig wright is satoshi. Beside that this guy still haven't give us a true proof like a signed message which is quite easy to do if he is the real satoshi.
We need some actual fucking proof. The threads arguing over him being real can stop. When he provides actual proof, then we'll know that he's Satoshi.
Yesterday i heard something about this rumor is it true.
Why would he come with this information now and not years before.
Why would he come with this information now and not years before.
Because Wired did a doxing article on him in Dec 2015, and the Australian tax authorities descended on him as a result. He is being audited, and they are eager to tax all his coins. His argument seems to be that unless he sells the coins, there is no tax to pay.
Yesterday i heard something about this rumor is it true.
Why would he come with this information now and not years before.
I think he just want some publicity because no one has told before that it was his coin.
Why would he come with this information now and not years before.
I think he just want some publicity because no one has told before that it was his coin.
Ive read so many claims "liar" "asshole" "insane" etc. today. But you're all wrong. HE is SATOSHI.
If you don't like him, it doesn't matter. Bitcoin lives on because it's the making of a genius. It lives on in a decentralized manner.
Craig Wright could well be Satoshi - OK, is Satoshi. Not that my opinion or conjecture matters one way or the other, but there it is nonetheless. I think the Sartre reference was the start of it for me, turning down the Nobel Prize for lit. He said art isn't a competition. Most people would give their left arm to even be nominated - but he turned it down.
Anyhow, the degree in Theology, the autodidactic (and academic) eclecticism, the London/England connection, the massive amounts of BTC shifted early on, the diffidence around going public with proof to anyone beyond Gavin Andresen, Gavins belief in his authenticity. And even the way he came across in the BBC interview - which he rather strongly avowed would be his first and last.
If you don't like him, it doesn't matter. Bitcoin lives on because it's the making of a genius. It lives on in a decentralized manner.
The real Satoshi could just send a message saying he is not Craig.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
This actually might happen the more I think about it. If Craig is not the real Satoshi, then the real Satoshi might want to dispel these rumors before it goes too far.
Craig Wright could well be Satoshi - OK, is Satoshi. Not that my opinion or conjecture matters one way or the other, but there it is nonetheless. I think the Sartre reference was the start of it for me, turning down the Nobel Prize for lit. He said art isn't a competition. Most people would give their left arm to even be nominated - but he turned it down.
Anyhow, the degree in Theology, the autodidactic (and academic) eclecticism, the London/England connection, the massive amounts of BTC shifted early on, the diffidence around going public with proof to anyone beyond Gavin Andresen, Gavins belief in his authenticity. And even the way he came across in the BBC interview - which he rather strongly avowed would be his first and last.
So he's Satoshi because you say so? What else may you decree, mighty dictator of reality?
An "I am not Craig Wright" message seems very unlikely.
Dorian was in trouble via no fault of his own, and because of the name coincidence to the pseudonym, the original Satoshi might have considered himself to blame for that. "I am not Dorian" was rescuing the poor guy from what might have otherwise been a life-ruining (or even life-ending) situation.
Craig Wright on the other hand climbed a tall tree in a lightning storm with a copper cable tied to his scrotum and thrust a lightning rod into the sky with his own stupid hand. He deserves whatever he gets, and I'm rooting for it to be the Jolt to End All Dolts.
Dorian was in trouble via no fault of his own, and because of the name coincidence to the pseudonym, the original Satoshi might have considered himself to blame for that. "I am not Dorian" was rescuing the poor guy from what might have otherwise been a life-ruining (or even life-ending) situation.
Craig Wright on the other hand climbed a tall tree in a lightning storm with a copper cable tied to his scrotum and thrust a lightning rod into the sky with his own stupid hand. He deserves whatever he gets, and I'm rooting for it to be the Jolt to End All Dolts.
If this is true Satoshi, he made a small transaction and it's over.
I do not understand why the bitcoin team wants Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto...
I do not understand why the bitcoin team wants Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto...
No, it could not lure out the real Satoshi.
This clown opened his own mouth. There is absolutely no reason why the original Satoshi should rescue him from the consequences.
This clown opened his own mouth. There is absolutely no reason why the original Satoshi should rescue him from the consequences.
Im waiting for a signed message from the real satoshi that says
I am not Craig Wright
I wonder what he'll say then
No, it could not lure out the real Satoshi.
This clown opened his own mouth. There is absolutely no reason why the original Satoshi should rescue him from the consequences.
This clown opened his own mouth. There is absolutely no reason why the original Satoshi should rescue him from the consequences.
Jump to: