really wish the creator would just move around coins and prove
himself so we can put this whole thing to bed....
Topic: Craig Wright is not Satoshi, because I have found Satoshi (proof) (Read 1838 times)
June 14, 2016, 12:36:17 AM
We are the Alpha and Omega, the Creator and User. We are Satoshi of Bitcoin.
well this sentence was get my attention actually,..
i like the word " We are Satoshi of Bitcoins"
well this sentence was get my attention actually,..
i like the word " We are Satoshi of Bitcoins"
You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZNtbAFnr-0&feature=youtu.be&t=22s
Quote
Interviewer: Satoshi Nakamoto is you?
Craig Wright: Yes.
Craig Wright: Yes.
For the record, I don't believe it. All evidence right down to his body language suggests he is not being honest.
Rule 1 for amateur lie detectors out there. When you ask someone a question and they look to the right, they are about to tell you a lie.
You know ... I want to agree with you, but my gut feeling is saying... The real identity of the creator of Bitcoin IS important. We have seen different clandestine groups forming secret organizations to
further their own economic future and that of their group members. If this experiment is part of any of this or some Anarchist plot to sabotage the financial system, I would want to know that. Who
would willingly invest their wealth into something that might collapse at any moment. { If there are a group of people controlling this, I want to know in advance } The same goes for some of these
secret government agencies... If it is backed by them and they have access to the "Kill switch" ... I want to know. This in my opinion ... IS very important knowledge to have. If Craig Wright is the real
Satoshi and he is in any way linked to this... I would want to know.
further their own economic future and that of their group members. If this experiment is part of any of this or some Anarchist plot to sabotage the financial system, I would want to know that. Who
would willingly invest their wealth into something that might collapse at any moment. { If there are a group of people controlling this, I want to know in advance } The same goes for some of these
secret government agencies... If it is backed by them and they have access to the "Kill switch" ... I want to know. This in my opinion ... IS very important knowledge to have. If Craig Wright is the real
Satoshi and he is in any way linked to this... I would want to know.
This is true. I have found Satoshi. We all know Satoshi is a group of people, a group of people who believe in the concept of decentralization, not only to break borders, but to tain the outlawness of the financial sector, which has destroyed billions of peoples lives for centuries.
Satoshi Nakamoto is those of us who mine Bitcoins, those of us who support Bitcoin projects, those of us who use Bitcoins, those of us who convince people to use & accept Bitcoins, those of us who run Bitcoin nodes & offer our blockchain as a service, those of us who buy Pizzas with Bitcoins, those of us who carry dusts of Satoshi's in our wallets, those of us who will try to bash/correct or ignore this post and those of us who enjoy Bitcoin forums.
Keeping to the decentralised nature of our technology, Satoshi is all of us who is reading this message today.
Satoshi Nakamoto is those of us who mine Bitcoins, those of us who support Bitcoin projects, those of us who use Bitcoins, those of us who convince people to use & accept Bitcoins, those of us who run Bitcoin nodes & offer our blockchain as a service, those of us who buy Pizzas with Bitcoins, those of us who carry dusts of Satoshi's in our wallets, those of us who will try to bash/correct or ignore this post and those of us who enjoy Bitcoin forums.
Keeping to the decentralised nature of our technology, Satoshi is all of us who is reading this message today.
But did "those of us" sit down and conceptualise a triple entry digital ledger that could only be interacted with via inputs and outputs way back in the 1990's? No, that was Craig White.
The idea behind Bitcoin is decentralisation, sure. But people forget that wealth and "liberty" does not equal control. AR-15's, biological weapons, atomic weapons, man power, military alliances = POWER.
In russia you can be the self made owner of a textiles business that produces $12 million pure profit per annum. Until one day you get that knock on the door and the secret police kidnap you from your home, throw you in prison for a month while they literally steal your entire business.
This is real power.
What makes you think Bitcoin isn't a plot to lock the wealth the world into ONE system.
Anarchists and libertarians are always talking about this "globalist, ONE world government agenda" yet fail to see that not only will this agenda come to fruition, but it is them that are building it
Regardless, I'll continue to ride the price swings... But, will I shun all other mediums of value storage for Bitcoin alone - probably not.
Deep.
Touching story, but in all honesty, as was previously said, "I don't know who SN is, nor do I care."
Satoshi is the creator, we are his legacy.
Touching story, but in all honesty, as was previously said, "I don't know who SN is, nor do I care."
Satoshi is the creator, we are his legacy.
So the great ending to this saga would be Satoshi's coins evenly distributed, based on rank, to bitcointalk.org members who joined and participated before the distribution date.
START THE THREAD, SATOSHI! Let's get those coins moving.
START THE THREAD, SATOSHI! Let's get those coins moving.
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.
i dont know but i still believe Dorian is satoshi lol,
anyway i really like your quotes that mentioned that we are satoshi, bitcoin need us to keep it still decentralized,pseudoanonymous,spread them to the entire world and long live of course,
i have shared your quotes on my twitter
https://twitter.com/bitcoinhiro
Just saying
anyway i really like your quotes that mentioned that we are satoshi, bitcoin need us to keep it still decentralized,pseudoanonymous,spread them to the entire world and long live of course,
i have shared your quotes on my twitter
https://twitter.com/bitcoinhiro
Just saying
Samsung Toshiba, Nakamichi Motorola
Illuminati ?
Well until there are no proofs i believe anything and nothing.
Illuminati ?
Well until there are no proofs i believe anything and nothing.
if satoshi is a group of people did the diff at the beginning jumped very high because multiple person where mining it? i recall not, it was very flat, so only one man was mining, or only one device
they did this on purpose to deceive us in thinking that they were one only, and then divide the reward from the early block?
they did this on purpose to deceive us in thinking that they were one only, and then divide the reward from the early block?
I still believe Nick Szabo has invented Bitcoin.
I like the idea of Satoshi being a group, Bitcoin is too complex for one person to create.
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.
I was afraid when I saw the thread's title but your vision of Satoshi isn't that bad, even if not excat. I like this idea, even if I never coded a single line 
.
.teddybu you're very important, this community wouldn't exist without people like you making lots of informative posts to keep it alive and kicking. You're Satoshi indeed.
except by your argument, Craig Wright IS Satoshi....
By my arguments, everyone is Satoshi. Bitcoin does not discriminate, nor should you or I
I cant be Satoshi, I am Vladimir.
~CfA~
I like your decentralized concept of Satoshi. I need to second your concept of all the bitcoiners can assume themselves as Satoshi.
I too strongly believe to keep up the pure decentralization with bitcoin ecosystem, the inventors of bitcoin still now refusing to reveal their identities.
I too strongly believe to keep up the pure decentralization with bitcoin ecosystem, the inventors of bitcoin still now refusing to reveal their identities.
Did Satoshi Steal My Blog Post?
https://medium.com/@jprichardson/did-satoshi-steal-my-blog-post-76a68cdda4f3#.yyqprifuz
except by your argument, Craig Wright IS Satoshi....
By my arguments, everyone is Satoshi. Bitcoin does not discriminate, nor should you or I
Jump to: