Topic: Gmaxwell proves Craig Wright is a fraud (Read 19281 times)

So he did it in the past.

Does Gavin know about this?

Honestly I think there was really only one motive for Craig to try a stunt like this... He was probably feeling insignificant in the tech world and was reading up that the real "Satoshi" was up for the Nobel Peace Prize and other awards.  Scientist, Doctors, or pretty much any academic minded person dreams of winning something like this, that's a fact.  I think his ego got the best of him and felt like he deserved something like this, along with the prize money that came along with it. 

It's hard to fathom what was really going through his mind, but I feel like this is the only legit motive for someone to try something like this, not to mention getting mentioned and talked about by everyone in the tech world.  He craves some kind of attention.

Craig is no one else but a poor soul looking for some self promotion if you ask me! Nothing more!

I've no doubts Craig is an old bitcoiner, older than myself, but not Satoshi.

Thank you for the sleuthing. Maxwell has demonstrated on occasions that he doesn't do thorough enough analysis to question his own biases and lashes out at others.

Theymos how about the possibility (and almost a certainty) that Satoshi isn't one person and that this Craig Wright is asserting his role. He mentions working in a group on research and also mentions having other "beta coders" involved.

I haven't researched the case enough to form an opinion on the likelihood he is a scammer or other motive.

I have not been able to confirm that he claimed PhDs from CSU. I read he also studied in London. I heard on video he claimed 3 masters degrees and maybe 2 doctorates but he also said, "I forget exactly what I have".

He has 3 more Masters degrees than most of you do.

And he apparently was mining Bitcoin. I can't see where he has claimed to be Satoshi. It is true that miners run Bitcoin. If he was mining back in 2009 and had spent the $1 million he claims on mining equipment, then he was likely literally running Bitcoin. And he may have a lot of mined BTC.

Why do you hate him for mining Bitcoin?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/who-is-craig-wright-and-how-likely-is-it-that-hes-behind-bitcoin

Honestly I think there was really only one motive for Craig to try a stunt like this... He was probably feeling insignificant in the tech world and was reading up that the real "Satoshi" was up for the Nobel Peace Prize and other awards.  Scientist, Doctors, or pretty much any academic minded person dreams of winning something like this, that's a fact.  I think his ego got the best of him and felt like he deserved something like this, along with the prize money that came along with it. 

It's hard to fathom what was really going through his mind, but I feel like this is the only legit motive for someone to try something like this, not to mention getting mentioned and talked about by everyone in the tech world.  He craves some kind of attention.

I know

The only person knew and invited Craig was that bitch. Even the organizer does not know Craig.

So the only explanation is she's in this hoax. Probably a group of them. Such a disgrace

If anything, that proves it is him. Specifically, the argument is this:

"PGP key.. its metadata contains cipher-suites which were not widely used until later software."

Craig was building PGP from source himself at the time. It would have included any new/experimental versions of the cipher suites. At the time, he was working with encryption. Go check his Usenet posts.

Start by searching for "Craig Wright AES" in Google Groups (old Usenets posts)

Cheers, not about to jump to any conclusions on it but FUD free facts are much appreciated.

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used [email protected] (only [email protected] and [email protected]), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

ATO was investigating/working with Craig in parralel.  #1 - because of the bitcoin phenomena, as a gov't they have the responsibility to set the correct precedent.  Craig was starting up a huge bank.  Doing it properly also - sort of like Circle in the U.S. (by that I mean that Dynarius Bnk was being set up according to proper rules/regs.)

If you read one of the referenced transcripts, you will see that as the discussion/decision regarding the "Nature of Bitcoin" decision was evolving - you will see that teh very real possibility that one outcome would be that a REFUND from Gov't to Craig/Dynarius was a real possibility.  You will also see that they not only supported the advancement of the bank, they wee working very hard to get through the mandatory process of setting a firm foundation/definition of how to treat bitcoin - so that they could free up Craig to continue the project as quickly as possible. (READ the transcript - it is all there)

But unless I missed something, at no time was there a realization by ATO that Craig was actually Satoshi.  They were dealing with Huge amounts of Bitcoin, but they were looking at it as investment, trying to figure out what it meant to transfer say 30,000 Bitcoins from Wallet 1 to Wallet 2, and if that defined a change in ownership, how that applied to tax, cross border transactions etc.

WHEN the Craig = Satoshi news broke, they realized that the guy they had been working with was MUCH bigger (in potential amount of bitcoins) than they had previously been aware of.

Craig has now already pretty much concluded his "negotiations" with ATO to a degree that his future activity with the previously undisclosed bitcoins is now covered/protected by the conclusion of previous negotiation.

But of course it is never as simple as one thinks when dealing with Governments, and now Craig is based in London, with moves to Iceland.  Could be ATO is simply "making a show", or it could be they are feeling hoodwinked.

Craig does have a law degree

The "Satoshi stash" is probably now protected legally, and available to openly be used to supply all the necessary reserves for his new Bitcoin bank.  Just a thought

To start with, I see no reason why someone wouldn't generate PGP keys with two different pieces of software. Especially if one was run under Windows and one under a variant of Linux. The "entropy" post made my Mr. Wright that contained a PGP key talks about "/dev/random" and such showing he was working on a Unix (Linux) variant.

However, there is an argument I find more compelling that things have been backdated.

And that is the blog post from 2008.

Specifically, this one:

https://archive.is/HWfzH

which was grabbed by the crawler in March 2014.

It contains a PGP key with this up front:

"Version: SKS 1.1.4
Comment: Hostname: pgp.mit.edu"

The article stating there may have been backdating states that the key was not in the blog post in 2013 because there was a Google Reader cache version found that showed it was likely modified in 2013. I can't find a Google Reader cache version like that as the Google Reader product was discontinued by Google and the archive they have doesn't appear to have much as far as the web goes.

But ignoring that, the key says "Version: SKS 1.1.4".

That shouldn't have been there until 2012. Specifically:

https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2012-10/msg00010.html

The crawler grabbed it March 2014 so the key would have had to been edited in earlier than March 2014. And I agree that is a sign that posts were modified after the original publish date.

As Mr. Wright and his partner have/had a long background in computer forensics, this will be one tangled and extremely messy pile of spaghetti either way.

My personal belief is that it is him, along with his partner, and the rest of the developers. And I believe the launch post was an unedited post. And I believe the bitcoin community will rally around trying to discredit him as the founder at any cost. But I will also take the facts as they come out. And they will, one way or the other.

Yes I was watching the video for the same reason.
I looked at Szabo to see his reaction.He showed a very light smile and then covered his mouth with his hands.It was kind of bizarre.

My immediately prior installment in this journey was about Turing-completeness, so it is highly relevant to note that Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he is lacking knowledge about Turing-completeness compared to this Craig Wright that some are claiming might be Satoshi.

At roughly the 17 minute mark in this conference video, Wright correctly explains that due to unbounded recursion, the Bitcoin block chain scripting is effectively Turing-complete. Afaics, he is entirely correct and Nick Szabo is wrong, because although the scripting language stack can't loop within one transaction, one can use multiple transactions to simulate looping. This is precisely the point I made in my recent post wherein I explained that under composition it is impossible to prevent unbounded recursion and thus unbounded entropy. Review the Dr. Suess proof of Turing-completeness. It doesn't matter what the called script answers, the calling script can always change the outcome. If you have the ability to store state on the block chain across multiple invocations of a script, then the block chain becomes the stack. Nick Szabo just demonstrated to me that he isn't as smart as I thought. Dr. Wright makes a relevant point that many people these days seem to forget that in machine code there is no virtual machine that controls what the instruction set can do in terms of which memory it can treat as a stack. Bitcoin's script instruction set can be viewed as machine code w.r.t. to its ability to read and store state any where in the memory space of the block chain UTXO.

What Dr. Wright meant when he said, "the looping function is actually separate from the loop itself ... that would assume the only way of devising code would be to put it directly in the script". Szabo made really stoopid statement implying that the language can only be Turing-complete if the script stack is, but he completely fails to realize that the block chain is state and thus can be an orthogonal stack. And most definitely then you can loop. When I say "loop", I mean in the sense relative to the block chain as the stack, so I do not mean that any one transaction can loop. Yet such a distinction is arbitrary any way, because I can have a client interacting with the block chain causing it to loop.

Here is more about conjecture about Craig Wright being Satoshi:

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-alleged-to-be-australian-academic

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police?CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech


Edit: and add Gregory Maxwell (nullc) to list of people who don't understand Turing-completeness:

To start with, I see no reason why someone wouldn't generate PGP keys with two different pieces of software. Especially if one was run under Windows and one under a variant of Linux.

Wait... What?

Craig = Satoshi.  You can't fake most of the facts, and most of those facts fit.  AND the amount of innacurate information, exageration and FUD being propogated is growing so exponentially it is ridiculous.  This is all just conspiracy theory nonsense and drama because "Satoshi" was more fun to believe in as a purely idealistic vision - than to look at through the lens of reality.

Sort of like the whole Jesus concept.  If Jesus really were to come back, today, the first thing religion would do is beat the crap out of him and nail him up to another cross all the while screaming hysterically that he was an fraud.

LOL - same thing going on here.... Seems tech weenies are still just a step evolved above the apes, even with all your loft idealistic talk.  Your "Tech Jesus" has returned, and you scream to crucify him  Flippin monkeys.  Just when you think there is actual evolution occurring.  ROFL

LOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria

Both keys were stored in a lockbox locked via a skeleton key hidden under a rock near Satoshi's front door of his home.

So Satoshi knew SHA1 was weak, so he generated 2 keys. He used the weak key publicly, and didn't use the strong key. How does that make any sense to you?

There is nothing proving any key was backdated. Starting in 2005/2006, it became clear that SHA1 was weak and that alternatives should be used.

That will be quite difficult for Satoshi himself as most of his alleged  coins are spread around a ton of wallets right? The best and only sure way is by signing a message with the original key.

For all future sleuths attempting to dox a fraudulent Satoshi: just ask them to move a half million btc around from their original stash as proof. If they can't, they're full of shit.