Topic: Gmaxwell proves Craig Wright is a fraud - page 2. (Read 19346 times)
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.
Quoted from one of my threads:
I think it's clear where his loyalties lay.
There is nothing about banks that "suck". ...
I think it's clear where his loyalties lay.
Oh, cut me a break, welcome to IGNORE list. Jesus, some people on this forum are just mentally insane. There can't be another explanation for this level of denial and paranoia.
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.
It wasn't even _in_ the software until a year later; by "the software" I mean the actual commit that introduced that selection. Building from source wouldn't have done it, because it wasn't in the source.
Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.
Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.
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.
You can see the Crypto mailing list archive with the bitcoin 0.1 announcement here:
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/date.html#15029
You can also see a post from Dave Kleiman some days later:
[heise online UK] Secure deletion: a single overwrite will do it Dave Kleiman
So, as a member of the mailing list, he was certainly at least aware of bitcoin at its launch.
Mr. Wright was a partner with Mr. Kleiman on the paper they were discussing at the time.
Specifically, the Crypto group post Kleiman was responding to stated (among other things):
"Craig Wright, a forensics expert, claims to have put this legend finally to rest. He and his colleagues ran.."
So, Mr. Wright, undoubtedly, was also at least aware of bitcoin at its launch date.
The original version of bitcoin was developed under Windows. Mr. Kleiman was named a MVP for Windows - Security in 2007 and wrote a number of books on Windows development and security. The Satoshi key referenced by the article was generated under Windows, according to
the description. Mr. Wrights posts mostly deal with Linux.
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/date.html#15029
You can also see a post from Dave Kleiman some days later:
[heise online UK] Secure deletion: a single overwrite will do it Dave Kleiman
So, as a member of the mailing list, he was certainly at least aware of bitcoin at its launch.
Mr. Wright was a partner with Mr. Kleiman on the paper they were discussing at the time.
Specifically, the Crypto group post Kleiman was responding to stated (among other things):
"Craig Wright, a forensics expert, claims to have put this legend finally to rest. He and his colleagues ran.."
So, Mr. Wright, undoubtedly, was also at least aware of bitcoin at its launch date.
The original version of bitcoin was developed under Windows. Mr. Kleiman was named a MVP for Windows - Security in 2007 and wrote a number of books on Windows development and security. The Satoshi key referenced by the article was generated under Windows, according to
the description. Mr. Wrights posts mostly deal with Linux.
So he wanted his five minutes of widespread reputation but as soon as the story went public he got raided by the australian police. It seems clear that this guy is not Satoshi but I'm wondering why all this making by Wired and gizmodo? I don't think this is only to sell more copies or to get more traffic.
I'm really curious about what will happen to this poor new "oswald", if you know what I mean.
I'm really curious about what will happen to this poor new "oswald", if you know what I mean.
It wasn't even _in_ the software until a year later; by "the software" I mean the actual commit that introduced that selection. Building from source wouldn't have done it, because it wasn't in the source.
Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.
Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.
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.
Craig was building PGP from source himself at the time. It would have included any new/experimental versions of the cipher suites.
It wasn't even _in_ the software until a year later; by "the software" I mean the actual commit that introduced that selection. Building from source wouldn't have done it, because it wasn't in the source.Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.
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.
Supposing you were right, You don't find it odd that he generated...
I had not looked at the GnuPG source when I wrote that comment. I knew he was building from source. When I looked at the source back in time and the spec, it was clear the hashes were not experimental, they were part of the standard hashes. If you want to see the hashes Mr. Wright generated himself, under his own name, they are littered around the web with date stamps that can't be modified.
I am taking the information in context. I have seen his blog post referencing bitcoin from Jan 2009. It has no evidence of being backdated as I am looking at the version stored in the web archives when the page was crawled in prior years. His blog post from Jan 2009 specifically references the beta of bitcoin "going live tomorrow" and "Some good coders on this. The paper rocks.".
The archive of the "bitcoin launch" post has been removed from the normal places on the web as attempts have been made to delete it.
But a little work digs them up with dates.
The "bitcoin launch" post dates from Jan 2009. It was subsequently modified/removed in 2015. Mr. Wright did not state he was even involved in that project in the post. It just shows that he knew of bitcoin before it launched.
The post was crawled in 2014 and there is evidence of it being there in 2013. If you want to see them yourself, go ahead. Here is the archived post from "2 Jun 2014 02:28:10 UTC"
http://archive.is/oe1fh
If you don't believe that is the date (as the dates presented in the top are a bit confusing), this should clear it up:
http://archive.is/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009_01_04_archive.html
The post is near the bottom with the version archived from 2 June 2014 and the version that was updated in 3 Oct 2015 where he removed the "bitcoin launch" section.
Additionally, look at this page and search for "bitcoin"
https://archive.is/offset=2060/gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au
You will find:
original 17 Oct 2013 08:55:10 from
http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/bitcoin.html
which says a page was found by the crawler on his blog with a publish date of Jan 2009 and with the page name of "bitcoin.html". That link was archived by the crawler on 17 Oct 2013
Now, in 2013, did Mr. Wright go create a page called bitcoin.html and add it to his Jan 2009 blog entries? The number of entries did not change.
If the "bitcoin launch" page existed in Jan 2009, would you still say he faked it? Or would you say "it still doesn't say he was involved in the creation of it".
That blog has now been completely removed.
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.
Supposing you were right, You don't find it odd that he generated
first one key with the exact same hash preference that GnuPG used
at the time, and then, on the very next day, happened to change
his preferences to the exact same order that was introduced later
into the GnuPG codebase as default?
I'd say that was a remarkably prescient feat, or perhaps GnuPG
developers simply adopted his approach, him being a genius whiz and all.
Lol I knew that when I heard it on the news, this guy would be a fraud.
No way the real sathosi would come out like this. I don't think it will ever be known who it really or who they really are.
No way the real sathosi would come out like this. I don't think it will ever be known who it really or who they really are.
Craig White from March 2006, the Security Basics mailing list:
http://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/296
"From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:56 PM
...
True, but the argument was not one as to which is the better method.
There are several secure hashing algorithms."
and an individual responds to Craig directly with
"However, there have been numerous news items in the last 18 months about the feasibility of engineering hash collisions with several popular algorithms; hashing must be assumed to provide weaker verification of its property than might have been previously assumed.
(For now, I've recommended that folks using tools that don't yet do SHA-256 or better should use *both* MD5 and SHA-1 -- I don't think anyone has yet described an engineered collision that works with both.)"
and Mr. Wright replies to that. There are quite a few others, of course, as Mr. Wright is and was quite a prolific writer in 2006 with regards to the topic of public/private keys..
"Web of trust models such as PGP can result in a signature, but the issue of non-repudiation is not fulfilled in that the issuer can not be held to account separately (as it is a self signed certificate). In situations where the parties have had prior dealings, it may be possible to verify the owner of the public key, for example, at a personal meeting, parties may exchange public keys on floppy disks (eg key signing parties). However, if the parties are unknown to each other, and perhaps in different jurisdictions, the requisite level of....
Regards
Craig"
Want to read more? You don't have to take my word for it. Head over to Google Groups (Usenet Archive)
https://groups.google.com/
and search for:
"Wednesday, March 22, 2006" "craig wright"
Search for "Craig" in the output and start from there.
Maybe the Seclist and Google's archive of Usenet has been hacked and backdated?
http://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/296
"From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:56 PM
...
True, but the argument was not one as to which is the better method.
There are several secure hashing algorithms."
and an individual responds to Craig directly with
"However, there have been numerous news items in the last 18 months about the feasibility of engineering hash collisions with several popular algorithms; hashing must be assumed to provide weaker verification of its property than might have been previously assumed.
(For now, I've recommended that folks using tools that don't yet do SHA-256 or better should use *both* MD5 and SHA-1 -- I don't think anyone has yet described an engineered collision that works with both.)"
and Mr. Wright replies to that. There are quite a few others, of course, as Mr. Wright is and was quite a prolific writer in 2006 with regards to the topic of public/private keys..
"Web of trust models such as PGP can result in a signature, but the issue of non-repudiation is not fulfilled in that the issuer can not be held to account separately (as it is a self signed certificate). In situations where the parties have had prior dealings, it may be possible to verify the owner of the public key, for example, at a personal meeting, parties may exchange public keys on floppy disks (eg key signing parties). However, if the parties are unknown to each other, and perhaps in different jurisdictions, the requisite level of....
Regards
Craig"
Want to read more? You don't have to take my word for it. Head over to Google Groups (Usenet Archive)
https://groups.google.com/
and search for:
"Wednesday, March 22, 2006" "craig wright"
Search for "Craig" in the output and start from there.
Maybe the Seclist and Google's archive of Usenet has been hacked and backdated?
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.
Any argument about it is pointless as the Australian authorities will certainly be determining whether Wright has access to over 1 million bitcoins and whether the contract that "transfers them back to him" in 2020 is legitimate.
Any argument about it is pointless as the Australian authorities will certainly be determining whether Wright has access to over 1 million bitcoins and whether the contract that "transfers them back to him" in 2020 is legitimate.
Thanks to gmaxwell, the nail was put into the coffin rather early with this one. Not sure which one I like more yet, Dorian's Choo Choos, or the Tulip Trust in the Seychelles. 
Isn't the point of Bitcoin that you can be your own bank. Why would satoshi go run off and build a bitcoin bank.
Craig Wright could have been impersonating satoshi for almost 2 years, in order to con private investors.
"Only you know I'm the creator of Bitcoin, don't tell anyone. I have a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, but I can't use them until 2020. That's why I need all your money for this Bitcoin Bank. You can trust me, I'm already a billionaire."
That would explain why he created fake evidence in 2013 but kept it secret. This public exposure could have come from his over-excited investors, or maybe he's throwing his net a little wider to see how much more he can get before it falls apart.
"Only you know I'm the creator of Bitcoin, don't tell anyone. I have a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, but I can't use them until 2020. That's why I need all your money for this Bitcoin Bank. You can trust me, I'm already a billionaire."
That would explain why he created fake evidence in 2013 but kept it secret. This public exposure could have come from his over-excited investors, or maybe he's throwing his net a little wider to see how much more he can get before it falls apart.
This is certainly possible. The data so far indicates one of the follow is true.
1) Craig Wright is Satoshi
or
2) This is a conspiracy involving multiple individuals in different countries trying to convince us that he is.
or
3) This one of the longest cons ever and Craig Wright started laying the groundwork to convince people he was Satoshi back in 2013.
Personally based on the information presented in the wired and gizmodo articles I lean towards #1 lots of compelling circumstantial evidence there. However #3 is not impossible especially if you can establish a definite profit motive for setting up such a fraud in 2013.
For #3 I don't really get what would be the point. Pretending to be Satoshi (and therefore to own 1 million bitcoins) would IMO cause a lot of problems for too little rewards.
There are a lot of people, who go to jail for something someone else did, because the person who did the crime, had money to pay. People sell their kidney for money, why would they not go to jail for someone else?
The only thing they can charge him with, could be tax evasion on capital gains, and that would not stand up in court, because he did not receive any monetary reward from those coins yet. He should have declared the commodity, but what value does he use as a reference?
I think, he did this for the fame and it is a complete hoax. ^hmf^
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
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. ROFLLOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria
Which Jesus ?
It's a known fact that there was many Jesus's
The Romans kept killing all of them one after another and they kept pulling another guy out
claiming this time we got Jesus ..again and again.
Not only that but the Egyptians had already made public records claiming the same thing 300+ years before Christ.
ALL OF IT !
The whole baby in a manjor scene to God to the arc of covenant.. ALL of it stolen from Egyptians !
There is soooo much that blows the religion out of the water.
Take the statements in the bible about camels.. well people went and check and there was no camels.
People are liars an ididiots and gullible.. and always have an agenda / selfish ulterior motive LOL
Tech Jesus ?
Naw i figure it was some dood who did stuff on the web or maybe multiple guys.
The kids in awe over their deity probably never accomplished anything on the web ever.
A lot of people have probably come here that are as famous as Satoshi.
And all of them put their pants on one leg at a time i imagine.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kqhau
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
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. ROFLLOL LOL - Oh the Hysteria
Which Jesus ?
It's a known fact that there was many Jesus's
The Romans kept killing all of them one after another and they kept pulling another guy out
claiming this time we got Jesus ..again and again.
Not only that but the Egyptians had already made public records claiming the same thing 300+ years before Christ.
ALL OF IT !
The whole baby in a manjor scene to God to the arc of covenant.. ALL of it stolen from Egyptians !
There is soooo much that blows the religion out of the water.
Take the statements in the bible about camels.. well people went and check and there was no camels.
People are liars an ididiots and gullible.. and always have an agenda / selfish ulterior motive LOL
Tech Jesus ?
Naw i figure it was some dood who did stuff on the web or maybe multiple guys.
The kids in awe over their deity probably never accomplished anything on the web ever.
A lot of people have probably come here that are as famous as Satoshi.
And all of them put their pants on one leg at a time i imagine.
But it would be crazy if he really holds seveal hundred thousands of bitcoins, which ATO might be going for now.
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
I think you missed where the bank is no more with Craig Wright offering up TWO explanations for its demise, one being he couldn't raise enough capital to see it to fruition.
Hate to be this Craig Wright fellow at this point in time.. Seem the entire community has his eyes on him at the moment.
I'm about 99% sure from what I've seen from the "evidence" brought fourth by this seemingly endless wave of news is that this dude doesn't have the right background nor knowledge to be able to code up something so fancy as bitcoin. Personally hope the real satoshi stays hidden forever.
This wouldn't be a big deal if the community wasn't so toxic when it comes to Satoshi, I am sure nothing good will come of this for Mr.Wright. I'm about 99% sure from what I've seen from the "evidence" brought fourth by this seemingly endless wave of news is that this dude doesn't have the right background nor knowledge to be able to code up something so fancy as bitcoin. Personally hope the real satoshi stays hidden forever.
Dude was a fucking scammer trying to build a bitcoin bank, its sad that people could think this was real.
Do you have evidence from this? Jump to: