Is this Satoshi? Did he sign that message?

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Quote from: digaran on December 15, 2022, 12:12:23 AM

Quote from: S_Speche on December 14, 2022, 08:11:22 AM

yes! Satoshi is back! Fear not, just Another whale. World's first and biggest hodler.

Where is he?🤔 is you he?🤣

Bitcoin is under attack. The worst attack in its entire history. I'm trying to bring consciusness around Full-RBF disadvantages. So why I'm here is a more pertinent question.

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0
Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0.1
If you're running these, uninstall immediately!

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

Quote from: S_Speche on December 14, 2022, 08:11:22 AM

yes! Satoshi is back! Fear not, just Another whale. World's first and biggest hodler.

Where is he?🤔 is you he?🤣

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

yes! Satoshi is back! Fear not, just Another whale. World's first and biggest hodler.

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

What problem does Full-RBF solves, if we already had optional RBF?

#NoFullRBF

Do not download V24

If you're running V24, uninstall immediately.

Emitdama

sr. member

Activity: 1914

Merit: 328

The simplest answer is that if Satoshi was back, and he signed messages on bitcointalk and shared it, I am sure that the whole world would be talking about it and that would be the way you will hear about it. You are not going to see a topic started about it, you are going to see news articles written about it and twitter going crazy about it, you wouldn't ask if it is him or not, you would see proof all around the world.

Those tells me that it's not, there is a way to do this, and that person did it, that is how you know it's a fake. I do not even have the talent to confirm or not based on signed message, and even with lack of that skill, I just used common sense to realize it's not.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

lets address the RBF thing

if RBF becomes easy to achieve. then the trust of zero confirm on the bitcoin networks zero-confirm relay stage becomes obsolete in trusting as paid. unless:
you use non-taproot multisig.
  pre-consenting to tx signing,
  meaning they cant send something after. without signed consent
  (disclaimer avoid being part of a taproot multisig)
  (avoid alt, sub, sidenetwork without a consensus feature when signing)
or
if value is negligible
   and you do not care to lose value should they change, take a chance.
or
   you have to wait for atleast a few confirms to then trust you got paid..

its all a salepitch game for a altnetwork fangirl team
remove a feature or security from bitcoin to make another network look more appealing. even if the altnetwork they promote still is broke in many ways

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

There's a reason why they released Full-RBF in a market low.

There's a reason why Onesignature signed that message afterwards.

Onesignature is not self promoting, Full-RBF is an attack.

This is so frustrating. Open your eyes!

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

usernames{casinotester0001, OneSignature, cryptoGPU, illusivereserve}
are all one guy using alt accounts, self promoting using alt accounts
and then making several topics of the same pre-emptive advert for a ICO/new network scheme.. and then sending the links to crap coin media outlets to promote him further.

he should stop and find a better use of his time. this is getting ridiculous now
im starting to smell the same games as bitcoinmoses

illusivereverse

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 0

Quote from: illusivereverse on December 07, 2022, 04:42:50 PM

Quote from: OneSignature on November 27, 2022, 08:30:19 PM

Quote from: OneSignature on November 26, 2022, 06:23:02 PM

This is the oldest signature

(please post if you have a signature with an older address)

Quote

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
HCsBcgB+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

signature chain

Quote

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
HwvtQmiREYIyZeI9uohqr82d9eiwtcBgbhG5+VR7+ouEDOTgd6EYvcgNQVELLVJnQbYhN6SSv1xPtQ8SmIa10+U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A lovely present!

Special.

1MDAvctRaTDE5b6GgZy6tB8jXtJFR1UQjJ

illusivereverse

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 0

Quote from: OneSignature on November 27, 2022, 08:30:19 PM

Quote from: OneSignature on November 26, 2022, 06:23:02 PM

This is the oldest signature

(please post if you have a signature with an older address)

Quote

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NChfewU45oy7Dgn51HwkBFSixaTnyakfj
HCsBcgB+Wcm8kOGMH8IpNeg0H4gjCrlqwDf/GlSXphZGBYxm0QkKEPhh9DTJRp2IDNUhVr0FhP9qCqo2W0recNM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

signature chain

Quote

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
1KN59gRxD8G9g9smSLTFt9aSgWxYxTzFL7
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1E9YwDtYf9R29ekNAfbV7MvB4LNv7v3fGa
HwvtQmiREYIyZeI9uohqr82d9eiwtcBgbhG5+VR7+ouEDOTgd6EYvcgNQVELLVJnQbYhN6SSv1xPtQ8SmIa10+U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A lovely present!

Special.

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Being off-topic is not a concern when there's an important message to be delivered:

I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are running V24.0 Uninstall immediately!

Security must not be compromised in favor of UX, Scalability, or any other reason unrelated to Bitcoin's value itself.

CryptoGPU

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 7

Quote from: CryptoGPU on December 07, 2022, 12:57:30 PM

Yes, this chart shows us how many machines mined these early days.

Satoshi's 'Patoshi machine' mined 7/24 to let the network up (blue points) with a special software where the extraNonce increased after a block was found, therefore this different slope of the blue line. These mined blocks he did not transfer.

And as you say correctly we can see that ~6 PCs mined at that time with the regular downloadable Bitcoin software. But that does not mean that Satoshi didn't mine with one (or more) other PCs running the regular software too.

My opinion is that Satoshi mined with other PC(s) along with the Patoshi machine. And these Bitcoin he transferred and used.

Quote from: franky1 on December 07, 2022, 09:15:41 AM

looking at the casino guy (that is onesig) casino guy has been BUYING old used wallets/addresses for a while

To be honest, would you sell the private keys of an early address (like this one) if you mined back then? Yes, 2012 - 2013 private keys were sold to let the buyer claim other coins, but I haven't seen a 2009 key being sold.

Quote from: franky1 on December 07, 2022, 09:15:41 AM

casino(onesig) is not satoshi.

I think that too that casinotester is not Satoshi.

Quote from: franky1 on December 07, 2022, 10:15:30 AM

.. not satoshi but one of the 6 other people mining that day that were not satoshi

It is also possible that these ~6 mining machines are the group Satoshi.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

saves repeating myself over several topics made by the same guy

TL:Dr; .. not satoshi but one of the 6 other people mining that day that were not satoshi

Quote from: franky1 on December 07, 2022, 09:15:41 AM

looking at the casino guy (that is onesig) casino guy has been BUYING old used wallets/addresses for a while

casino(onesig) is not satoshi.

the original owner of the 2009 promoted address only had a wallet of addresses that DO NOT correspond to the satoshi pattern of mining
(Patoshi Pattern (developed by Sergio Demain Lerner) )
http://satoshiblocks.info/
the address in question was mined as block 1018
checking the pattern block 1018(green) was not mined by the satoshi pattern(blue)

there were 5-7 defined 'lines' of nonce pattern meaning 5-7 people were mining on the day that the promoted address was mining

(satoshi=blue dots up high)
4-6 others=green dots and different colour lines showing their mining path)
(.. the promoted address was mined on green dot of the other 6)

checking a blockexplorer of the spending of the promoted address coins in 2011 also reveals other addresses that the same wallet controlled in 2009
none of them were part of the satoshi pattern

in short satoshi mined alot of coins and a few other people mined occassional blocks. and the addresses being promoted was not part of the satoshi stash

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: S_Speche on December 07, 2022, 02:10:52 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 06, 2022, 05:35:16 PM

Quote from: S_Speche on December 06, 2022, 08:36:24 AM

1. Let the author answer that question.

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here.

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person?

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are runing V24.0 Uninstall immediately!

In other words, you are completely off-topic. I had speculated that maybe there might be some attempt at a connection with the topic of this thread, but you have none.

CryptoGPU

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 7

Quote from: CryptoGPU on December 07, 2022, 07:48:20 AM

Chico Crypto checked it and found other clues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6USltJKuk4
Satoshi Nakamoto Returns & Is ALIVE

@franky1: please don't say that I'm Chico Crypto

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 06, 2022, 05:35:16 PM

Quote from: S_Speche on December 06, 2022, 08:36:24 AM

1. Let the author answer that question.

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here.

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person?

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

I'm trying to bring your attention upon this very delicate topic:

Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.

It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the settlement layer.

Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.

Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable, any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.

#NoFullRBF

Do not download Bitcoin Core V24.0

If your are runing V24.0 Uninstall immediately!

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

this whole subject of this topic is not actually about "satoshi". as earlier concluded

the other topic, which this topic mentions was a sneaky preview teaser to a intro of an ICO campaign advert. pretending that the ICO was selling the rights to the 2009 address. but as seen in the 3 topics now of the same topic creator.. its a flawed design token which solves no purpose has no function and doesnt actually change ownership rights or control of the 2009 address.

its a silly "chain letter" game thats descendants dont get anything of the january 2009 address and only get a autograph from a parent that taints back to the january address but isnt the january address at the child level
EG

Quote from: dave

Jimmy

Quote from: jimmy

emily

Quote from: emily

jeff

Quote from: jeff

stacey

stacey is not getting anything from dave.. stacey only has a "name" association with jeff. what stacey gets to "sell" is the quote from jeff.. and thats it.

dave keeps control of the dave key. and dave can make other chains which the void value in the first chain letter game

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: S_Speche on December 06, 2022, 08:36:24 AM

1. Let the author answer that question.

I am not sure regarding the point that you are making here.

Are you trying to get an answer from a specific person?

Do you consider that someone who presented a signed message from January 2009 potentially has a better answer to a substantive current event question, merely because s/he has potentially been in bitcoin longer, if that were to be given weight by the presentation of such signature?

Are you trying to subtly suggest that such person who signed a January 2009 message might be satoshi or close to satoshi..? which also seems a wee bit ridiculous as Greg had already pointed out... or perhaps you are spreading misinformation by making insinuations and seeming appeals to authority?

S_Speche

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Quote from: F2b on December 06, 2022, 06:57:51 AM

Quote from: S_Speche on December 06, 2022, 06:20:01 AM

FULL-RBF Is an attack to Bitcoin's security, it makes every transaction double spendable.

1. Then why isn't that point clearly stated inside the signed message?
2. Should we just blindly follow instructions from an address for which we don't even know the owner? My guess is that most people here are able to make their own mind.
3. Zero-conf transactions are not secure. Confirmed ones are. It's that simple, and has always been. People not taking this into consideration do it at their own risk. (Although FullRBF indeed makes the risk bigger for unconfirmed txs, the previous statement remains true. I can understand that you don't agree with this, but this is not the place for debating it, and you didn't give any substancial argument.)
4. If you need fast and secure payments for small amounts, there's Lightning.
Also, isn't FullRBF disabled by default (opt-in) in Core 0.24? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I'm not necessarily defending FullRBF, I don't really mind. Just showing your lack of discernment.

Anyway, that's off-topic since there's no clear link between the FullRBF controversy and the signed message.

1. Let the author answer that question.

2. That could be the reason why the author didn't signed as you proposed on #1.

3. I'm not saying 0-conf or any other type of transaction on the mempool are to be trusted as confirmed transactions. No one thinks they should. (Yes, Full-RBF is a threat)

4. Agree.

It doesn't matter if it is disabled by default ir not. (I think it is)

The point of this message here, is precisely for you and others to care.

F2b

hero member

Activity: 2135

Merit: 926

Quote from: S_Speche on December 06, 2022, 06:20:01 AM

FULL-RBF Is an attack to Bitcoin's security, it makes every transaction double spendable.

1. Then why isn't that point clearly stated inside the signed message?
2. Should we just blindly follow instructions from an address for which we don't even know the owner? My guess is that most people here are able to make their own mind.
3. Zero-conf transactions are not secure. Confirmed ones are. It's that simple, and has always been. People not taking this into consideration do it at their own risk. (Although FullRBF indeed makes the risk bigger for unconfirmed txs, the previous statement remains true. I can understand that you don't agree with this, but this is not the place for debating it, and you didn't give any substancial argument.)
4. If you need fast and secure payments for small amounts, there's Lightning.
Also, isn't FullRBF disabled by default (opt-in) in Core 0.24? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I'm not necessarily defending FullRBF, I don't really mind. Just showing your lack of discernment.

Anyway, that's off-topic since there's no clear link between the FullRBF controversy and the signed message.

Topic: Is this Satoshi? Did he sign that message? (Read 1255 times)