I can not believe someone thinks in terms of religion around here.
Human nature can be the stupidest thing on this Earth.
Really unbelievable.
Lost Satoshi this thing is falling apart...
Topic: Satoshi Speaks. Real? Hoax? - page 3. (Read 4879 times)
Oh lol that's funny. Someone is extremely scared of XT winning and they are resorting to cheap tactics, such as impersonating satoshi. Pretty sad to see.
Exactly. Or rather, manipulating the communique with Satoshi.
Oh lol that's funny. Someone is extremely scared of XT winning and they are resorting to cheap tactics, such as impersonating satoshi. Pretty sad to see.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
That is a different situation than what is going on here. Sure the likelihood that that person is who they say they are is pretty high, but what about some really famous person who no one has ever seen before (no pictures, nothing) and have only been known online and suddenly one day a random person says that he is this person? Would you really trust that guy to be saying the truth? Or would you ask for more proof of his identity? That is what we are doing here. No one knows who satoshi is, what he looks like, or anything about him except that he is some guy on the internet who created this cool thing called Bitcoin. Without any other information about Satoshi, no one can really vouch for him and we can't know that this person is him without some kind of proof since anyone can say "I am Satoshi".Again. Have some faith in the HUMAN element. So if you asked the core devs and early adopters, even if they deny it, are you seriously saying they can't voucher who Satoshi Nakamoto really is? Seriously? You put your faith into an artificial lock and key to tell you the truth? That would mean you don't trust any of them.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
That is a different situation than what is going on here. Sure the likelihood that that person is who they say they are is pretty high, but what about some really famous person who no one has ever seen before (no pictures, nothing) and have only been known online and suddenly one day a random person says that he is this person? Would you really trust that guy to be saying the truth? Or would you ask for more proof of his identity? That is what we are doing here. No one knows who satoshi is, what he looks like, or anything about him except that he is some guy on the internet who created this cool thing called Bitcoin. Without any other information about Satoshi, no one can really vouch for him and we can't know that this person is him without some kind of proof since anyone can say "I am Satoshi". Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
Eastfist, it's pretty apparent that you don't have any grasp of the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi's anonymity even as he interacted with early adopters. No one has admitted to knowing Satoshi's real-world identity. Therefore no one can validate that someone is Satoshi except by Satoshi signing a message such as from the Genesis block's key or a similar source that is solidly linked to Satoshi. If you have a concrete suggestion on how else he can do it (not just ignorantly and vaguely suggesting other people must know somehow) please do share.
LOL. Here we go again. Like I said, you don't seriously think this is how humans interact with each other do you? The early adopters may "voluntarily deny" knowing Satoshi, but they KNOW who he is. It's unbelievable how you think. I'm sensing this "verify Satoshi the boogeyman's ID" is coming more from Bitcoiners than anyone else. I don't think Satoshi owes any Bitcoiners anything. That's the whole point. That's why I say core devs and early adopters have more burder on their shoulders because they know Satoshi personally or met him personally.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
Eastfist, it's pretty apparent that you don't have any grasp of the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi's anonymity even as he interacted with early adopters. No one has admitted to knowing Satoshi's real-world identity. Therefore no one can validate that someone is Satoshi except by Satoshi signing a message such as from the Genesis block's key or a similar source that is solidly linked to Satoshi. If you have a concrete suggestion on how else he can do it (not just ignorantly and vaguely suggesting other people must know somehow) please do share.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
I don't think people are that incompetent, do you? Like if you met your former classmate at a high school reunion, what is the likelihood that person isn't who they say they are?
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
I would take it as a highly personal insult if the people who supposedly help create this technical "tour de force" couldn't voucher for my existence, who support who I said I was. Does that make sense? I'm using logic here. This isn't a game. It only takes some honest witnesses.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Eastfist, when you say that the burden is going to be on so-and-so to verify Satoshi's identity, it is precisely by demanding a signed message from Satoshi that such an identification would be achieved. I can't think of any more solid way to do it, and EVERYONE who has a grasp of digital signatures will be forced to accept it, or that Satoshi has lost control of his private keys (which so long as he lives is pretty darn unlikely.)
We are all expecting a signed message from any valid communication from Satoshi. And he _must_ know this. So don't be surprised when we are completely dismissive of any claimed communication from Satoshi that lacks the signature. It's a fake.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
hoax? real?
you decide
hoax? real?
you decide
Quote
bitcoin-dev Bitcoin XT Fork
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
... even if it's not Satoshi himself he's correct ...
A lot of these "official" Satoshi posts and publicity propaganda are taken in bits and pieces and released at opportune times. Some parts are real, some are not. But it's obvious it's being manipulated now.
Well anyone can pretend to be Satoshi. Luckily, there are several ways for him to prove is it really him. Lets all wait to see is any message going to be signed. If this doesn't happen, we can all conclude that this is very fake. I don't think that real Satoshi would ever post something as important as this without a signed message or some other way for us to say this is 100% real.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.LOL. I bolded the part that doesn't make any sense. Is it so hard to accept someone's identity who they say they are without putting some kind of artificial control over it? This isn't a game. The burden is going to be on those early adopters, core devs, Gavin Andresen, etc., to personally verify Satoshi's identity. Otherwise, it's all smokescreens and coups and cover-ups. It's kinda embarrassing.
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him.exactly
- and it would be pretty easy and impressive to proof that he is satoshi. but of course he didnt make that LOL - it is more fun now!
Satoshi didn't sign his messages https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3
Even if he didn't he should know that everyone here will want him to sign a message. He has a PGP key and several Bitcoin addresses that are known to be owned by him. Just by reading any of the "I am Satoshi" threads around and the posts in this thread and other threads as well as replies to the mailing list, Satoshi should know that in order to be taken seriously as Satoshi, he must sign something saying that that was him. 
anyone that claims to be satoshi without signing a PGP message with his key is going to be ruled out as fake. why ask?
TBH he never ever signed anything. Probably on purpose
yeah, I've read about it. but it doesn't change the fact that people won't be willing to accept anyone that claims to be satoshi without some sort of proof.
and if this fake who is using this email in a secret mail provider that not anyone can have access to it?
You can get access to it. It is one of the domains used by anonymousspeech.com, an anonymous email provider. When you sign up there, there is the option of selecting a vistomail.com email address. So it isn't a secret mail provider. 
and if this fake who is using this email in a secret mail provider that not anyone can have access to it?
Jump to: