If (and a huge *if* that is) Satoshi decided he needed to make a point .. why would he not do it with the technology he created? Sign a message using one of his private keys on the bitcoin blockchain.
Something for everyone to see and no-one to dispute.
Topic: Satoshi Speaks. Real? Hoax? - page 5. (Read 4879 times)
Yes, but even tho that email was used, it was also confirmed as being compromised before, so without PGP it's just an another hoax, but judging by
the way the statement in question was composed; it's a well made one.
imho satoshi is interested in our reaction to the fork just as much as we are interested in his opinion, maybe even more so.
the way the statement in question was composed; it's a well made one.
imho satoshi is interested in our reaction to the fork just as much as we are interested in his opinion, maybe even more so.
[email protected] <- I don't think this email have ever been confirmed as being compromised before..
satoshi used that when he first announced bitcoin.
It might be him since that email was used before.
Yes, but even tho that email was used, it was also confirmed as being compromised before, so without PGP it's just an another hoax, but judging by
the way the statement in question was composed; it's a well made one.
imho satoshi is interested in our reaction to the fork just as much as we are interested in his opinion, maybe even more so.
This is probably just a hoax that was created by someone I doubt that satoshi would reappear again after such a long period of silence though it would be really cool if it was real and not fake
It might be him since that email was used before.
BTW, there is already a thread about this here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/thoughts-regarding-satoshis-post-today-on-the-mailing-list-1153708
BTW, there is already a thread about this here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/thoughts-regarding-satoshis-post-today-on-the-mailing-list-1153708
It might be him. It might not. But, if he wants the world to believe, he has to sign with his PGP.
anyone that claims to be satoshi without signing a PGP message with his key is going to be ruled out as fake. why ask?
I know that its actually recall easy to make fake emails as it was already pointed out in the previous post though I guess it is impossible for it to proof that itsreal
If it was him, he would has signed his message.
This has happened lot's of times.
He is holding one and a half million bitcoins.
Why would he come to light?
This has happened lot's of times.
He is holding one and a half million bitcoins.
Why would he come to light?
The prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes.
I think it's fake.
Not sure his original email.
But if it is. Its not hard to fake emails.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010239.html
"Sign with the key 5EC948A1 or shut up, you scammer"
Let's see
Not sure his original email.
But if it is. Its not hard to fake emails.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010239.html
"Sign with the key 5EC948A1 or shut up, you scammer"
Let's see
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
Jump to: