Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18888. (Read 26634193 times)

It's a brand new domain which could belong to anyone?

AAAAANNNNNNDDDDD   scene
...
http://www.drcraigwright.net/homepage.jpg

I'm Sorry.

I believed that I could do this.  I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me.  But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot.

When the rumors began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false, new allegations have already begun. I know now that I am not strong enough for this.

I know that this weakness will cause great damage to those that have supported me, and particularly to Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen.  I can only hope that their honour and credibility is not irreparably tainted by my actions.  They were not deceived, but I know that the world will never believe that now. I can only say I'm sorry.

And goodbye.

As we flatline for a little while and the blocksize "debate" has abated I guess we are lucky to have something else to talk about

At least a technically clueless person like me might actually learn something.


In other news: I know of a bridge for sale that is a good deal as it has stood the test of time

mr wright, making claims like this could lead to an arrest ,lol btw i am not satoshi nakamoto

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/24/the-surprising-bitcoin-connection-between-silk-road-and-satoshi-nakamoto/#580a3955172a

http://www.businessinsider.com/satoshi-nakamoto-and-silk-road-link-2013-11?IR=T

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/study-suggests-link-between-dread-pirate-roberts-and-satoshi-nakamoto/?_r=0

"It had just been brought to our attention that Dustin D. Trammell had published a post at http://blog.dustintrammell.com/2013/11/26/i-am-not-satoshi/ in which he details his very early association with the bitcoin scheme, states that he is the owner of the account which received some of the first batches of mined bitcoins, and describes how he deposited  them into his account at MtGox from which they found their way in a few short hops and without his involvement into DPR's account. We find this post completely believable, and thus we no longer believe that the very early Founder account we identified in the full  bitcoin transaction graph belongs to Satoshi Nakamoto. We will revise our paper accordingly."

A WO-thread buddy of mine shared an interesting point:

This is how Satoshi Nakamoto would have to reveal himself in order to not risk breaking Bitcoin or causing market disruptions.

* First you contact people you know you can prove it to, make them sign an NDA and keep 100% control of the process.

* Release the claim along with confirmations from these trusted parties.

* Provide confusing proof to the public to soften the blow.

* Let time pass.

* Gradually provide more convincing proof to the public.


With that in mind it would probably be wise to keep from going apeshit on forums before we know more.

To me Satoshi is the one who kept mining all the coins when everyone else thought Bitcoin was a joke that would never work. Despair for the project reached such high levels that Satoshi stopped posting here for months, but he kept on mining.

By January 01, 2010 there were only 21 users registered here, which shows how small the community was. AgoraMutual was number 21 to register, and looking at his profile he was trying to sell Oil and Lube.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/agoramutual-21

I would be really skeptical of that price estimate, but if there is more data to back that up then be my guest.

The price doesn't look like it is moving at all, and there seems to be absolutely zero momentum with the value to crank it above $455 by tomorrow.

If the price can move above $460 in the next week or so, I'd be surprised. There is nothing at all to move the price.

Here is another weird Craig Wright issue that I've been mulling over. 

Back in November, so-called @BitcoinBelle moderated a so called "All-Star Panel" at a bitcoin conference, that included Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, and good old Craig Wright.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

This was shortly before the so-called leak of Craig being SN.  At the time, Craig was not well known in the bitcoin panelist world, and did seem to stand out as being less of an "All-Star" than others.  (Szabo in particular seemed to think he was a a fool).

When the Craig / SN "leak" surfaced shortly thereafter, many wondered why Craig was at the meeting, and whether @bitcoinbelle was involved in some way.  (And note that my comment describing the ATO tax credit fraud angle on Craig was in that chain, which to toot my own horn, was one of the earlier detailed articulations of this theory, as far as I know.)  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_we_deserve_an_explanation_of_how_craig/

Now, from looking at more recent tweets by @bitcoinbelle, we see an interesting exchange between her and Joseph VaughPerling.  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727470504932720640

Of note:


JVP = Joseph VaughnPerling = @haq4good


And then:  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727207098442993665

Of note:


And:


And:


So, the sequence seems to be that @bitcoinbelle was instrumental in getting Craig into that panel.  Part of the motivation was to put JVP and Craig in the same room, probably because Craig had intimated to her that he was SN and a "leak" was imminent.  JVP initially denied that Craig was SN, and later changed his tune.

JVP could have denied the connection because he was keeping SN / Craig's identity secret.  Or, maybe JVP really didn't connect Craig with SN, but later had some reason to support the Craig = SN story for unknown, and possibly suspect reasons.

And, FWIW, @bitcoinbelle currently seems to think that Craig is a fraud.  She claims he hacked her twitter, and that he turned kind of pervy on her.  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727336811899543553  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727346525106491392

I don't really know what to make of this, but on the off chance that people on this board know more about the character and motivations of some of the people involved, I throw it out there.

(Also, I'm not sure exactly how twitter links function, you may have to click "viewconversation" on the links I provided to see the back and forth).

anyway hope he is not Satoshi...he seems a couple BTC's short of a block

You could imagine him changing his tune quickly, if he was really considered/nominated for the Nobel prize.....

Frankly, strictly from the volatility perspective this is the best way for Satoshi to be revealed. Instead of sending a massive shock by suddenly moving BTC1.1M coins. First spread rumors of it, let market price it in, then give some questionable proof, let market price in the chance that those coins are not lost, assure that coins are in trust and won't be dumped on market, finally give concrete proof.

Personally I believe Satoshi is alive and well and has nothing to do with Wright or Kleiman. As for the stash I believe he doesn't even need to touch the initial stash:

a) for ethical reasons / so that noone can say that he used his project to become rich and/or that this is a ponzi scheme to enrich its creator
b) because his skill set can certainly provide for him while living under the radar - he could probably make hundreds of thousands in wages by working somewhere in the field of his expertise, allowing him a comfortable lifestyle (if he didn't have one already). As "twisted" as it may sound, he may be living an intentionally "poor" life.

I believe his stash is definitely accessible. As he said himself, you should never throw a wallet

If he is to use coins, it might be coins he bought from miners, or mined himself, perhaps later (h2 2010, 11/12/13, etc). I suspect he could make an exception if Bitcoin needed critical funding in some area. It has been discussed that at some point there may be an upgrade (with multi-year advance warning) in order to make pubkey coins unspendable if they haven't been moved in a certain timeframe, so as to not have quantum-computing related instabilities where early pubkey coins are accessed and sold. I suspect that in such a scenario he might leave the biggest part (or all) of the stash unmoved so as to be rendered unusable.

As for the "next 100 years", most of the coins won't be mined in 100 years - but in the short/mid-term. We are at a rate of 110k coins per month. By the time we reach the next halving we'll have an extra 3mn coins. And then you go to something like +1.4 for the next four years. If the market is pricing-in a dump of millions of coins that will be PoW'ed in the next years, it can definitely price-in risks like Satoshi's stash. I mean MtGox went out and said "ooops we lost 850k coins" (650k after the 200k discovery) - back when they had double the price and represented a far bigger piece of the "slice".

So I'm not that worried about satoshi's stash.