161–170 of 289 posts
There's no real proof here that Craig is Satoshi. If he really wanted to prove it to us, he would need to sign a message saying 'Craig Wright is Satoshi signed 2016-05-02' using the genesis block key. Read his post: http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-signif... he goes into all sorts of details but then glosses over the fact that the arbitrary Sartre quote could have been signed by anyone at any poi…
EDIT 2: Debunked! The signature in Wright's post is just pulled straight from a transaction on the blockchain. Convert the base64 signature from his post (MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=) to hex (3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae0022066632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce), and you get th…
In the posted image of EcDSA.verify.sh, he base64 decodes $signiture, but this is uninitialised. The path is stored in $signature.
http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-signif...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devils advocate, if I had private keys that were tied to a not-small fortune, I'd keep them so far from my computer that even the proof he's provided would be out of the question. ...On the other hand, the screenshots are from Windows. Windows! Are we really to believe Satoshi uses Windows?
Well, he'd still want to keep them in a safe place he can access if he ever wants the money. And he's had at least 4 months to do something with the key.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/31/2158024/craig-wrights-...
Reposting my other comment: I think Wright is just a smooth-talking conman with some crypto experience. I'm betting he met Gavin and other (unfortunately, merely "supposed" at this point...) experts in person, talked shop for a while, then took out his laptop and staged verifying the signature of blocks 1 and 9 with dummy commands. (Edit: Gavin actually claimed it was a clean computer, not one that Wright brought. Di…
Neither Jon Matonis nor Ian Grigg have said they actually did real validations themselves, just that they talked with the guy. If he is a conman (which is what seems to be the case) I wouldn't fault them too much for falling for him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Wright is just a smooth-talking conman with some crypto experience. I'm betting he met Gavin and other (unfortunately, merely "supposed" at this point...) experts in person, talked shop for a while, then took out his laptop and staged verifying the signature of blocks 1 and 9 with dummy commands. I don't believe that anybody with the most basic understanding of cryptography would fall for that. I don't thin…
I agree that it seems extremely absurd Bitcoin experts would fall for that. I'm very interested to see how this story develops.
The proof contains some strange bash commands, using & instead of &&: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11610192
> arguing that block 9 contains the only bitcoin address that is clearly linked to Mr Nakamoto (because he sent money to Hal Finney) Block 9 contains no transactions other than the mining reward. https://blockchain.info/block-index/14858/000000008d9dc510f2...