I’m Sorry • Hacker News Board

Re: I’m Sorry

#71

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:46 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: I’m Sorry

#72

Post by woodman » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:46 PM UTC

Just to save anybody else the effort of pulling times from the jpg:

  20160503T16:00:03Z  First Internet Archive snapshot of extraordinary proof post [0]
  20160505T10:57:08Z  homepage.jpg created [1]
  20160505T11:13:52Z  homepage.jpg saved
  20160505T11:35:21Z  homepage.jpg saved
  20160505T12:11:46Z  First Internet Archive snapshot reflecting change [2]
  20160505T13:30:26Z  Image replaced with text [3]
  20160505T13:52:40Z  homepage.jpg is now an html file

I wouldn't be very concerned about this being a suicide note, I don't think it is common for suicide cases to make bandwidth saving changes to the note hours after the the initial release...

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160503160003/http://www.drcrai...

[1] http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c37a7368be70afd35ef...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160504140906/http://drcraigwri...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20160505133026/http://www.drcrai...

Re: I’m Sorry

#73

Post by tim333 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:48 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #63

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way tha…

If you read the first comment there's a lot of stuff you would not expect of the real Satoshi:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611

Re: I’m Sorry

#74

Post by danieltillett » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:49 PM UTC

calebm wrote: post #52

I'm pretty sure Craig Wright is not the real Satoshi, but if he was the real Satoshi and didn't want anyone to know, he would be going about it in exactly the right way :)

This has been my thought exactly. The best place to hide a needle in in a pile of needles.

Re: I’m Sorry

#75

Post by scott_s » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:49 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #63

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way tha…

If Wright was indeed Satoshi, but now wanted people to think he is not Satoshi, he would simply say "I lied, I'm not Satoshi."

Re: I’m Sorry

#76

Post by it_learnses » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:50 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #63

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way tha…

This is how religions start. Congrats, you are the first of the "believers".

Re: I’m Sorry

#77

Post by tacos » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:50 PM UTC

Flounce level 1000, a new high score.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flounce

Re: I’m Sorry

#78

Post by stupidcar » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:51 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #63

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way tha…

Wat?

People who "simply do not want to be found" don't make any sorts of claims whatsoever. People who make fraudulent claims are scammers, plain and simple.

The fraudulent evidence that Wright has presented doesn't make it more likely that he's Satoshi, they make it much, much less likely. At this point, it's more reasonable to assume Donald Trump invented BitCoin than Wright.

Re: I’m Sorry

#79

Post by beaker52 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

joshmanders wrote: post #49

Forgive me as I'm a newbie to bitcoin and only ever seen it from the outside and watched a few things. I only know who Satoshi is because of the mass amounts of people wanting to know who this mysterious man really is. But my question is, why does it matter if Craig Wright is or isn't? I mean I can understand being upset that he lied about it if he really isn't for attention, but what if he is? The dude is literally…

It doesn't matter so much whether he's Satoshi or not - but it matters that he's tried to make the claim with evidence that's been dispelled.

It'd be a significant claim if Mark Zuckerberg claimed to be a lost son of the late Steve Jobs and people would expect him to prove it. It'd be scandalous if the DNA test came back negative and would clearly peak people's interest in Mark Zuckerberg's character.

Re: I’m Sorry

#80

Post by pgrote » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:55 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #67

noxToken wrote: post #58

I know what cryptocurrency is but I have hardly followed what goes on. I am somewhat familiar with the recent event involving Wright. Could someone tell me, in plain English, if there are any challenges in Wright divulging the information needed to verify that he is Satoshi?

There are only challenges if he doesn't have the key. If he has the key he should trivially be able to sign anything with it or decrypt anything encrypted to it.

Is there a reason he hasn't or won't spend some on the original bitcoins to prove his claim?

I don't think spend isn't the proper technical term.