I'm confused what part "courage" plays in executing a public transaction using known Satoshi Bitcoins?
Would even that transaction still be subject to scrutiny?
I’m Sorry
161–170 of 189 posts
Re: I’m Sorry
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One speculation is that Wright was able to ... Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?
The argument is that there is no legitimate reason for Wright to not allow them to keep copies of the proof, aside from the reason that the hardware/software he provided was a tampered version and the proof would not actually work on any machine not provided by him.
I can think of a reason. If Gavin, for example, had both a new text and a signature that was demonstrably from Satoshi, then he could publish this and screw Craig's big reveal. I mean, if anyone is a reasonably credible Satoshi, it's Gavin.
That, at least, would be a good reason to not give the signature to Gavin or Jon.
However, the moment Craig failed to sign an unambiguously new text on his blog with a known Satoshi key everything that went before was suspect. Would it have proved he was Satoshi? No. Would almost everyone except a few tinfoils give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuredly.
The fact that that didn't happen is very strong evidence that Craig does not have the keys from early blocks. Does that prove he is not Satoshi? No. But he's given about as much reason to believe he is Satoshi as I have. And I'm pretty sure it's not me.
Or is it???
Re: I’m Sorry
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I'll bite. He is the creator of Bitcoin but supplies terrible evidence of him being the creator to throw everyone off the scent :-) Maybe.
It's not "terrible evidence" It was lengthy, time-consuming, very clearly fabricated evidence. He claimed he had private keys tied to Satoshi, but refused to sign anything with it (which would have taken 30 seconds).
I wasn't clear; if you were trying to throw people off the scent of who made Bitcoin by making everyone think it wasn't you this is a pretty successful attempt- I think he's a troll but don't discount the possibility that it's really him :-D
Re: I’m Sorry
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but then you consider the undeniably faked proof published on his blog, and now this inability to meet his recent promise to provide real proof today. For someone who actually had Satoshi's keys, all of this is probably more work than just publishing real proof in the first place. If he was actually the creator of Bitcoin, this is the worst possible way he could convince people of it. That's were the extreme do…
I think you greatly underestimate the real harm done to people who are victimized by online (and offline) mobs; people become objects of the sport of public vitriol. Just look at the remarks in this discussion; it's not a rational discussion, it's people acting out in anger - because it's become acceptable to hurt this person. I can completely understand someone not wanting to deal with it any longer. Also, it doesn'…
Wright has permanently damaged other people's reputations, and put substantial effort into impersonating another person. I don't know if "victim" is appropriate.
At any rate, this conversation is about whether or not he is Satoshi. This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not. And as @lucozade put it, "he's given about as much reason to believe he is Satoshi as I have".
Re: I’m Sorry
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you greatly underestimate the real harm done to people who are victimized by online (and offline) mobs; people become objects of the sport of public vitriol. Just look at the remarks in this discussion; it's not a rational discussion, it's people acting out in anger - because it's become acceptable to hurt this person. I can completely understand someone not wanting to deal with it any longer. Also, it doesn'…
Wright has permanently damaged other people's reputations, and put substantial effort into impersonating another person. I don't know if "victim" is appropriate. At any rate, this conversation is about whether or not he is Satoshi. This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not. And as @lucozade put it, "he's given about as much reason to bel…
Says who? Who tried and convicted him? The accusations of an angry mob are not at all reliable. And guilty or not, who are we to hurt him? If what you say is true then there is no reason for people to act this way; they simply could forget him and move on.
> This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not
In theory, but unfortunately not always in the real world.
Re: I’m Sorry
#166It's amazing to me how everyone is drinking the koolaid here on him being a fraud. I really don't think Gavin got duped. And I'm pretty sure they had enough private email discussions over the years that there were things they discussed/shared privately over those years that could be used as a reference point for Gavin to be sure he was talking to the same person. People are more willing to believe that Gavin was hack…
He is after the hundreds of millions of dollars of bitcoins that the real Satoshi Nakamoto controlled.
When Craig Wright first came to public attention last December, there was a stash of "leaked" documents relating him to Dave Kleiman. Many items associated to the leak were shown to be backdated. One leaked item claimed to describe a 1.1 million BTC loan from Wright to Kleiman.
Wright apparantly believes that Kleiman, who died in 2013, had a large stash of bitcoins and he wants to establish a claim on these. If he could be accepted as Satoshi Nakamoto, it would lend credibility to his claims on the supposed fortune.
Re: I’m Sorry
#167Worth pointing out that the BBC has followed up with another post. Wright asked them to send a small Bitcoin amount to the address used in the first Bitcoin transaction, and he would send it back to the BBC to prove he is Satoshi. The BBC sent their Bitcoin, and then Wright deleted his website.
Re: I’m Sorry
#168He 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…
As someone mostly in the dark about bitcoin and the community around it, why does this matter at all? Why do people care who created it at this stage, and if that person should come forth, what would the impact be? What could such a person realistically do?
Re: I’m Sorry
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have suggested it's possible that the real Satoshi could have destroyed or not kept the original private key, or it belongs with one of the other, now deceased team members. Is there anything to gain by not admitting to it if this were the case? Even if a message were to be signed with the original key, people suggest that it would still not be proof as it could have been stolen or extorted. It seems there is…
The Satoshi coins can be publicly destroyed so they will never be spent. Transfer them all to an address like 1BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB. This is much more trustworthy than leaving it in doubt whether the coins can ever be recovered or not.
Well, in the "scorched earth" scenario, it would be more accurate to say that they "could have been" publicly destroyed. It's not clear to me why public destruction is necessarily a part of abandoning the identity. I don't understand what you mean by "trustworthy", though; if the identity is abandoned, then what's to trust?
Re: I’m Sorry
#170The only scenario wherein Craig Wright could actually be Satoshi is if Satoshi had burned his bridges -- in the process of abandoning the Satoshi identity, he had deleted all cryptographic evidence of the identity; all private keys and credentials for online accounts. In that case, if he later (now) decided to assert the identity, then he might be tempted to cobble together fake proof to get his foot in the door far…
People have suggested it's possible that the real Satoshi could have destroyed or not kept the original private key, or it belongs with one of the other, now deceased team members. Is there anything to gain by not admitting to it if this were the case? Even if a message were to be signed with the original key, people suggest that it would still not be proof as it could have been stolen or extorted. It seems there is…
> Is there anything to gain by not admitting to it if this were the case?
Well, if CSW is Satoshi (I think it's pretty clear that he is not; this is more of a theoretical exercise) then his attempts to gain enough credibility to at least communicate with the people that can verify (through social proof) that he is Satoshi would not be helped by making a claim like that, since it is impossible to prove.
My problem is that I don't have a good idea of why CSW is going to this trouble to claim to be Satoshi; the idea that he's a regretful post-scorched-earth Satoshi at least would be a credible motive, even if extraordinarily unlikely. The only other options are that he hopes to gain something -- maybe obtain employment or loans on the back of the reputation of Satoshi.