51–60 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Craig Wright is commonly known as "Faketoshi" in the community due to how much he claims he is Satoshi.
Another theory says that is the perfect way to hide in plain sight if you were the real Satosh
Evidence: * Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects. * Both Le Roux and Satoshi work in C++. * Wright claimed in legal filings to have been involved with Le Roux. * Allegedly, Wright and a friend have built a cluster of computers to crack secrets, which the theory presumes to be the password for a TrueCrypt volume with Le Roux's bitcoin key. * Le Roux has an alias, "Solotshi", which sounds like…
(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if he were found to have upended both the cryptographic industry and financial industry How exactly has he up-ended the financial industry? None of the differences in how 99.9% of the world pays for things, over the past 10 years, have anything to do with BTC. How has he upended the cryptographic industry? Nobody actually building products, or using cryptography for useful things is basing it off BTC. BTC created a…
Name one major bank not working on blockchain tech right now. I guess an upending isn't a totally accurate description but I haven't seen banks this motivated to innovate in a long time.
Name one major bank actually shipping something blockchain related that works better then what we had before.
Major banks occasionally announce that they are tinkering with it. There's a couple of reasons for why they do so.
1. Some senior engineer who is personally interested in cryptocurrencies with political clout wants to work on a hobby project, and is chums with his boss, who said yes. It's never going to see the light of day, but who said big institutions are smart?
2. They want to be seen as hip places for engineering talent. What better way to do so, then to claim that there's people in the organization working on magical unicorns (Even though none of their work will ever see the light of day.)
3. Idiot board members/shareholders who don't understand anything about banking or crypto are asking directors 'What are you doing about crypto,' so the company builds a Potemkin village, to tick a checkbox on their next quarterly earnings call. The village will be torn down, and the villagers shot, as soon as this checkbox disappears.
In short, the list of valid reasons for a bank to work on cryptocurrency are:
1. Someone with pull started a vanity project that slipped past the beancounters.
2. Cynical marketing for purposes of developer outreach.
3. Covering-your-ass against a powerful idiot, who wants to know why you are busy doing real work, instead of chasing a fad that he read about on Buzzfeed.
Notice how this list omits "Building a useful product that will make us more money."
After 7 years in the crypto space, I'm still not convinced of any particular Satoshi theory. That being said, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, and Paul Le Roux all have decent evidence pointing to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the "new evidence" mentioned in the headline?
The only "new" bit of verifiable information is that a link to Paul Le Roux's Wikipedia page appears unredacted in a document presented by Wright in which most other specific names are redacted because he claimed their exposure could put him at risk (implication being that he helped put criminals away). Everything else just starts from "Le Roux may be Satoshi" and employs conspiracy theorist logic to get there ("He u…
I'm inclined to think there aren't many people in the world who possess the skills necessary and at the same time the need to preserve absolute anonymity at all costs.
The number of (non governmental) people in the world who intersect those two things really can't be more than a handful.
To be clear, I'm not saying I believe all this - just that there is a fair amount more to it than similar aliases. I'd be interested to see some analysis of the C++ code in both projects to see if they share any idiosyncrasies.
Because it just sounds like the type of movie that Hollywood can sell. I mean Hollywood loves to glorify violence, and people already think that Bitcoin is mainly about criminal activity.
However I am hoping that La Roux is not Satoshi, or at least that it is never proven. Because the association with criminal activities detracts from the positive effects that cryptocurrency can have in terms of improving society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only "new" bit of verifiable information is that a link to Paul Le Roux's Wikipedia page appears unredacted in a document presented by Wright in which most other specific names are redacted because he claimed their exposure could put him at risk (implication being that he helped put criminals away). Everything else just starts from "Le Roux may be Satoshi" and employs conspiracy theorist logic to get there ("He u…
Well, the TrueCrypt link (if proven) is very interesting. Both TrueCrypt and Bitcoin share similar ideologies and both are extraordinary ambitious feats of (anonymous) C++ engineering. I'm inclined to think there aren't many people in the world who possess the skills necessary and at the same time the need to preserve absolute anonymity at all costs. The number of (non governmental) people in the world who intersect…
I don't think anyone is capable of faking that for long unless they tried to make it as generic as possible`.