Craig Wright suing developers to forcibly give him access to internet coins

My favorite was him posting the fake signing and then when he was called out on it he posted a "Goodbye to the world" style message on his blog after taking it down.

May 2nd, 2016:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160502071722/http://www.drcrai...

May 7th, 2016:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160507165900/http://www.drcrai...

If he really were Satoshi, he could literally prove it in 4 seconds beyond any shadow of a doubt. Instead he obfuscates with things like Tulip Trusts that can't be touched until January 1, 2020 and then that date comes and goes (over 2 years ago now!) and nothing happens.

https://coingeek.com/what-is-the-tulip-trust/

Accused of forgery and perjury by at least one Judge:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/judge-slams-craig-wright-for-...

And then in 2017 he got the bright idea to start filing patent after patent on anything to do with Blockchain. Why did he wait 8 years after he "invented" it?

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/craig-steven-wright

There are like a hundred patents there from 2017 and after!

And he has two doctorate degrees (one in Theology!) with two more on the way and a dozen other degrees and certifications. The man is a wonder!

I think he's pinning his hopes on the assumption that if courts say his fork is Bitcoin, his chain is the one that exchanges regulated in Western countries will trade as Bitcoin, and therefore his fork is the one that dumb money that's heard Bitcoin is going to the moon and hasn't heard of Craig Wright or forks will buy. If actual cryptoenthusiasts are too disgusted to even sell off their tokens on his fork, that just helps his token sales

The moment someone touches them their value will tank. Part of the bitcoin speculation is that massive wallets like this one are frozen and out of the market. When people "invest" by buying hundredths of bitcoin, someone reintroducing 1.1 million will make them wary.

These wallets might as well be considered trip wired, some people monitor them constantly.

> You can recover a private key from two signatures if they reuse the same nonce.

You can, but you can also do a lot more than that. Thinking that this is the only attack is a common error, and precisely the one Wright was making in that recording.

Two signatures with different messages and the same key and message is just a special case of the fact that if you write out the signing equation as a linear system with privkey and nonce being unknown, and the message and signatures being the knows if the resulting matrix is exactly determined or over-determined, then you can solve for the unknown values.

It would also be the case that if you had two signatures with the same key and the nonces being any known multiple of each other that it's just as solvable.

There are other attack approaches, for example if you have a set of signatures where you know the leading bits of the nonce you can also recover the keys by solving a hidden number problem. (If you only know the single leading bit it'll take a few hundred signatures).

Cryptosystems are inherently fragile. The security assumptions of these schemes demand a uniformly random nonce. Deviation from the required property easily destroys security in practically exploitable ways.

The person Wright was arguing with was pointing out that if Wright had the private keys in question -- turns out he didn't-- it wouldn't be impossible that he obtained them after observing a single insecurely generated signature. Wright drove the discussion down a tangent with an argument that one couldn't recover a key with a single signature-- a false claim, but even if it were true it wouldn't really have supported his case.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Wright is continually spouting literal gibberish and technobabble, he's technical inept to the point of hilarity. For example, when asked to explain some C code he claimed that the line declaring a double-type variable were doubling the values.

Beyond his ineptitude, Wright has repeatedly claimed he would provide proof, but then when his 'proof' is exposed to expert analysis it turns out to be a provable forgery. Not just once, but over and over again. Forged emails, forged pgp keys, forged digital signatures, forged invoices, forged whitepaper drafts. Not merely falsifiable but actually falsified.

It's certantly possible that Satoshi lost whatever keys he had-- but if so he isn't saying anything about it. The idea that Satoshi would lose keys and then make a clown out of himself is just not parsimonious.

What is parsimonious is that we know for a fact that Wright has been selling his "fortune" to suckers for a number of years now-- the setup of a classic Nigerian scam: I am a prince in exile but with a small advance from you I can access a vast fortune which I will gladly share with you. At first his excuse was that he couldn't touch the coins without risking the AU government seizing them (due to stealing millions from AU with fraudulent rebates), then his excuse was that the coins were secured by a "bonded courier" (think of the end of Back to the Future 2) and wouldn't be delivered until Jan 2020, and most recently he claims that in Feb 2020 hackers entered his home and hid a 'wifi pineapple' to penetrate his network and steal his coins (of course, the coins haven't moved on the blockchain)...