111–120 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It appears that someone else (definitely not Hal) has the private key to that address. So Paul le Roux, by the message? > 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3 is Hal Finney's (Not Satoshi's) address. Where do you get this? EDIT: I am proposing not that Paul LeRoux is Satoshi, but that he is in possession of Hal's key, and produced that signature as a troll.
I would believe it if the signature came from one of Satoshi's addresses, but this is not it.
For those downplaying the claim based on the source, this is irrelevant. The signature and the public key are all that are needed. The author is irrelevant to verification, although he probably has an interesting story to tell about how he came about this message and signature.
The payment was locked to this address:
1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3
The first payment can be viewed here:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57...
You can see that this payment was included in block 170. The network produces ~144 blocks/day. So this transaction occurred almost at the launch of the network.
Hal Finney has claimed, without proof AFAIK, that this payment was made by Satoshi to him:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0
The implication is that a private key known by Finney signed the message claiming that Satoshi was Paul Le Roux. The latter was the subject of a piece speculating that he was Satsoshi:
https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...
This doesn't necessarily mean that Finney was involved. You can browse the transaction history associated with the address here:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwx...
As you can see, a signed transaction was published as late as ~2018~ 2017. Finney died in 2014.
So there are a few possibilities for what's going on, including:
1. Finney is not dead.
2. Finney's private key was leaked to someone who signed the message.
3. secp256k1 cryptography (the kind used for Bitcoin signatures) is now broken.
4. Finney signed the message sometime before he died.
Given that few outside of Bitcoin know about Finney's legendary status, (3) seems unlikely because the attacker could have just signed with the private key for the genesis block.
This leaves (1) and (2), and (4). I'm doubtful about (1). Finney suffered from a horrible, fatal disease and it was obvious in the interviews he gave.
The most likely explanations are (2) and (4) IMO. The presence of the transactions signed after Finney's death is consistent with (2).
When a Bitcoin payment is spent, the private key often has little monetary value (but a lot of privacy value). So the cryptographic material encoding it might be treated in ways allowing it to be used by others.
Then again, it's possible that Finney signed the message, later died, and his private key was leaked.
However, you slice it, this is not clear cut. There are various kinds of evidence that would make it more so, but AFAICT, they have not yet surfaced.
Edit: Maybe Finney signed the 2017 transaction before he died and then it was later published. This kind of thing might be done for estate planning (although not a good idea). The transaction:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/70ec308460a38f6de25f89c6ed...
spends three coins locked to the 1Q2 address and is dated 2017-09-05. However, one of the coins was only appeared in 2017. This raises the question of where that coin came from and whether it could have been minted before Finney's death.
Can someone who knows more than me about the internals of bitcoin help me understand: 1) Is there a place on a blockchain explorer somewhere where I could find the signature that Shkreli has posted? I tried looking up the wallet address and found the transaction from Jan 2009, but I don't see that signature anywhere. 2) The reason I ask the first question is that I believe that if the private key is compromised, then…
1) Not all signatures are on chain. All that is needed is to post the signature somewhere and verify it with the message and public key. 2) Whoever has the private key can produce the signature, and the signature can only be produced by someone who has the private key (assuming the cryptography is secure)
If it appears somewhere associated with that transaction, that’s pretty strong evidence that Shkreli is correct.
If it does not appear on chain at all, then Shkreli is wrong and his post proves nothing about the identity of Satoshi.
Craig Wright is pulling his hair out rn
For those who don't know: > Craig Steven Wright (born October 1970)[1] is an Australian computer scientist and businessman. He has publicly claimed to be the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. These claims are regarded as false by much of the media and the cryptocurrency community. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an original idea. It was popularized a few years ago by Evan Ratliff, author of a book about Paul Le Roux, 'The Mastermind' Convenient for the author to discover the link to Le Roux. Then talk about it on podcasts while promoting his book, and have articles written about him. All Shkreli does is promote himself to get eyes on whatever he's doing next. You can't ignore the incentives. It's difficult to prove…
Also, my question means: How did he figure out how to decrypt that hash into the plain text message?
He explains it during this stream here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjE4dEX2z9E
You can just watch the first 10-ish minutes to get the gist.
He gets the same push back he's getting here. Still confidently says "Paul Le Roux is Satoshi."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless I'm grossly mistaken, it seems Shkreli doesn't understand the basics of cryptography because he's using incorrect terminology here. The signature isn't encrypted at all, it's just a piece of data (a hash, if you will) that was generated using the private key associated with the wallet in question. In order to generate the signature, you need to have a message to sign, and a private key. All Shkreli has shown i…
A public key signature works by encrypting the hash with the private key, to verify you decrypt the hash with the pubic key and check it against your own hash of the payload. Edit: No argument with your second point, just pointing out the mechanism does involve the signature being an encrypted form of a plaintext hash/message digest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure created a gmx.de account around the turn of the Millennium and I'm not from a German speaking country. They had an email service and I needed an email. The problem with absolute statements is that they always get it wrong.
The interesting thing is that satoshi was using a gmx.com address, emphasis on the .com. Those were only available to paying customers of GMX.de.
I've always believed it is Nick Szabo.
However, I do think Nick Szabo is the mysterious "Nicolas van Saberhagen" creator of Monero. Besides, Monero aligns more with his ideology. Bitcoin is supremely traceable and a handy tool for government. Monero, not so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an original idea. It was popularized a few years ago by Evan Ratliff, author of a book about Paul Le Roux, 'The Mastermind' Convenient for the author to discover the link to Le Roux. Then talk about it on podcasts while promoting his book, and have articles written about him. All Shkreli does is promote himself to get eyes on whatever he's doing next. You can't ignore the incentives. It's difficult to prove…
The question is where did he get the signature from?
He explains it during this stream here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjE4dEX2z9E
Someone else suggested he could have bought the signature. It wouldn't surprise me.
Would also explain why Satoshi went silent since the guy is sitting in federal prison. When is he getting out? I would sell my BTC before he can move all those coins. It would be in the interest of the Bitcoin community to agree on a fork to start burning those large wallets that are know to belong to Satoshi ensuring future stability.
A cursory Google suggests that Satoshi's last communication was on April 26, 2011. Paul Le Roux was arrested on September 25th, 2012.