Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Craig Wright's signature is worthless

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#31

Post by cjbprime »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #2

The big question mark for me isn't Wright, it's Gavin. Wright has presented a bunch of bs, no definite proof, and has seemingly not wanted to sign recent or new messages with his PGP key. For all intents and purposes, he's got zero credibility. Then Gavin comes along. A person who worked with Satoshi the longest, communicated with him the most, led the project in practice for years, is a computer scientist and well b…

Gavin's made a statement now:

==

Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.

That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.

I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).

I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post.

==

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p...

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#32

Post by luckystarr »

cookiecaper wrote: post #29
IgorPartola wrote: post #16

What is the value of uncovering who Satoshi is? Or rather what is the value of being considered Satoshi? My pet theories: If Wright is Satoshi and wants to hide the fact, a good way to do that is to come off as a fraud If Wright is not Satoshi but knows who Satoshi is, and wants to protect him, why not just keep quiet? Was someone actually getting close to uncovering the identity and Wright is just trying to muddle t…

> What is the value of uncovering who Satoshi is? Or rather what is the value of being considered Satoshi? Getting the officially stated opinion of the project's founder and rightful BDFL on controversial issues like blocksize.

It kind of seems like a social experiment currently. "Let's drop this Bitcoin thing on the world and see what happens."

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#33

Post by Lxr »

cjbprime wrote: post #31
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #2

The big question mark for me isn't Wright, it's Gavin. Wright has presented a bunch of bs, no definite proof, and has seemingly not wanted to sign recent or new messages with his PGP key. For all intents and purposes, he's got zero credibility. Then Gavin comes along. A person who worked with Satoshi the longest, communicated with him the most, led the project in practice for years, is a computer scientist and well b…

Gavin's made a statement now: == Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Offi…

Who provided the laptop? "Fear it would leak before the Official Announcement" is a pretty weak argument. Why not produce a signed message now?

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#34

Post by danielweber »

nadaviv wrote: post #4
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #2

The big question mark for me isn't Wright, it's Gavin. Wright has presented a bunch of bs, no definite proof, and has seemingly not wanted to sign recent or new messages with his PGP key. For all intents and purposes, he's got zero credibility. Then Gavin comes along. A person who worked with Satoshi the longest, communicated with him the most, led the project in practice for years, is a computer scientist and well b…

Bitcoin Core developers appear to believe that Gavin's computer may have been compromised: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/727078284345917441 > FYI, @gavinandresen's commit access just got removed - Core team members are concerned that he may have been hacked. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609707

That's a tweet that leads back to a YC comment that says nothing about hacking.

Seriously, what's the primary source for thinking

1. Gavin was hacked, or

2. Gavin's access has been removed or modified?

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#35

Post by seren »

Lxr wrote: post #33
cjbprime wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gavin's made a statement now: == Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Offi…

Who provided the laptop? "Fear it would leak before the Official Announcement" is a pretty weak argument. Why not produce a signed message now?

Maybe I am missing something but why the signed message could not have been sent by mail ?

The use of the "brand new laptop" and the fact it was quickly removed really sounds like a con man trick. It sounds like an Orbo demonstration.

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#36

Post by danielweber »

vintermann wrote: post #10
varjag wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist piece alleges Gavin sat through the Wright's demonstration in person and attested it was legit. So either his brain was hacked too or the staff of The Economist is in far reaching conspiracy. Well or the whole hacking story is a BTC factional drama.

Or Gavin just isn't James Randi, and wasn't prepared to uncover deliberate fakes. Wright could very easily faked a demonstration on his own machine. Last time, when Andy Greenberg (who ought to have known better, and in some ways looked like he did) bought the Wright story, I remember thinking maybe he did it for ideological reasons. I.e, he might know Wright isn't Satoshi, but be happy for attention thrown that way,…

> Or Gavin just isn't James Randi, and wasn't prepared to uncover deliberate fakes.

Right, it's very easy to fool a specific person, especially a smart person who thinks they cannot be fooled.

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#37

Post by cjbprime »

seren wrote: post #35
Lxr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who provided the laptop? "Fear it would leak before the Official Announcement" is a pretty weak argument. Why not produce a signed message now?

Maybe I am missing something but why the signed message could not have been sent by mail ? The use of the "brand new laptop" and the fact it was quickly removed really sounds like a con man trick. It sounds like an Orbo demonstration.

You're missing the "fear it would leak before Official Announcement" part.

But there should now be no reason this signed message can't be published.

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#38

Post by auggierose »

Jacqued wrote: post #25
IgorPartola wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but what about the opposite: what is the value of pretending to be rich when you are not? I mean, sure you can probably get a free pizza slice here and there, but what can you actually do?

Check out this classic movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046072/

Love this movie :-)

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#39

Post by simplicio »

fweespee_ch wrote: post #24
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #2

The big question mark for me isn't Wright, it's Gavin. Wright has presented a bunch of bs, no definite proof, and has seemingly not wanted to sign recent or new messages with his PGP key. For all intents and purposes, he's got zero credibility. Then Gavin comes along. A person who worked with Satoshi the longest, communicated with him the most, led the project in practice for years, is a computer scientist and well b…

> To me that's just bizarre. It's like Trump saying he'd be a great president and Obama meeting with him and saying he's the real deal, it'd just wouldn't happen. It would happen if Gavin was Satoshi. Gavin attempts to permanently deflect things on to a smooth talking conman with liquidity problems to maintain his privacy. Hell, he could even give Wright some of the bitcoins as payment for the cover.

But then why not give Wright some convincing evidence to share in public, rather than this weird round-about of using BS public evidence, and then claiming to have seen "secret" convincing evidence? This doesn't only make the case for Wright being Satoshi weaker in the public eye, but draws attention to Gavin. Hardly "deflecting things"

Re: Craig Wright's signature is worthless

#40

Post by petertodd »

cjbprime wrote: post #31
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #2

The big question mark for me isn't Wright, it's Gavin. Wright has presented a bunch of bs, no definite proof, and has seemingly not wanted to sign recent or new messages with his PGP key. For all intents and purposes, he's got zero credibility. Then Gavin comes along. A person who worked with Satoshi the longest, communicated with him the most, led the project in practice for years, is a computer scientist and well b…

Gavin's made a statement now: == Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Offi…

Note that the genesis block is block _#0_, not block #1

When Bitcoin was publicly released, only the genesis block existed, so every block after that point could have been mined by anyone. Craig has already claimed he was an active miner in the early days, and there's a 5 day gap between the timestamps of block #0 and block #1.

Post reply on HN