51–60 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. According to the paper they not only transferred the money, and they did it in 445 chunks of 324 bitcoins each (and one chunk with the remainder). 324 spells FBI on a phone keypad.
Why would they sign the transaction that way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd make a reasonable bet that those motions were to one of the early exchanges, — based on the timing, maybe Britcoin. I'd consider it doubtful that the later owner of those funds was the same as the earlier one. I'm not sure why they'd hypothesize that someone who apparently used Bitcoin only some time after it was widely made public, and then used it in a rather poor manner anonymity wise (the aggregation), was th…
I agree. When Shamir wrote the first Bitcoin paper over a year ago, we in the Bitcoin community eagerly awaited the paper, looking forward to the revelation of some obscure new security flaw, or other issue. Imagine our surprise when we realized that not only did the paper not reveal anything new (Satoshi mined many of the early coins -- Eureka!), but that in order to do their analysis, they scraped the entire blockc…
You mean 'when Ron and Shamir wrote their first Bitcoin paper'? as there were several prior papers about Bitcoin; including one myself and a co-author wrote on a similar topic in 2011.
We obtained our data directly from the blockchain, using a modified version of Gavin Andresen's bitcointools which we put on github (although its now out of date).
We also made the extracted data available in an easy-to-parse format, for more info see: http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.ie/2011/09/code-dataset...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1reuwq/vigorous_deb...
The real story here is how Adi Shamir can get caught up in such horrible published research, not once - but twice now[0]. They keep referring to blockchain.info as the blockchain, and have again scraped the website (referring to 'HTML output') to get their data - even after it was pointed out to them last time that the websites are just a representation of the blockchain.
You really have to question just how much the authors understand what they are writing about when they don't even understand the blockchain. This research isn't even worthy of a blog post, let alone being published as an academic paper by a noted cryptographer.
Picked apart and debunked within hours of being published. A good summary thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1reuwq/vigorous_deb... The real story here is how Adi Shamir can get caught up in such horrible published research, not once - but twice now[0]. They keep referring to blockchain.info as the blockchain, and have again scraped the website (referring to 'HTML output') to get their data - even after…
I'm not sure THIS is really the issue worth debating. Their first paper states: "On May 13th 2012 we downloaded the full public record of this system in one of its two major forms (1), which consisted of about 180,000 HTML files." "(1) We believe (but did not verify) that these two forms contain exactly the same information, and even if there are tiny differences they are likely to have only a negligible effect on our statistical results."
That, to me, is acknowledgement that they knowingly chose to scrape the website instead of parsing the 'real' blockchain. If I'm guessing, I'd say they did it this way because they had someone with the skills to do the scraping available to them (when all you've got is a hammer...).
> even after it was pointed out to them last time that the websites are just a representation of the blockchain.
Yes, 'just' a representation of the blockchain. Good enough for all their intents and purposes...
But, you know, we could just email them.
The important things to note about the relation between DPR and SN: * There was an account/wallet that was created a week after Bitcoin mining 'commenced' in 2009. * SN was known to have been active in the early mining. However so was Hal Finney (inventor of RPOW). They refer to it as the founder's wallet, but I think it would be more appropriate to think of it as the wallet of an early miner. * This early miner's ac…
I'd make a reasonable bet that those motions were to one of the early exchanges, — based on the timing, maybe Britcoin. I'd consider it doubtful that the later owner of those funds was the same as the earlier one. I'm not sure why they'd hypothesize that someone who apparently used Bitcoin only some time after it was widely made public, and then used it in a rather poor manner anonymity wise (the aggregation), was th…
It stands to reason that Bitcoin's creators would have believed that they needed a killer app as a catalyst to spur acceptance. Silk Road was ideally suited to show off the advantages of Bitcoin over more traditional payment methods. However, Silk Road didn't pop up until nearly two years after Bitcoin was first introduced. This paper is trying to make a connection between a few transactions sent from a very early Bi…
I read the article and I think that they state clearly that the connection between DPR and Satoshi is pure speculation. It is true that they could as well not have mentioned it, but hey, it makes it for a more interesting reading, and as long as the journalists don't get a hold on the paper and print "DPR = Satoshi", no harm done. >It could represent either large scale activity on Silk Road, or some form of investmen…
Does this mean I can sit down and write a similar-form paper consisting of wild speculation about Shamir being financially in bed with the Citi Foundation specifically to write hatchet-job pieces linking trivially-discoverably innocent people to black market drug bazaars?
No, of course not. I'm a nobody. But when Shamir does it, dozens of people spread it to thousands of others and now I}ruid is almost certainly wondering whether he's going to get a knock on his door.
How much more of a dick do you have to be before people in general just agree that it was a shitty thing to do with so little evidence?
It's not interesting, it's reputationally dishonest, and damaging.
Just to reference some of the interesting bits to actual transactions/addresses: Satoshi address - https://blockchain.info/address/12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmk... Satoshi -> DPR transfer - https://blockchain.info/tx/cdcaaa0ff1446d41aae5d32c23da1ff33...
(the owner of the bitcoin address in question): " Dustin D. Trammell Lived in Austin, Texas " (and has since 2002, when Ross lived there) source: https://plus.google.com/116073269295024509653/about
Study debunked, nothing to see here, move along eh? Probably just a big coincidence and they never met or knew each other yet were working in parallel and Trammell's exact coins happened to end up in Ross's hands. The FBI will be all over this soon enough.
Picked apart and debunked within hours of being published. A good summary thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1reuwq/vigorous_deb... The real story here is how Adi Shamir can get caught up in such horrible published research, not once - but twice now[0]. They keep referring to blockchain.info as the blockchain, and have again scraped the website (referring to 'HTML output') to get their data - even after…
> They keep referring to blockchain.info as the blockchain, and have again scraped the website (referring to 'HTML output') to get their data - even after it was pointed out to them last time that the websites are just a representation of the blockchain. I'm not sure THIS is really the issue worth debating. Their first paper states: "On May 13th 2012 we downloaded the full public record of this system in one of its t…