Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
drcraigwright.net
Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#2What is the point of that base64 string at the top? In the context of the article, I thought it would be a signature of "Craig Wright" or "Craig Wright, Satoshi", but it's only a base64 encoded string of one the earlier things he wrote:
% base64 --decode Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#3Still, questions remain. Mr Wright does not want to make public the proof for block 1, arguing that block 9 contains the only bitcoin address that is clearly linked to Mr Nakamoto (because he sent money to Hal Finney). Repeating the procedure for other blocks, he says, would not add more certainty. He also says he can’t send any bitcoin because they are now owned by a trust. And he rejected the idea of having The Economist send him another text to sign as proof that he actually possesses these private keys, rather than simply being the first to publish a proof which was generated at some point in the past by somebody else. Either people believe him now—or they don’t, he says. “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”
This is a quote from the Economist article [1], and it succinctly summarizes the biggest criticism of this blog post. This blog post presents a single signed message, of a quote from half a century ago. Why did Dr. Wright not sign a message that is more direct, such as "I confirm that Craig Wright is Satoshi, and am making it public as of May 2016"?
Along that line, why is he refusing to sign more messages? A smart individual such as Satoshi would recognize that given the context, people would naturally doubt a single statement. It would not take him more than a few minutes to sign a dozen or two messages from various sources, which would essentially guarantee that he holds the private key.
I do not care for the non-technical arguments that other people presented, such as difference in personality, etc. However, it would be incredibly easy for the true Satoshi to put the issue to rest, by simply:
1. Sign several custom messages with his PGP key dating to 2008
2. Sign several custom messages with his block 9 private key
3. Prove that he owns the first blocks by moving them around.
Doing these things (even if he doesn't do all 3) would take him a few minutes at most. I question this roundabout 'sign a Sartre quote and call it a day' method, which would probably increase intrigue and reduce his privacy, which doesn't seem desirable.
This action by Dr. Wright is rather futile- it doesn't positively confirm anything for those who doubt him, and it won't affect those who believe him.
[1] http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steve...
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#4Are you telling me that the inventor of bitcoin has:
document.onmousedown=disableclick;
status="Sorry, not sharing images!";
function disableclick(event)
{
if(event.button==2)
{
alert(status);
return false;
}
}
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#5What is the point of that base64 string at the top? In the context of the article, I thought it would be a signature of "Craig Wright" or "Craig Wright, Satoshi", but it's only a base64 encoded string of one the earlier things he wrote: % base64 --decode
That's what he signed.
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#6What is the point of that base64 string at the top? In the context of the article, I thought it would be a signature of "Craig Wright" or "Craig Wright, Satoshi", but it's only a base64 encoded string of one the earlier things he wrote: % base64 --decode
That's what he signed.
Except no, that's not what he signed. Have you checked it before saying so?
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#7Looks like the proof is not valid and does not prove Wright is Satoshi [1].
So the question becomes what is Wright trying to do by providing fake proofs?
And I wonder if the press/reporters even bothered to verify the proof or they were caught in the craze to publish breaking news.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hf4xj/creator_of_...
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#8r/bitcoin is calling bullshit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrigh...
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#9What is the point of that base64 string at the top? In the context of the article, I thought it would be a signature of "Craig Wright" or "Craig Wright, Satoshi", but it's only a base64 encoded string of one the earlier things he wrote: % base64 --decode
That's what he signed.
[deleted]
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
#10Are you telling me that the inventor of bitcoin has: document.onmousedown=disableclick; status="Sorry, not sharing images!"; function disableclick(event) { if(event.button==2) { alert(status); return false; } } on his blog?
Good catch! My thoughts: I imagine the post with the information that's easy to verify, it would have numbers (and files) that could be easily copied, not images that need to be OCR-ed or retyped. So why images? Only to postpone the moment of the verification or the rejection of the claims. Only somebody who wants to postpone that would come to both to the idea of using the images and attempting to make the saving of the images harder. The goal is also supported by having the rambling post, unnecessary references, unverifiable old text segment. So the post's purpose then isn't to prove something but to be a stumbling block long enough for something to happen, like completing some nice media contracts, maybe? And he can later sell that event even as "How I tricked BBC to write 'His admission ends years of speculation.'"