Is Craig Wright?
cp4space.wordpress.com
Is Craig Wright?
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#2Nice writeup. I know people say not to focus on Wright's writing style, but he sure doesn't sound like someone extremely knowledgeable about bitcoin or cryptography. He sounds like he's writing an undergraduate paper. Given enough time, anyone can cobble together enough references to describe something accurately. But that doesn't read anything like https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
It fails the sniff test for me.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#3Nice writeup. I know people say not to focus on Wright's writing style, but he sure doesn't sound like someone extremely knowledgeable about bitcoin or cryptography. He sounds like he's writing an undergraduate paper. Given enough time, anyone can cobble together enough references to describe something accurately. But that doesn't read anything like https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf It fails the sniff test for me.
What's interesting is that, given enough practice, one could convincingly mimic Satoshi's writing style as some ancillary (unimpeachable tech proof aside) evidence of validity. It seems Wright hasn't even gone that far.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#4More discussion here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11612673
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#5More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11612673
That's a link to "Judge Grants Search Warrant Forcing Woman to Unlock iPhone with Touch ID (macrumors.com)"
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#6Nice write-up explaining the problems, but the killer for me is a hint as to how others may have been fooled:
Note that the antepenultimate line says ‘signiture’ instead
of ‘signature’, so the script doesn’t do what is claimed. In
particular, it reads the signature from the environment
variable ‘signiture’ rather than from the command-line
argument. Hence, if you populate the environment variable
with your own public-key, rather than Satoshi’s, you can
cause the test to pass!
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#7Since everyone is getting called out on nits today, I'm going to point out that he calls "Combinatorial Problems and Exercises" a paper, which means that he's (a) not into combinatorics, because it's an important _book_ in the field; and (b) he can't be bothered to google the thing even though he's going to rip on Wright for referencing it.
I have no idea (or care really) about who is right but there's clearly epic trolling going on here.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#8Nice writeup. I know people say not to focus on Wright's writing style, but he sure doesn't sound like someone extremely knowledgeable about bitcoin or cryptography. He sounds like he's writing an undergraduate paper. Given enough time, anyone can cobble together enough references to describe something accurately. But that doesn't read anything like https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf It fails the sniff test for me.
If you look past the glow of history and the greatness of the underlying idea, the Bitcoin whitepaper itself reads like an undergraduate paper. The original abstract had flagrant spelling errors, and the discussion and C implementation of the Poisson distribution will raise eyebrows among any statisticians or data scientists, who would either not bother to give any proof as trivial or would provide a one-liner in R.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#9Nice write-up explaining the problems, but the killer for me is a hint as to how others may have been fooled: Note that the antepenultimate line says ‘signiture’ instead of ‘signature’, so the script doesn’t do what is claimed. In particular, it reads the signature from the environment variable ‘signiture’ rather than from the command-line argument. Hence, if you populate the environment variable with your own public…
It was not. Gavin's discussion makes zero mention of anything to do with OpenSSL. In the account he gave to Wired, it was Electrum all the way.
Re: Is Craig Wright?
#10Nice write-up explaining the problems, but the killer for me is a hint as to how others may have been fooled: Note that the antepenultimate line says ‘signiture’ instead of ‘signature’, so the script doesn’t do what is claimed. In particular, it reads the signature from the environment variable ‘signiture’ rather than from the command-line argument. Hence, if you populate the environment variable with your own public…
Without getting into Sicilian poison cup arguments around "I knew they'd think that," I find it hard to believe that someone would go to all this trouble, then innocently publish their magic trick to the world in a screenshot like that.
Edit: to be clear, I'm inclined to believe Kaminsky et al that this is a ruse. I just don't think it's that ruse.