Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Epilido]

This should be interesting. I have been saving up my popcorn.

Sign messages from early coins
Creator of Bitcoin digital cash reveals identity

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

 

[freetrader]

Oh yeah, popcorn time.

http://www.drcraigwright.net/

 

[Dusty]

Sign messages from early coins

Mmmm I would like to verify signatures...

I'll leave this one here: https://medium.com/@Aquentys/on-the-theology-of-hardforks-312ab2f0ca9b

 

[lunar]

Who are you? And how did you get into Bitcoin? ..... I am a bit of everything.

And then there's this....
Small blockers might be in for a surprise?

from his website

Be assured, just as you have worked, I have not been idle during these many years. Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi, I have poured every measure of myself into research. I have been silent, but I have not been absent. I have been engaged with an exceptional group and look forward to sharing our remarkable work when they are ready.

Satoshi is dead.

But this is only the beginning.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

I was flown to London to meet Dr. Wright a couple of weeks ago, after an initial email conversation convinced me that there was a very good chance he was the same person I’d communicated with in 2010 and early 2011. After spending time with him I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt: Craig Wright is Satoshi.

 

[sickpig]

Gavin and Matonis on Satoshi identity

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.it/2016/05/how-i-met-satoshi.html

Craig Wright's blog post with signature:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/

edit: I've spent a few minutes procrastinating real work reading r/bitcoin posts, It is something you could do is really funny. We humans are quite strange

 

[Dusty]

It's always Popcorn Time with Bitcoin!

 

[Zarathustra]

I think only look at the exchange rate is just short sighted. No central banks look at the exchange rate of their currency to decide their monetary policy, money is only one of the tool to facilitate certain activities

I even think letting the free market decide (e.g. everyone seeking maximum profit from their own point of view) is not going to help

Just look at the example of classic mining fund: you can rent hash power to mine classic blocks. And one of the chinese miners openly said if you pay 2000 btc they will assign 10P to mine classic blocks. So miners just discovered a new way to make money: Create political conflicts in the community and assign hash power to the highest bidder

You can see, following this route how corrupted the whole bitcoin ecosystem will quickly become. Without regulation for market participants, everyone will invent a way to make money by utilizing the system weakness of the market, and try to change the rules to benefit them more

I think blockchain qualifies as a innovation in transaction technology, but it does not qualify as a means to solve the centralization and the following corruption problem. In fact it might evolve into the most corrupted place in the world since there is no regulation

Well written. But there is regulation. Markets are always controlled and regulated by power (force/organized violence); the Superman. State power or/and corporate power.


Bitcoin became controlled by mining pools in a totalitarian territory (government involved?) and their accomplices at Blockstream/PwC/Axa. It is nothing less than regulation by organized violence. If there is antifragility in satoshis design, then within the invention of the cryptocoin, not within Bitcoin.

 

[Norway]

From the Echonomist, http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin


It pays, too, to bear in mind that Mr Wright’s outing will most likely be of benefit to those in the current bitcoin civil war who want to expand the block size quickly, whose number include Mr Matonis and Mr Andresen.

Mr Wright says that if he could reinvent bitcoin, he would program in a steady increase of the block size. He also intends to publish mathematical proof that there is no trade-off between the mass adoption of the cryptocurrency and its remaining decentralised.

Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies.

And he is already trying to undermine the credibility of the faction that wants bitcoin to grow only slowly. In an article in the press kit accompanying the publication of his blog post, he takes aim at Gregory Maxwell, one of the leading bitcoin developers, who first claimed that the cryptographic keys in Mr Wright’s leaked documents were backdated.

“Even experts have agendas,” he writes, “and the only means to ensure that trust is valid is to hold experts to a greater level of scrutiny.”

EDIT: Linear napkin math gives me 10 transactions per day for every person on the planet with 340 gigabyte blocks.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Hm. If this turns out to be wrong (and apparently there is no proof, only a hokum blog post without any real content) Gavin is done.
If Wright fooled Gavin and he fell for it we won't have big blocks in the foreseeable future...

 

[sickpig]

I don't know what to think about all this Wright =? Satoshi story but it is surely something that doesn't let me focus on actual work:

There is a common, but false, belief that Adam Back is the original source of the hash puzzle used in bitcoin. This belief derives from the paper’s references to ‘Hashcash’ [2]. Instead, we find the base algorithm defined on page 4 of ‘DOS-resistant authentication with client puzzles’ [12]. The authors did not release code, and a modified protocol and code were used in the bitcoin core release of 2009.

that said I find it odd you could not copy text (ctrl+c) from dr. Wright site pages....

 

[8up]

 

[Justus Ranvier]

(and apparently there is no proof, only a hokum blog post without any real content)

The real proof apparently has yet to be published.

For cryptographic proof in my presence, Craig signed and verified a message using the private key from block #1 newly-generated coins and from block #9 newly-generated coins (the first transaction to Hal Finney).

Part of that time was spent on a careful cryptographic verification of messages signed with keys that only Satoshi should possess.

Possession of the block #1 key is strong (but not perfect) evidence of being Satoshi.

 

[Norway]

Looks like the smallblockers are going full retard.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

The real proof apparently has yet to be published.

I hope so. Or Gavin sadly lost his credibility.

Neither Gavin nor Matonis are experts in crypto. When Gavin joined this forum he signed a general "I'm Gavin Andresen" message instead of a "I'm Gavin Andresen joining the bitco.in forum on xx/xxxx" message. I'm not too sure Gavin couldn't be fooled by a convincing salesman... In his blog post he mentions that the "verification" has been done on a "clean computer". Why didn't he (and everyone else) verify the message on their computers/smartphones?
I'm not convinced but I hope there comes more.

And I'm not getting anything productive done either @sickpig

 

[Justus Ranvier]

http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Still, as far as we can tell he indeed seems to be in possession of the keys, at least for block 9.

It would be nice if they would have published the message which was signed by the key for block 9.

 

[Peter R]

I was almost asleep and then I saw the Craig Wright news.

As pointed out by JoukeH, the signature in Craig Wright's blog post is just the base64 encoded signature of the only transaction in block #248. (Incidentally, the first transaction (as reported by the bitcoin wiki's "history page") was this transaction from block #170 between Satoshi and Hal Finney.)

This entire blog post is full of red flags. Craig Wright claims he is Satoshi and then encodes the clear-text string "Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi." in base64 (thereby making it appear like a Bitcoin signature)

He then gives a long-winded (and poorly written) explanation of key verification. In this explanation, he first claims to have the public-private keypair that "just so happens" to correspond with this early bitcoin transaction (yet doesn't mention the significance of this pubkey)

He then verifies a signature (which the reader is lead to believe came from him signing some file with his "public-private keypair,") to this pubkey. However, the signature is nothing more than the base64 encoded version of the signature that spent the coins in the first place (meaning that he hasn't provided any evidence that he controls the private part of the public-private keypair).

So I'm confused. The people who could understand that the pubkey used in Wright's example corresponds to the transaction in block #248 could also easily confirm that the signature was just copied from that very same transaction (hence Wright hasn't proven anything [but nor did he explicitly claim to have provided proof]). So was this really supposed to fool people? I don't get it. But if you're just using this pubkey and signature as an example, then tell the reader where you got the pubkey and signature from, don't mislead the reader by saying that you have the public-private keypair, and also explain that you extracted the signature from the blockchain and then converted it to base64 (I guess to make it look like a signature that a piece of software may have actually output?), otherwise it looks like you're being intentionally misleading.

And what the heck is this?

 

[awemany]

@Peter R.: Very weird indeed. You have met @Gavin Andresen in person. From what I've read and the videos I watched, it is still hard to believe for me that he's that gullible.

Has his .ninja site been hacked? Is there some data still missing?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

1. Gavin Andresen, Jon Matonis, and some journalists all publish articles claiming to have been present for an in-person proof that Wright controls the private keys for block #1 and #9. The messages which were supposedly signed and the corresponding signature have not, as of yet, been published for anyone else to verify.
2. Wright publishes a blog post containing a tutorial for how to use OpenSSL to verify signatures, and does not contain a message signed with the private keys for block #1 or block #9.
3. Bitcoin Core wastes no time doing what they've been looking for an excuse to do for months or years: demand an explanation and then immediately revoke Gavin's commit access before he's had a chance to respond.

What could be going on?

• Hoax: Wright does not hold the private keys for blocks #1 or #9. The people who have claimed to see the proofs are mislead/compelled/complicit.
• Not a hoax: Wright really does hold those private keys, and has signed messages with them, and messages demonstrating this will be published at some point.

 

[Peter R]

@awemany: Yes, I've met Gavin in person as well as talked with him on the phone and by email. This seems out of character for him, unless there is more information that we don't know (Edit: such as what @Justus Ranvier just said about blocks #1 and #9).

But still--just the fact that this sketchy blog post exists makes it seem like a hoax.

 

[freetrader]

Whatever is going on, popcorn sellers will make good business.

However, if this turns out to be a con it will have been very damaging for Bitcoin, sadly.