Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
No.

That is somebody sending coins to the address corresponding to the public key in the block 9 generation output.
ok, i must be missing something obvious. why are the coins from this address 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S splitting then?:

https://blockchain.info/tree/14862

edit: i see those spends were from 2009. that block was mined by Satoshi, correct? i guess he did spend some of his coinbase back in 2009? is that one of the Hal Finney txs?
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Regardless of whether or not he really is Satoshi, he's made a significant accusation against Adam Back.

This claim can be investigated completely independently of the identity of Satoshi:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/consistency-distribution-transactions/
yes, i was glad to see that.

he not only smacked Backtrack but also troll academic Emin Gun Sirer and his selfish mining attack theory.
[doublepost=1462211603][/doublepost]
yes, i was glad to see that.

he not only smacked Backtrack but also troll academic Emin Gun Sirer and his selfish mining attack theory.
that paper also lends supreme credence to our theory that miners are in complete control of the size of blocks they create; no matter the block limit.

no wonder core hates this guy.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Regardless of whether or not he really is Satoshi, he's made a significant accusation against Adam Back.

This claim can be investigated completely independently of the identity of Satoshi:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/consistency-distribution-transactions/
He is correct on that one.

If you look at Adam's code, in hashcash.c, there's a function count_collision_bits(...).

That function counts the number of bits that are equal.

Bitcoin uses a difficulty target and tries to make the hash smaller than that. It looks like he's mentioning that difference in that paragraph.

This is what weirds me out about this - he appears as a con artist, but there are some nuggets of correct, unique information in his writing.

Still, I only believe anything if he goes and publishes a signed message.
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
This is what weirds me out about this - he appears as a con artist, but there are some nuggets of correct, unique information in his writing.
If Ian Grigg's "Satoshi was a team" assertion is true, then that is more understandable.

Still, I only believe anything if he goes and publishes a signed message.
Agree.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@awemany

i agree. CW has to go much further in proving he holds the privkeys of Satoshi before we believe him. but reading this paper of his gave me a surprising eerie feeling of familiarity with Satoshi's writing of his original paper. perhaps it was the clarity and simplicity of explaining his message that seemed familiar. i'm certainly not a writing expert but still:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/consistency-distribution-transactions/
[doublepost=1462212684][/doublepost]
It seems obvious to me that he is Satoshi.

Can't wait until further evidence comes through and BS people lose totally their face.
Core has already lost all credibility.

to proclaim that 1MB is some sort of Magic Number that should be adhered to is hogwash. they've never presented any evidence that centralization would increase significantly enough for Bitcoin to fail if the limit was lifted according to Satoshi's original design. of course miners can control their self constructed block sizes. of course they are economically incentivized to do so. of course it's highly unlikely for a miner to self construct a non std megablock to gain some sort of foolish advantage; it's never been done before and likely never will. and of course we can protect against that if necessary with sigops limits. and of course we should let Bitcoin grow to it's natural equilibrium maximum size onchain.
 
Last edited:

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
FTA: "Andresen says an administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a
computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a
Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box. They installed the Bitcoin
software Electrum on that machine. For their test, Andresen chose the
message “Gavin’s favorite number is eleven.” Wright added his initials,
“CSW,” and signed the message on his own computer. Then he put the signed
message on a USB stick belonging to Andresen and they transferred it to the
new laptop, where Andresen checked the signature."

As Gavin, I would not have agreed to that. I'd have said: Ok, lets go to a store and buy a laptop together. And lets also buy a recent Linux distro, shrink-wrapped (with a recent Electrum on it).
And from there on until successful proof never leaving the computer out of one's eye.

“It’s certainly possible I was bamboozled,” Andresen says. “I could spin
stories of how they hacked the hotel Wi-fi so that the insecure connection
gave us a bad version of the software. But that just seems incredibly
unlikely. It seems the simpler explanation is that this person is Satoshi.”

Given this is Bitcoin, you'd expect someone to be sufficiently paranoid with any claims!
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Andy Greenberg managed to get some more details out of Gavin, but nothing conclusive.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/
hmm, sort of the same feeling i got when i read that reference above:

But Wright followed up with a series of emails that piqued Andresen’s interest. “This is a person who knows an awful lot about Bitcoin and an awful lot about early Bitcoin stuff,” Andresen says. “The email conversations I had [with him] sounded like Satoshi to me. It sounded like I was talking to the same person I’d worked with way back when. That convinced me to get on an airplane.”
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
All day I've wondered why more people aren't talking about Ian Grigg's blog post, and I think that maybe because they don't know who he is.

Notice that he wasn't at the London meeting - he's vouching for the authenticity based on direct personal knowledge independent of what Gavin and Jon Matonis were shown.

In other words, he's claiming that he's known all along who made up the Satoshi team, and has been part of a small circle of people protecting the secret.

Obviously, he either can not or has not proved this, but since it's coming from him it's worth considering as a possibility.
 

BldSwtTrs

Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
196
583
haq4good on twitter claimed in private circles that he had meet the guy who would become Satoshi once at a hacking event.

Within that conversation he seems to agree it's him:
"@dakami Right about most of this, except that its not the misdirection you think it is."
 
Last edited:

JVWVU

Active Member
Oct 10, 2015
142
177
This is me reading JVP tweeting BB


[doublepost=1462218834][/doublepost]
All day I've wondered why more people aren't talking about Ian Grigg's blog post, and I think that maybe because they don't know who he is.

Notice that he wasn't at the London meeting - he's vouching for the authenticity based on direct personal knowledge independent of what Gavin and Jon Matonis were shown.

In other words, he's claiming that he's known all along who made up the Satoshi team, and has been part of a small circle of people protecting the secret.

Obviously, he either can not or has not proved this, but since it's coming from him it's worth considering as a possibility.
I dont think he was the only one.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
I don't care who Satoshi is, but if he is going to the trouble of unmasking then I do care that he does it properly. So that whatever he says about Bitcoin development, and adhering to his original vision, gets taken seriously.

For a group that covers a huge range of subjects the ZH people do have their finger on the pulse:
As the Verge reminds us, even before the Wright news, the system was in bad shape, with transactions taking as long as 43 minutes to work through an overstuffed network. Efforts to fix those issues have split the community in two, as Core and Classic developers move forward with two different versions of the Bitcoin software.
 

jbreher

Active Member
Dec 31, 2015
166
526
those who've understood Sound Money. they've won on both ends; appreciation of their coin and efficiency of their time and labor (as in not having to do a thing!).
Well, only if we can exclude the time and effort spent trawling various interweb fora, jawboning about the topic.

Cheers!
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
The quickness with which the commit access was yanked reeks of a strategic move beyond security... as if noone would notice a new commit from Gavin which had a nefarious purpose.

Whatever the result, the rift is beyond fixing. Fuckin' bitcoin.