Maybe this is why he is coming out - to push Adam Back out.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
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 Maybe I don't get what you are referring to, but aren't these just the known spents from block 9 (to Hal Finney?) from 2009?
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]
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.
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
It seems obvious to me that he is Satoshi.
Can't wait until further evidence comes through and BS people lose totally their face.
Can't wait until further evidence comes through and BS people lose totally their face.
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.
If Ian Grigg's "Satoshi was a team" assertion is true, then that is more understandable.
Agree.
@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]
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.
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]
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:
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/
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/
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!
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!
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.”
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.
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
This is me reading JVP tweeting BB
[doublepost=1462218834][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1462218834][/doublepost]
I dont think he was the only one.
remember what happened this time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)#/media/File:Bitcoin_October_2013.png
[doublepost=1462220069][/doublepost]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)#/media/File:Bitcoin_October_2013.png
[doublepost=1462220069][/doublepost]
it's that little blip down in the center there:
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
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:
For a group that covers a huge range of subjects the ZH people do have their finger on the pulse:
jbreher
Active Member
- Dec 31, 2015
- 166
- 526
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.
Whatever the result, the rift is beyond fixing. Fuckin' bitcoin.
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
The Tale of Recovery: How Alpha Spy Nest Restored My Faith and Fortune
- ireneerika
- 0 replies
Members online
No members online now.