Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
@Justus Ranvier - I don't understand @haq4good's background (also, he's NewLiberty from the old BCT thread, if I recall correctly, right?).
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
Yeah, but I honestly haven't paid enough attention to that guy to know if he's smart enough to have known better.
True, but I'm focusing specifically on Gavin's response. It seems like he should have recognized that nothing positive (for him) would come from vouching for a private presentation of proof.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Are you going to buy the book? I am.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2016/05/01/andrew-ohagan/the-search-for-satoshi
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2016/05/01/andrew-ohagan/the-search-for-satoshi
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Some more background from the BBC journalist at 11:24.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2688050279/
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2688050279/
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
On bbc he said he he has to do this, it's not his decision, but other people are deciding for him.
If I was the founder of a currency - what is in most jurisdictations a big crime - I would feel better if there was no public proof of it.
I'm really not sure what to think, but fuck, I'm totally sure I won't follow the reddit-mob who's raging against csw and gavin. It's extremely disgusting what's going on ...
Why does noone talks about jon matonis or ian grigg?
If I was the founder of a currency - what is in most jurisdictations a big crime - I would feel better if there was no public proof of it.
I'm really not sure what to think, but fuck, I'm totally sure I won't follow the reddit-mob who's raging against csw and gavin. It's extremely disgusting what's going on ...
Why does noone talks about jon matonis or ian grigg?
@Justus Ranvier , all:
a) So, I have this faint deja-vu that this 'hashcash from Adam uses number of matching bits instead of a less-than comparison' came up before, and I think it came up in the context of Craig Wright and some of his earlier writings. I wonder whether anyone remembers and can dig that up? I'll have a go at it now, but I think it is something worth looking into.
His current web presence seems to be quite new, and the hashcash assertion appears as something new there. I think it is not.
I think I also remember that the 'number of ways that transactions can be combined' argument appeared on one of his (deleted in the meantime?) blogs before.
b) As I said, I think it was him making that claim. However, it would be even more interesting to figure out whether someone else made that claim before and it is just copy and paste by CSW.
Because the claim about hashcash is quite correct, as far as I can see.
If he's indeed Satoshi, he's megatrolling as a con-man now. That would be an impressive feat - so impressive that I have a hard time believing it and not believing the simpler explanation that he simply is a fake.
But I am not sure about anything anymore here.
EDIT: There is this. Who is /u/pulpspy?
EDIT#2: There is also this.
a) So, I have this faint deja-vu that this 'hashcash from Adam uses number of matching bits instead of a less-than comparison' came up before, and I think it came up in the context of Craig Wright and some of his earlier writings. I wonder whether anyone remembers and can dig that up? I'll have a go at it now, but I think it is something worth looking into.
His current web presence seems to be quite new, and the hashcash assertion appears as something new there. I think it is not.
I think I also remember that the 'number of ways that transactions can be combined' argument appeared on one of his (deleted in the meantime?) blogs before.
b) As I said, I think it was him making that claim. However, it would be even more interesting to figure out whether someone else made that claim before and it is just copy and paste by CSW.
Because the claim about hashcash is quite correct, as far as I can see.
If he's indeed Satoshi, he's megatrolling as a con-man now. That would be an impressive feat - so impressive that I have a hard time believing it and not believing the simpler explanation that he simply is a fake.
But I am not sure about anything anymore here.
EDIT: There is this. Who is /u/pulpspy?
EDIT#2: There is also this.
Last edited:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
A few thoughts:
1) Why mild-mannered Satoshi now bombastic showman Craig?
Well let me turn the question around: Can you fathom how much it would change you if you were Satoshi? 7 years of hiding, fame and praise heaped upon you but you cannot stand up to claim it, you have become a zillionaire on paper but worry about what would happen to your creation (and your notional wealth) if you move your coins, frequent nightmares about personal security, frequent daydreams about fame and fortune.
These pressures cannot NOT change someone. I almost think I sometimes sense the look of having withstood that long pressure of hiding on Craig's face. (Or it could just be the look of a chronic conman.) The supercomputer hype? Perhaps wanting so badly to be recognized as a genius but not being able to, he believed he really was a universal genius and let it go to his head looking for a way to get that recognition personally rather than just, again, "notionally" as closet-Satoshi. Satoshi is on top of the world notionally, but gets to experience none of it except in the quiet of his own mind. Does Craig have that look? Don't his words just ooze that deep-seated desire to reveal himself? The anticipation of how it will feel when people finally know it's true?
And maybe he wants to milk this for all it's worth, because once he is revealed with certainty the hounds will be loosed on him, from all quarters. 7 years of hiding...think he wants a quick and clean reveal? Not if he is Craig; this guy clearly relishes the attention and recognition that comes from continued uncertainty - which admittedly points just as easily to it being a hoax.
If it's a group, due to the weirdness of group dynamics (not to mention legal entanglements) the possibilities can be even more surprising/counterintuitive.
2) Knowing Satoshi was just a human (or group of humans), and the odds that he* coincidentally had some superhuman ability not to touch a ton of money he came into are staggeringly low - unless he already had a lot of money. Craig does seem to fit the bill here.
*I don't say "he or she" because Satoshi is a common male name, and not used by females ever in my experience of many years in Japan. Imagine it as "David Winston."
3) Neither Gavin nor Matonis are cryptographers (and don't need to be), and we know Gavin was inexperienced enough to make an amateur signing error on this very forum as @satoshis_sockpuppet also mentioned above. Gavin is a coder and has a good practical view of Bitcoin; that's all his job requires and all that should matter. Maxwell is a cryptographer, so good, let Maxwell handle that stuff. He can stay in the back office where he is suited to the job.
4) @Roger_Murdock Why would Gavin put his credibility on the line unnecessarily? My only thought is if Gavin is really Satoshi and doesn't want to be found out (or is in some other way protecting the real Satoshi), letting people think it is Craig - even if Craig never releases the "proof" (what if Gavin signed it for him instead and Craig agreed to take the credit and keep Gavin's secret?) - keeps the spotlight off Gavin or the real Satoshi. Or more likely, Gavin was so convinced that he simply fell into the trap of, "Because something is true is always a good enough reason to say it." A bit of the Mike Hearn "honest to a fault" rubbing off on him? (And this applies whether Craig really is Satoshi or is just a good conman who managed to fool Gavin.)
5) In any case, this is all just drama. Bitcoin stands unaffected in the long run, though if Craig is Satoshi things will get a lot more interesting. And if he isn't (or refuses to prove it), Gavin will lose credibility as a cryptographer, which he never had and never claimed, which means nothing except to those who already hated him. It's a bit like Janet Yellen losing credibility because she was conned into accepting some counterfeit $100 bills. People would of course use it to malign her, but in truth it doesn't say much of anything about her qualifications for the job.
1) Why mild-mannered Satoshi now bombastic showman Craig?
Well let me turn the question around: Can you fathom how much it would change you if you were Satoshi? 7 years of hiding, fame and praise heaped upon you but you cannot stand up to claim it, you have become a zillionaire on paper but worry about what would happen to your creation (and your notional wealth) if you move your coins, frequent nightmares about personal security, frequent daydreams about fame and fortune.
These pressures cannot NOT change someone. I almost think I sometimes sense the look of having withstood that long pressure of hiding on Craig's face. (Or it could just be the look of a chronic conman.) The supercomputer hype? Perhaps wanting so badly to be recognized as a genius but not being able to, he believed he really was a universal genius and let it go to his head looking for a way to get that recognition personally rather than just, again, "notionally" as closet-Satoshi. Satoshi is on top of the world notionally, but gets to experience none of it except in the quiet of his own mind. Does Craig have that look? Don't his words just ooze that deep-seated desire to reveal himself? The anticipation of how it will feel when people finally know it's true?
And maybe he wants to milk this for all it's worth, because once he is revealed with certainty the hounds will be loosed on him, from all quarters. 7 years of hiding...think he wants a quick and clean reveal? Not if he is Craig; this guy clearly relishes the attention and recognition that comes from continued uncertainty - which admittedly points just as easily to it being a hoax.
If it's a group, due to the weirdness of group dynamics (not to mention legal entanglements) the possibilities can be even more surprising/counterintuitive.
2) Knowing Satoshi was just a human (or group of humans), and the odds that he* coincidentally had some superhuman ability not to touch a ton of money he came into are staggeringly low - unless he already had a lot of money. Craig does seem to fit the bill here.
*I don't say "he or she" because Satoshi is a common male name, and not used by females ever in my experience of many years in Japan. Imagine it as "David Winston."
3) Neither Gavin nor Matonis are cryptographers (and don't need to be), and we know Gavin was inexperienced enough to make an amateur signing error on this very forum as @satoshis_sockpuppet also mentioned above. Gavin is a coder and has a good practical view of Bitcoin; that's all his job requires and all that should matter. Maxwell is a cryptographer, so good, let Maxwell handle that stuff. He can stay in the back office where he is suited to the job.
4) @Roger_Murdock Why would Gavin put his credibility on the line unnecessarily? My only thought is if Gavin is really Satoshi and doesn't want to be found out (or is in some other way protecting the real Satoshi), letting people think it is Craig - even if Craig never releases the "proof" (what if Gavin signed it for him instead and Craig agreed to take the credit and keep Gavin's secret?) - keeps the spotlight off Gavin or the real Satoshi. Or more likely, Gavin was so convinced that he simply fell into the trap of, "Because something is true is always a good enough reason to say it." A bit of the Mike Hearn "honest to a fault" rubbing off on him? (And this applies whether Craig really is Satoshi or is just a good conman who managed to fool Gavin.)
5) In any case, this is all just drama. Bitcoin stands unaffected in the long run, though if Craig is Satoshi things will get a lot more interesting. And if he isn't (or refuses to prove it), Gavin will lose credibility as a cryptographer, which he never had and never claimed, which means nothing except to those who already hated him. It's a bit like Janet Yellen losing credibility because she was conned into accepting some counterfeit $100 bills. People would of course use it to malign her, but in truth it doesn't say much of anything about her qualifications for the job.
Last edited:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@Zangelbert Bingledack
What if it's much simpler, and both Craig and Gavin are telling the truth?
- Craig has proved cryptographically in person that he is Satoshi Nakamoto to three respected media, and two bitcoin experts.
- None of the involved parties claim that he has proven it publicly on his website. People just want a public proof now.
What if it's much simpler, and both Craig and Gavin are telling the truth?
- Craig has proved cryptographically in person that he is Satoshi Nakamoto to three respected media, and two bitcoin experts.
- None of the involved parties claim that he has proven it publicly on his website. People just want a public proof now.
@Norway
Yes it could well be, but the weird behavior and blog post need an explanation. I tried to show that there is some plausible explanation for it, even though it remains ambiguous since it could point to him being a good conman. Certainly a repackaged laptop or hacked wifi aren't hard tricks to pull off for an experienced conman with financial means, so I put more stock in Gavin's less tangible reasons. Those seem harder to fake.
At this point I feel like the odds are around 50/50 that Craig is Satoshi (or at least in his inner circle or part of the group), though with only moderate confidence in those odds.
Yes it could well be, but the weird behavior and blog post need an explanation. I tried to show that there is some plausible explanation for it, even though it remains ambiguous since it could point to him being a good conman. Certainly a repackaged laptop or hacked wifi aren't hard tricks to pull off for an experienced conman with financial means, so I put more stock in Gavin's less tangible reasons. Those seem harder to fake.
At this point I feel like the odds are around 50/50 that Craig is Satoshi (or at least in his inner circle or part of the group), though with only moderate confidence in those odds.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
Meanwhile we are back to $450 and looking solid.
Better reason for Gavin to put his credibility on the line: he signed an NDA but like Andreas he wants to remain honorable, so he reveals the truth just not the proof.
adamstgbit
Well-Known Member
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,206
- 2,650
I think satoshi's idea is to prove to a few poeple he is who he says he is, tell them to drop it and leave him alone, and then make sure there is plenty of doubt left in the community at large so no one really knows.
the way he's set himself up, the story is done, no need to investigate him about it anymore he's said everything in an interview, and no one believes he actually is satoshi because he provided funky "proof" to everyone else.
the way he's set himself up, the story is done, no need to investigate him about it anymore he's said everything in an interview, and no one believes he actually is satoshi because he provided funky "proof" to everyone else.
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
Craig is clearly a conman no matter what. This current incident aside, getting caught back-dating blog posts and pgp keys from last time is enough to make that clear.
Somehow associated with, or close enough to, the group/satoshi is looking like a more reasonable conclusion. It's believable enough to assume that could result in him somehow having (or even stealing) access to real keys that could convince Gavin and others.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
To me, it's pretty clear that Craig is preparing readers for a future signing on his blog.
First, he goes on to explain his choice of sentence to sign.
Then he provides the base64 encoded string of the sentence.
(" Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.\n\n" ----->
"IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh
dG9zaGkuCgo=")
Finally, he gives a general tutorial on how to verify a signing.
("In the remainder of this post, I will explain the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys.")
First, he goes on to explain his choice of sentence to sign.
Then he provides the base64 encoded string of the sentence.
(" Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.\n\n" ----->
"IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh
dG9zaGkuCgo=")
Finally, he gives a general tutorial on how to verify a signing.
("In the remainder of this post, I will explain the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys.")
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
Another remediation in hash functions from Craig (surrounded by non-sensical ramblings, of course):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/03/bitcoin_craig_wright/?mt=1462280842219
#unhinged
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/03/bitcoin_craig_wright/?mt=1462280842219
#unhinged
There is the added benefits of watching the Core cronies discredit them selves in the interim.
I do look toward to the definitive proof.
I do look toward to the definitive proof.
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
@AdrianX - I want Core to no longer be driving the direction of Bitcoin as much as the next guy (in this thread), but CW is clearly off his rocker. It seems pretty obviously undesirable to have him in the conversation at all really, and it certainly seems dangerous for him to potentially control 1,000,000BTC.
Because Matonis is a small blockist?
Last edited:
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Think that article is just satire.
Here's whats likely to happen next.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36193006
Last edited:
