Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@lunar

from the article:

It would constitute proof that he is who he says he is - although one suspects that even then some will never believe his story.

if your pay depends on you not understanding something, you won't understand it.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

also, he's NewLiberty from the old BCT thread, if I recall correctly, right?

I believe so.

Because the claim about hashcash is quite correct, as far as I can see.

Likewise.

I suspect this revelation is the real reason Blockstream/Core went into full damage control/attack mode yesterday.

It's about raising the noise floor high enough to drown out the "Adam Back has been misrepresenting his contributions for financial gain" signal.

Wright doesn't need to be Satoshi in order to have obtained that information, of course, but if he's not the question about how he got it is just as interesting.

 

[Norway]

I've made a bet for a beer on that Craig is Satoshi. Looking forward to enjoy it!

 

[Richy_T]

I should make a bet with myself. Beer vs whisky.

 

[Norway]

HERE WE GO!!!!
https://blockchain.info/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

EDIT: Or.. this is somebody sending to the genesis block address...

 

[freetrader]

@Norway: Sending to... If you filter on "Sent" nothing shows up.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway

So can someone explain something to me:

In his weird blog post CWS presents this Sartre text and sha256 it. The hash he presents for that file is, as pointed out here https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/a0c0e62e2938168c93e51270fe7d07f5 the hash from the early bitcoin transactions.

What the fuck did he want to do there?
The blog post, as meaningless as it is, presents wrong output. If he had shown the correct hash it would have fit into the "I will explain to you journalists how to use these tools" agenda.

If he is a scammer or not, why would he make the effort to present a wrong hash?
Did he find a sha256 collision?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

EDIT: Or.. this is somebody sending to the genesis block address...

You're not the first person to derive incorrect conclusions from blockchain.info's interface.

It happens often enough that it ought to be considered a UX bug on their part.

 

[megadeth]

Vinny Linghams predictions: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-2016-awakening/

If I was forced to predict, I would say that it would hit $1000+ in 2016 and $3000+ in 2017.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Inflation in Bitcoin has an interestingly different application than inflation in the real world, in that prices aren’t going up because governments are printing money. Prices are going up because of scarcity (supply/demand)./

The difference between bitcoin and "the real world" in his example is that in the former he's talking about the price of currency in terms of goods, and in the latter he's talking about the price of goods in terms of currency.

Since those have an inverse relationship between them, then in all cases inflation can causes "prices" to either increase or decrease, depending on which type of price you're talking about.

I'm not sure how that qualifies as an interestingly different application.

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
The point is that most of the blog is just a tutorial. Your puppet master was just preparing people to verify for them self when he publish the signature later. I wrote about it one page back.

But now, it looks like he is going to move some coins. Maybe he will do both.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway Yes, I understand that and that's the way I would read that as well. Still, there is no plausible reason for typing

>sha256sum Sartre

and getting the hash for an early bitcoin transaction. WTF did he do there and WHY?
I guess we could exclude the possibility of a collision so imho there are 3 possible explanations:

1. He made a mistake in his tutorial and somehow renamed a file or something like that.
2. There is some kind of hidden message in the text.
3. He is a con artist and he does what he does best: distract and bedazzle...

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet I think you read too much into the tutorial/example. I don't think it's a treasure map. It just what he say it is. And even at least one typo in there.

 

[xhiggy]

I wonder what the rest of the original team thinks of his actions. If they aren't all on board, his actions could make sense. He could have been pressured into it by the rest of the team to be the public front. Or the team could be split, which would be why he can't show the signature verification but can move the coins in a few days.

 

[Norway]

Hi @xhiggy ! Welcome to freedom of speech!

 

[freetrader]

@Norway : The Sartre file stuff is not a typo - at least, I don't believe it. It's either

a) satoshis_sockpuppet's #3, and a poor attempt (would be surprised)
b) trying to get the rest of the world to think he can't possibly be Satoshi (sacrificing the reputations of other folks for it though - highly questionable move unless they were all ok with this and think this will move them out of some spotlight too, in the long run)
c) setting up maximum drama for a big show, encouraging his opponents make foolish pronouncements (the strong insinuation that he's going to prove, but not in that post)

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
I think it's just an example with fake data. Just like in math books. I can't explain it easier than that.

 

[YarkoL]

Well he ain't pulling no punches

And this is why I wanted to speak with Gavin weeks ago. Gavin was in a unique position as we dealt with each other directly while we nurtured Bitcoin to life in 2010. I knew that Gavin would remember the content of those messages and discussions, and would recall our arguments and early interactions. I wanted to speak with Gavin first, not to appeal to his authority, but because I wanted him to know. I owed him that. It was important to me that we could re-establish our relationship. Simply signing messages or moving bitcoin would never be enough for Gavin.

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

 

[Norway]

Not proof, but he says it's coming:
http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

 

[Inca]

Reddit seems to have gone berzerk. Trolls and small blockists pushing the meme that Gavin has been tricked by a conman.

I have seen no evidence of that this far. Just that Craig Wright hasn't yet proven in public what he did in private. Sure until we get cryptographic proof this isn't definitive by any means and he is certainly eccentric.

But I believe it was Gavin who was working on bitcoin in 2009 and not the chaps drumming up the rage and Core position on reddit.

Things I would like to hear if CW is Satoshi.

1. publish public cryptographic proof
2. State position on 1m coins
3. restate his position for bitcoin scaling clearly