Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

At the movies now. Preview for "Snowden" coming September 16 in theaters near you.

Looks really good.

 

[Norway]

@Aquent
Satoshi/Craig did never present a public cryptographic signature of anything. Everybody seem to get this wrong. Quoting myself:

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.")

 

[albin]

Kind of a throwback question, but kind of a hard thing to quite nail down because of all the mythos that has sprung up surrounding Satoshi:

Do we really know much of anything about Satoshi's holdings other than the blog Sergio Lerner wrote a few years ago with that conjecture about the nonce distribution?

Unless there was extensive network surveillance since day one I would imagine our knowledge of what's going on is quite limited. Realistically I don't see how we even know that block 1 was necessarily Satoshi.

 

[Melbustus]

@albin - I think that's correct - at least, I don't recall any other data on Satoshi's coins.

Notable from that post, though - while Satoshi may have been mining almost alone for all of 2009, non-Satoshi blocks (the red dots) were mined right from the beginning as well.

So moving coins from early blocks is not necessarily proof of anything.

 

[Zarathustra]

Hmm, better go read this before it gets deleted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hxikp/prediction_craig_is_proven_to_be_satoshi_classic/

And it got deleted. Why?

 

[freetrader]

Interesting that this story (rumor) is still being promulgated:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hytqt/uk_law_enforcement_sources_hint_at_impending/

http://bitcoinist.net/uk-law-enforcement-sources-hint-at-impending-craig-wright-arrest/

 

[bluemoon]

@Zarathustra

Puzzles me too!

 

[albin]

Here's another checkmark in the "he is Satoshi" column... boy does he like Windows!

http://bitcoinist.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Craig-Wright.jpg

 

[bluemoon]

Interesting that this story (rumor) is still being promulgated:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hytqt/uk_law_enforcement_sources_hint_at_impending/

http://bitcoinist.net/uk-law-enforcement-sources-hint-at-impending-craig-wright-arrest/

Dirty tricks brigade again. Bitcoinist happy to use the silliconangle scam site as its source, same as the previous ad.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

One thing that makes me tend to believe him more is the amount of apparently false information spread to discredit him. On the other hand he might just be playing guys like me by exactly doing that himself...

@cypherdoc As @Zarathustra already asked: Why were you sure it will be deleted? I don't find ANY reason at all in the post to delete it from /r/btc, it is not /r/bitcoin? And why has it been deleted?

The silliconangle article is getting cited by other news sources. Funny how that works. And the reddit ad is still online.

@Aquent Where can one find the supposed 2014 leaks? I can only find the 2011 leaks, the "2014 leaks" seem to be wallet scrapers? And /u/kmdr says he can't reproduce the information. It would be very interesting if this information was correct or a fabrication as well.

If he isn't deploying the false information himself, who is and why? Strange.

The guy deserves an award anyway...

 

[cypherdoc]

What I think you're missing is that selfish mining is still profitable (in certain cases) even if the selfish miner loses all of the block races. The selfish miner does not need to achieve a 50:50 split (γ = 0.5); even if he loses all races (γ = 0) the attack works so long as the attacker controls over 33.3% (α = 1/3) of the network hash power. Eyal and Sirer illustrate this in Fig. 3:

That being said, I agree with you that selfish mining is not a serious threat (for the reasons you and I have already mentioned).

Do you think this assumption from the paper is true? Not the graphs or math later in the paper but this assumption as :it stands

"the first scenario where the honest nodes succeed in finding a block on the public branch, nullifying the selfish pool’s lead, the pool immediately publishes its private branch (of length 1). This yields a toss-up where either branch may win."
[doublepost=1462444149][/doublepost]https://archive.is/pS3be

And it got deleted. Why?

See where he gets a warning pm.

Hmm, I'm becoming to wonder about whether that /u/Soupernerd mod is a small blockist plant or something. He's the only mod to date that's been deleting stuff ever since r/btc opened to heavy controversy. Yesterday I saw a comment by him over in N Korea surprisingly supportive of one of the core devs. I think gmax. I remember it sticking out to me but didn't think much of it until I saw this newly bullish post towards big blocks actually get deleted. I wonder if the threat cane from him and I can't see any reason why either.

I'll try to dig up his N Korea post. It wasn't much, just a one liner but I thought it odd.

 

[cypherdoc]

Why isn't Konrad Graf's article front and center on r/btc?

Its an incredibly important piece of work from one of the most respected and earliest Bitcoin economists that clearly debunks every bogus theory from core dev.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Today TPTB_need_war's posting production is interesting:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=504237;sa=showPosts

 

[freetrader]

@BldSwtTrs : I sure hope this is not where it's going. That would make an emergency hardfork necessary to fix the crypto. I would assume that if this were necessary, the fix would be ready before the disclosure, and I would hope there would be no such hint-dropping before the real disclosure - it would be irresponsible (unless it could be shown that a preimage attack would not endanger current holdings).

I'm still inclined to believe a more prosaic explanation for the Sartre hash obscuration, such as that he wanted people to find the pretty obvious flaws in his signature tutorial.

---

In the last few days I've just seen too many people mix alcohol and driving (on this information superhighway). I think we always have to account for the use of substances when evaluating online information ;-)

 

[sickpig]

 

[freetrader]

Ok, now we know what Matonis was on about:

http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029323.html

 

[Melbustus]

What a distraction this Satoshi sfuff has been. One probably lasting bad outcome: Gavin losing commit access.

 

[sickpig]

may I say that it's not how I expected the situation to unfold? This is the worst way to end it, IMHO.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

One probably lasting bad outcome: Gavin losing commit access.

Gavin didn't lose access to Core, Core lost access to Gavin.

 

[cypherdoc]

Well at least we know there won't be any dumping of Satoshi coins anytime soon.

I think...