Jump to content
jn_r

Creator of Bitcoin digital cash reveals identity

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, celticwarrior72 said:

I'm at Consensus in NY.  Nobody believes that Wright is Satoshi.  It's pretty clear that the community will only accept a clear, direct proof for his real identity.  I'm 100% with Nikb on this one.  

But those 2 people, very well respected in the Bitcoin world, who have met him personally and been shown his proof first-hand are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt. If he is not Satoshi he must be Derren Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dazlightyear said:

But those 2 people, very well respected in the Bitcoin world, who have met him personally and been shown his proof first-hand are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt. If he is not Satoshi he must be Derren Brown.

Let's ignore the whole replay attack he appears to have mounted. Let's ignore the screenshots of badly written scripts. Let's ignore the claim that a given string of hexadecimal digits is the hash of a block of text that's underspecified (or maybe even unspecified). In fact, let's ignore the entire blog post that Wright made.

Let's focus only on the Gavin and Jon situation. Here's my take:

First, even if Gavin and Jon are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is Satoshi that doesn't mean Craig is Satoshi. After all, people can be fooled - even experts conducting experiments under apparently rigorous and well-controlled conditions. This was the core premise of Project Alpha.

Second, why even bother convincing Gavin and Jon separately, instead of simply publishing a "nothing up my sleeve" blurb (e.g. his name, along with the current date and the headline of the print edition of The Times of London) and the signature of the hash of that text with the Block 1 and Block 9 keys he purportedly controls? That way, we can all independently verify his claim.

Which brings me to the third point: Nakamoto didn't want to have "trusted third parties" in Bitcoin. That's the whole point behind mining and Nakamoto consensus. And yet, we are supposed to believe that Nakamoto would choose to identify himself by way of third parties that have to be trusted, instead of with the trustless mechanism on which Bitcoin rests?

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Not for one second. As I said last night, when the news hit: something smells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dazlightyear said:

But those 2 people, very well respected in the Bitcoin world, who have met him personally and been shown his proof first-hand are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt. If he is not Satoshi he must be Derren Brown.

There will always be some Bitcoin fanboys convincing all those fast believers that the mysterie must go on.
After all, besides trading for fiat, as the only use case, the obscurities and mysteries are the only drivers to keep the saga of the pioneers going. 
And the gloomy face of a mysterious creator helps a lot in this. That Bitcoin crowd guided by some cheerleaders just do not want the truth to come out - it does not fit in the way they want to see the painting of Bitcoin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nikb said:

As I said last night, when the news hit: something smells.

If lying can be seen as a crime (and I think lying "(not?) owning" about $450,000,000 could be seen as a crime) than there has to be a motive for it. Wonder what motive Craig possibly might have to say he's the creator of those 450M? 
Why for God sake put himself in the spot of the ATO to become candidate for an incredible high gain tax on a capital he has not at hand? Do you really think that he is that stupid?

The other motive could be that he made a deal with the ATO to pay the tax they want from him and as a result this will allow him to sell off his Bitcoin for real money ..... Like always the real proofs of all crimes always have to be found in both the motives and the traces of the $$$. Simple as that! All the rest is BS to clutter the boards....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kanaas said:

If lying can be seen as a crime (and I think lying "(not?) owning" about $450,000,000 could be seen as a crime) than there has to be a motive for it. Wonder what motive Craig possibly might have to say he's the creator of those 450M? 
Why for God sake put himself in the spot of the ATO to become candidate for an incredible high gain tax on a capital he has not at hand? Do you really think that he is that stupid?

The other motive could be that he made a deal with the ATO to pay the tax they want from him and as a result this will allow him to sell off his Bitcoin for real money ..... Like always the real proofs of all crimes always have to be found in both the motives and the traces of the $$$. Simple as that! All the rest is BS to clutter the boards....

Sorry, I have no insight on Wright's motives, nor am I interested in speculating as to what they might be. I am only talking about Wright's actual claim as (1) a Bitcoin user and (2) a cryptographer with infosec experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts on the blog post (since I prefer words to numbers):

CW never explicitly says he is Satoshi (deniability?) as the Sartre title reference is hypothetical and ambiguous. Is it possible he could be simply pointing out that it is possible to fake, even to fairly informed observers (GA, JM)?  He does take credit for contributing a small "something" to bitcoin, entirely possible if he was helping Kleiman with some aspect of the cryptography/security or whatever he's supposed to be an expert on, and it turns out he (DK) was the largest part of the identity.

And then he straight out says:

Quote

Satoshi is dead.

Is he being literal? Existentially implying he was Satoshi but figuratively killed him? Or is he just being a narcissistic pompf?

The humble-brags, media handlers, vanity photoshoots and blog packaging with duhn duhn duhn more to come! strongly point to the latter.

Motivationally: He might be on the hook for loaning out bitcoin he didn't have based that fishy contract with Kleiman. Now that he's got everyone's attention he'll at least get more looks at whatever he's working on. If it's obtuse enough, which seems his style, he'll get some speaking gigs, panel invites, maybe a book or publishing deal or some of that sweet VC money he may have missed out on in the early gold rush. 

 

For reference since Tiff asked earlier:

I don't remember if I posted this or not back in the XRPtalk days, but this is the letter to the editor I wrote with counters to his Ripple hit piece. He wrote back confirming they were reviewing it and added comments from DS to the article. Some of my understanding has changed since then (permissioning, codius, bitcoin/ripple value prop, what is/isn't "blockchain") but yeah ... but if he does somehow control Satoshi's bitcoin the last question I posed seems rather relevant.

Quote
Mr. Boyd,
 
I am surprised that you chose to extensively quote and publish Dr. Craig Wright's opinions and falsehoods regarding the Ripple protocol verbatim, in particular given that his business would be harmed by extensive Ripple proliferation which specifically claims to be a faith based bitcoin maximalist incubator  "...who believe, as we do, that bitcoin is here to stay" spacer.gifspacer.gifhttp://www.interconnectedresearch.com/
 
For disclosure, I am an active poster at XRPtalk under the handle tommytrain and have followed Ripple since Oct 2013 but am not officially affiliated with Ripple, I own a deminimus amount of XRP, Bitcoin and other cryptos for research purposes.
 
Here are few simple refutations which can be gleaned with research available on Ripple's github (it is in fact open source software), white paper and wiki and other forums:
 
"Ripple is a distributed network, not a decentralised one – the distinction is control," he says.

 

this is false, the Ripple network is designed to support decentralized topology. Topology configuration is dependent on each node's private Unique Node List which, during Beta development, is currently limited to Ripple's multiple de-localized node (a limited form of decentralization), expanding the topology to a decentralized and stable configuration is a feature Ripple is currently testing through incentivizing node operation using Codius powered DAPP, this is necessary for designing a stable and SCALABLE network, a problem the Bitcoin network is currently struggling with regarding the 20mb blocksize increase which will inherently increase centralization of the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin maximalists will argue that the current configuration is centralized because the 5 nodes Ripple operates are currently running exclusive UNLs, while they will ignore or obviate the design intent and proclaim it is a move menat to prove fealty to centralized banks, but like most rhetoric from bitcoinistas such as Dr Wright, it is political and disingenuous.

"The control of the network is centralised. If Ripple is compromised, the entire network can be.
 
This is false, compromising the git source code is just as dangerous as compromising bitcoin's it only works if the nodes download and implement, and any node which does this may not then be able to get back on the same network. If any single node Ripple runs is compromised the worst that could happen is causing the network to not validate any consensus rounds, Ripple cannot fork it can only fail to reach consensus and try again every seven seconds. A repetitive failure alerts network operators who can then remove the dishonest node from the UNL topology and work to remove the hack. The network would not fork, it cannot because it is a append-only deterministic ledger. It cannot be reversed and cannot be changed despite what Dr Wright claims.
 
"Ripple is a math-based currency – not a crypto currency. This is very important, the Bitcoin Blockchain is not protected by math, but cryptographic processes. Ripple is a ledger like those of the past, it is not set in stone, it can be altered."
 
First part is true, second part is apparently an uneducated statement or straight up falsehood. Ripple is a distributed, shared ledger - it is decentralized but permissioned (must be reliable, trusted actor to join the decentralized network, this is similar to a cartelized system, the development of the Codius DAPP to control permissioned access is the forthcoming feature Bitcoinsitas conveniently ignore when making grand accusations of "Centralization" 
 
He likens the CBA experiment to switching from the global protocol provided by Swift to a promissory note.
 
It is unclear the extent of CBA's implementation, if they intend to only use the IOU tokens as a means of internal account keeping this is true. If they intend to eventually onboard as a gateway and use the advanced integrated currency exchange with liquidity provided by marketmakers and a network of gateways around the world to transfer value with mid-market favorable exchange rates and nearly zero fees ... well, that is the threat to his own business.
 
"When it is set against things such as Bitcoin, there are no inbuilt controls that can limit the transaction to the underlying asset other than external trust," he says.
 
XRP is in fact preferable to bitcoin as a reference digital currency because unlike Bitcoin, Ripple is fully fungible. "Bitcoins" are actually Unspent Transaction Outputs which means every transaction thay are involved with are a potential source of a lien. Every Bitcoin that has ever been stolen by the dozens of historical hacks is liable to be returned to any of the owners who ever possessed them. XRP as a static ledger/account unit of account is therefore more fungible. 
 
"The result is that if you can compromise a gateway, a trader or otherwise can subvert the network, you can do all of the old fashioned attacks that the Bitcoin and Blockchain are designed to stop."
 
This is false-ish. This claim is reference to gateway security and the tokens which are issued by gateways and is absolutely no different that the wholistic security problems of the Bitcoin network, the off-chain Bitcoin gateways are entirely susceptible to attack which is why Ripple Labs issues guidelines and best practices to aid Gateways in proper security and operation. There is no difference between Ripple and Bitcoin ecosystems in this regard.
 
Wright, who runs a company that has satisfied the criteria under AusIndustry's R&D Tax Incentive Scheme to remain registered as a Research Service Provider, says some industry players like the fact that the Ripple protocol allows ledgers to be altered.
 
Final sentence is false, his business is also a self proclaimed faith based bitcoin maximalist organization, did he revela how many bitcoins he personally possesses or controls through his company?  
 
 
But he says there is an innate weakness in the consensus process. "If even a single gateway is configured incorrectly, it can result in a fork and payment revocation at worse. Ripple is assumed to have fault tolerance if and only if all the validators are configured correctly.
 
This is false, gateways are not nodes. Gateways have no effect on topology, consensus, and revocations are impossible in an append only deterministic ledger such as Ripple. Validator configuration is handled by UNL structuring, which as I have pointed out is being developed for scalability and stability as we speak. These issues go hand in hand and Bitcoin has yet to prove it can scale, in fact, in a recent stress test it took less than an hour and $4,000 of resources to cause an 8 hour backlog  in the Bitcoin network. In 3 years of operating the Ripple network has never forked (unlike Bitcoin).
 

"This is the difference, an insecure system on the blockchain does not bring down the blockchain. Ripple is a simple online Hawala network, it is not a secure payment platform, it is not new and it is not Blockchain based."

TRUST ISSUE

Wright says the issue with Ripple is that it is a traditional trust model.

"If they are all working well, you can trust them. The problem is that no system is as secure as Ripple would like to have us believe.

"Ripple is in effect an IOU, the trouble is that this IOU can be misused. You can send things you cannot possibly have. For instance, it is possible to send a ripple IOU for 100 million Bitcoin. The problem is that there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin."

"So, Ripple is using a lack of awareness of what they really are to fool others into the belief that they are a distributed network and Blockchain-based system."
 
This is false bordering on slander, Ripple is most definitely distributed (you can run a node on far less demanding equipment than Bitcoin) does not claim to be Blockchain-based especially since the limitations of blockchains using POW and UTXOs have yet to be fully realized or are consistently white-washed by hype pumpers like Jon Matonis and Dr Wright.
 

I look forward to seeing further research, appropriate corrections and of course full disclosure on Dr. Wright's bitcoin holdings.

Yours Truly,

Thomas Sean Kelleher

 

Edited by tommytrain
never get it right the first time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, nikb said:

Sorry, I have no insight on Wright's motives, nor am I interested in speculating as to what they might be. I am only talking about Wright's actual claim as (1) a Bitcoin user and (2) a cryptographer with infosec experience.

Just like the man said. He said who he is and he even doesn't care if someone beliefs it or not. Why should he? His only motif to come out is to launder his Black Bitcoin into White Fiat.... Actually all this speculating being him or not may even be a very smart move of the man. I will keep the price for while on the higher level, long enough so sell off most of his 1M BTC. When it was full 100% clear being him according with the fear of a potential sell off (for tax or personal motifs), the price would become zero in no time. This might be the smell you've noticed ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this whole story exciting, than boring, than intriguing and back to boring.

IF:

  • Wright claims to be the creator,
  • if enough people in lead positions believe him,
  • if no competing claimant emerges,
  • if he convinces regulatory/tax authorities and in turn pays taxes on the Satoshi  holdings,
  • if he can spend the Satoshi holdings

Then he is for all intents and purposes IS Satoshi. He wouldn't even need to fulfill all the above, he would have the influence, legal recognition and finances of Satoshi. Even IF he isn't the 'ONE' and maybe didn't invent, or solely invent bitcoin it would still be irrelevant.

Satoshi greatest asset was his ambiguity. Anyone could claim that Satoshi  would back their ideas/ beliefs/ intents- the name was a blank canvas that anyone could paint anything, and most ended up painting a shadowy self portrait. In most debates both sides would claim that Satoshi's ideas/ intent/ belief supported their side. The IDEA of Satoshi was always greater than the man, a mythical person who gifted us with the blockchain, freed us from the tyranny of banks, created something for the people ... compelling stuff. Much more so than the likely story of a stuffy individual,who may or may not always have pure intentions, and certainly could not have supported all the causes who have claimed Satoshi  as their figurehead.

Whatever comes out of this- Satoshi  is indeed dead.

 

Edited by Mercury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is Gavin Andresen  about his 101 with Craig Wright:

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/

Quote

...

Wright, Andresen says, offered to perform the second test, signing a message of Andresen’s choosing with a key from the first “block” of 50 coins ever claimed by a Bitcoin miner, in this case Nakamoto himself. (He also performed a similar test for Jon Matonis, a former board member of the Bitcoin Foundation, and a reporter for the Economist, the magazine says, using both the first and ninth Bitcoin blocks.) Andresen says he demanded that the signature be checked on a completely new, clean computer. “I didn’t trust them not to monkey with the hardware,” says Andresen.

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.

At first, the Electrum software’s verification of the signature mysteriously failed. But then Andresen noticed that they’d accidentally left off Wright’s initials from the message they were testing, and checked again: The signature was valid.

“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.”

...

 

Edited by jn_r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baggy23 said:

Craig Wright 'Will Move Bitcoin' to Prove He's Satoshi Nakamoto http://coinde.sk/23mh3di via @CoinDesk

Prediction. When the funds haven't moved in a day or two he will come out with some overly technical reason for why the funds can't be moved. This guy appears to be quasi delusional. Seems that he may have been involved with early stages of bitcoin but that he was not the sole creator and does not have access to SN's private key. Stress will do strange things to a man's mind and he may actually believe that he is the sole originator of bitcoin despite nearly incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. At this point I'd give 50:1 odds against him being SN. We will see... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dazlightyear said:

I'll take you up on that.

Okay sounds good. We need to define the terms. 

  • Does he need to state beforehand which account it will be moved from? YES
  • Does he need to state beforehand how much will be moved? YES
  • When does the bet expire?

etc. 

I'm happy to bet XRP :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...