Bitcoin Forum

Craig gets public to believe he is Satoshi,

"Satoshi" backs Gavin's Ideas getting them into the block chain.

why is this guy doing this?

Inside information anyone?

If indeed he's not Satoshi as the majority of the community as well as the Bitcoin core folks say, why is this guy doing this?

Inside information anyone?

If indeed he's not Satoshi as the majority of the community as well as the Bitcoin core folks say, why is this guy doing this?

he is not satoshi.

all he done was convert an old existing input script into base64..
he did not sign anything nor did he prove anything.

you too can be satoshi (by doing what Craig wright did)

go to
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true

copy the input script
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce01

google "hex to base64"
paste in the input script
convert

MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
and now you have what appears to be a signature that is linked to satoshi funds.. and you never even needed a private key do to it

ask youself did you use a public key or private key. did it involve any sha or ECDSA process at all.. NO

i advise everyone to go to the media, contact section and message them of the fraud that craig wright is.

the only reason he is doing this is because he scammed some people into thinking he owns 1million bitcoins which he doesnt, but that blind ignorance caused those people to give him collateral based on the lie.. and now they are calling in the debt.. (australian government handedhim millions of australian dollars.)

he fled australia to avoid immediate prosecution and is now trying to use the media as proof of ownership. without ever actually proving ownership

so please will everyone convert hex to base64 all the inputs of all satoshi funds to prove we are all satoshi..

craig wright deserves to be locked up because its not just identity fraud. the main thing is the millions of fiat he has scammed out of australian government and private investors using that id fraud, he has no bitcoin funds from 2009.

Can you sign a message with a bitcoin address that satoshi owned? I can't really believe that since one would have to check past transactions from that address to prevent being scammed by a wrong signature.

Is it a risk at all?

No, that's not what Craig Wright did.  He didn't actually sign anything.  He just converted an old input to base64 to make it look like a signature.  That's why no one (except the so-called "journalists") is buying it.

So what gavin stated, like that he signed a message that he personally chose for him to sign, was a lie then? If true then Gavin fell deep.

... why is this guy doing this?

Not too sure about that message, as the "signature" for that one hasn't been made public (nor is it ever likely to be).  Either there was a more elaborate ruse by Wright, or Gavin really wasn't paying attention and dropped the ball.

He has nothing to lose. The world thinks he is a liar, only a bigger lie can save his reputation.

Maybe he is trying to force the real Satoshi's hand.
If he take all the plaudits and starts to make important decisions regarding Bitcoin, then maybe the real Satoshi would be forced to show his face to stop him.

Just a theory, but it could be the case.

He has nothing to lose. The world thinks he is a liar, only a bigger lie can save his reputation

Maybe he is trying to force the real Satoshi's hand.
If he take all the plaudits and starts to make important decisions regarding Bitcoin, then maybe the real Satoshi would be forced to show his face to stop him.

Just a theory, but it could be the case.

I suspect Gavin (and Jon) got scammed by a prepared/staged hoax, though it is suspicious that Wright's comments show a strong bias and agenda that aligns with Jon and Gavin. But the failure to publicly publish a meaningful signature for ALL of us to verify to our own satisfaction makes it 99% certain this claim is rubbish.

trying to lure the real satoshi maybe?  or to push his big blocks agenda to further centralize bitcoin? ( gavin seems desperate to get a block increase so i wouldnt be surprised if he went as far to get his point accross)

he is not satoshi.

all he done was convert an old existing input script into base64..
he did not sign anything nor did he prove anything.

you too can be satoshi (by doing what Craig wright did)

go to
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true

copy the input script
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce01

google "hex to base64"
paste in the input script
convert

MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
and now you have what appears to be a signature that is linked to satoshi funds.. and you never even needed a private key do to it

ask youself did you use a public key or private key. did it involve any sha or ECDSA process at all.. NO

i advise everyone to go to the media, contact section and message them of the fraud that craig wright is.

the only reason he is doing this is because he scammed some people into thinking he owns 1million bitcoins which he doesnt, but that blind ignorance caused those people to give him collateral based on the lie.. and now they are calling in the debt.. (australian government handedhim millions of australian dollars.)

he fled australia to avoid immediate prosecution and is now trying to use the media as proof of ownership. without ever actually proving ownership

so please will everyone convert hex to base64 all the inputs of all satoshi funds to prove we are all satoshi..

craig wright deserves to be locked up because its not just identity fraud. the main thing is the millions of fiat he has scammed out of australian government and private investors using that id fraud, he has no bitcoin funds from 2009.

The big blocks agenda will be done because the big exchangers like Coinbase, their twin brother Bitstamp, BTC China, OK Coin, Circle, Xapo, Bitfinex want big blocks :)  what are you going to do if the biggest exchangers will fork to "big blocks" BTC? ":)

will you not use it anymore. come on! be realistic :)

These exchanges have been wanting bigger blocks for more than a year so i ask why are they not forking? what are they waiting for? A controversial hard fork would very likely undermine confidence in the whole system and send the price back to 2 digits and these companies are well aware of that. So no it's not as simple as you think. come on! be realistic :)

They will this year for sure. they have to prepare everything and they come with an announcement over night:)

the users will have no choice and they will stick with the new e-currency created :)

I don't think you understand the economics behind bitcoin or maybe you just a troll

The fact that the British Biased Corporation was involved should make every one suspicious that a government agency is somehow involved here.

i think you have horse glasses. what economy are you talking about? the black market one?  BTC is full, FULL of shits. I think you are just a tinny "speculator" and nothing more. the REAL base of BTC is the black market not "speculators"

The BTC is based on HYIPs, fake forex and many derivates from these :)... without them, BTC would worth pennies. :)

 

No, that's not what Craig Wright did.  He didn't actually sign anything.  He just converted an old input to base64 to make it look like a signature.  That's why no one (except the so-called "journalists") is buying it.

he is not satoshi.

all he done was convert an old existing input script into base64..
he did not sign anything nor did he prove anything.

you too can be satoshi (by doing what Craig wright did)

go to
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true

copy the input script
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce01

google "hex to base64"
paste in the input script
convert

MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
and now you have what appears to be a signature that is linked to satoshi funds.. and you never even needed a private key do to it

ask youself did you use a public key or private key. did it involve any sha or ECDSA process at all.. NO

i advise everyone to go to the media, contact section and message them of the fraud that craig wright is.

the only reason he is doing this is because he scammed some people into thinking he owns 1million bitcoins which he doesnt, but that blind ignorance caused those people to give him collateral based on the lie.. and now they are calling in the debt.. (australian government handedhim millions of australian dollars.)

he fled australia to avoid immediate prosecution and is now trying to use the media as proof of ownership. without ever actually proving ownership

so please will everyone convert hex to base64 all the inputs of all satoshi funds to prove we are all satoshi..

craig wright deserves to be locked up because its not just identity fraud. the main thing is the millions of fiat he has scammed out of australian government and private investors using that id fraud, he has no bitcoin funds from 2009.

He is doing it to get attention, or to intentionally fool the mainstream media, so that they can demonize bitcoin further.

He might be working with the mainstream media just to demonize bitcoin further and to spread lies and crap.

That guy deserves 0 attention, however all threads here are talking about him,

hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys

Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.

In his initial blog post (http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/), Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues.

If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.

Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,

Satoshi is dead.

But this is only the beginning.

David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto

OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.

The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.

Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.”

That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.

No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that).

And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).

Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?

It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).

And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would  have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).

He is not satoshi.

https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/727648910647431170

https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md

Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:

And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology.  ::)

Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/) in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.

The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.

What I'm expecting to happen next is that Wright is going to move some early coins (or produce a signature from some early coins) some time soon, but this is only going to fuel the speculation even more because it won't be a definitive proof from a GPG key or a genesis block.

I'm guessing the reason why Wright will be able to do this is because he found out about Bitcoin from Kleiman from the cryptography mailing lists (which we know Kleiman was a member of.) We already know that he mined coins early on so it won't be that much of a surprise when he moves coins. But as has already been pointed out by other people -- this also doesn't prove anything -- since Bitcoin was released -publicly- anyone could have mined those coins (or he could have simply purchased access to the private keys of any early block.)

If I had to speculate: I'd say that in all likelihood neither of them are Satoshi. Kleiman's work was on digital forensics which means he was focused on doing things like scrubbing memory dumps for meta-data to find files pointers and then using them to find hidden files on disk. It would have required fairly low level programming to write the tools needed to do this (so its plausible Kleiman had the skills to code something like Bitcoin but still highly unlikely given how expertly the original source code was – so I'd be surprised if the person(s?) who created Bitcoin didn't have a background in software.)

Consider that Forensics is also quite a specialized field and that a person participating in it wouldn't necessarily have needed to know anything about digital signatures to do their work. Hashcash-style proof-of-work in that regard is even more esoteric and I'd expect to see a lot more interest in general cryptography (and economics) if Kleiman was actually Satoshi. But if you look at what he replies to -- he's only really interested in forensics and talking about his own work. I think it's far more likely that the two of them were early adopters / miners who were intimately associated with Satoshi in some way (possibly they corresponded at some point via email like a lot of people at the time) but weren't actually Satoshi themselves.

My profile for Satoshi is a lot closer to the group of people currently involved in the Bitcoin-space, to be honest: people who find cryptography interesting (but aren't necessarily cryptographers) and enjoy programming (but aren't necessarily "software engineers" by trade.) This would make a lot more sense since all the pieces needed to produce Bitcoin were in place for years before it was invented: digital signatures, hash functions, and proof of work – so at the least I'd expect some kind of evidence of an interest in those areas.

Tl; dr, I think Wright was just in the right place at the right time and that Kleiman was unlikely to have had the skills, knowledge, or time to have invented something as massive as Bitcoin even being an “expert” in digital forensics. Both Wright and Kleiman strike me as men who were more interested in building up their respective careers as “experts” through academic channels and the press, rather than people who are genuinely passionate enough about economics and crypto to have invented Bitcoin in their spare time.

Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is.

Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin.

Is Satoshi after all of Blockstream?


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hs2ca/can_all_core_developers_confirm_they_havent/

You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that.

Butthurt idiot. Bye.

I see you locked your thread again (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459550.msg14748758#msg14748758). You are an emotional basketcase.

Don't pretend you've forgotten when you closed the technical thread where we were debating and told me in PM that you never wanted to talk to me again.

I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye.

You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1459846.msg14755896#msg14755896).

Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.

Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1281423.160). And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.


Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.

Reading this, quite interesting:

http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692

One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:

Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.

So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.

Thoughts pro and con?

I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.

Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?

It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...

I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.