Bitcoin Forum

It won't be the genesis block and I doubt it will be the address from block 9, if he moves anything it will be a low number block miner which he bought the keys for and paid a lot of money to do so.

After watching how toxic this community has become... I wouldn't want to prove I was satoshi either.

If you actually listen to the man he says he had no choice in the matter, it was basically decided for him because of hackers revealing his information, issues with the Australian tax office, etc.

People want to think that satoshi was some perfect human being in every way. Not true, we're all imperfect humans. I think Craig fits the bill in some ways, but he could still be proven a fraud. The ball is firmly in his court. The problem is even if he does provide amazing proof most people here still won't believe it. Like I said, toxic community.

I have one question  - I thought that bitcoin in genesis block are frozen permanently and cannot be moved from it, ever?
Can someone explain to me technicalities behind it, because I maybe mixed something up here.

I have one question  - I thought that bitcoin in genesis block are frozen permanently and cannot be moved from it, ever?
Can someone explain to me technicalities behind it, because I maybe mixed something up here.

Essentially, something is going on where we wants people to believe he is Satoshi, a lot think its a solvency thing and Gavin is willing to back him up on his satoshi claim as having satoshi be a supporter of your fork is a huge thing.

After watching how toxic this community has become... I wouldn't want to prove I was satoshi either.

Well people continuously send coins there (the same as tossing a coin in the fountain i presume) I wasn't aware it was a burn address in any sense of the sort though.

But is is actually possible to send BTC FROM it, it is technically possible? Or Isn't it one way ticket?

How many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

After watching how toxic this community has become... I wouldn't want to prove I was satoshi either.

If you actually listen to the man he says he had no choice in the matter, it was basically decided for him because of hackers revealing his information, issues with the Australian tax office, etc.

People want to think that satoshi was some perfect human being in every way. Not true, we're all imperfect humans. I think Craig fits the bill in some ways, but he could still be proven a fraud. The ball is firmly in his court. The problem is even if he does provide amazing proof most people here still won't believe it. Like I said, toxic community.

I have one question  - I thought that bitcoin in genesis block are frozen permanently and cannot be moved from it, ever?
Can someone explain to me technicalities behind it, because I maybe mixed something up here.

Again - those funds (sent to that address) *other than the coinbase* actually *can be moved*.

And owning the private key to the genesis block would be far more convincing than moving funds from say block 700.

Also - he doesn't need to move funds but simply provide a signature (the very thing he failed to do with his last stunt which simply was a copy and paste of Satoshi's signature taken from the public blockchain).

I agree he simply needs the signature, without the need to move coins (although that would be easier to understand to many - i.e. journalists). On the other hand, I know the first 50 bitcoins mined in block #0 cannot be moved, as any transaction referencing them as inputs would be rejected. Am I wrong?

I thought the first 50BTC are unspendable? just move coins from the address 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa instead. coins from an early block wouldn't prove much because there's no guarantee that the address belongs to satoshi.

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

the title is misleading, he said from the early blocks, not genesis block, in fact they are unspendable exactly

Then why lie and copy and paste Satoshi's signature pretending that he created it from the hash of a Sartre document?

For someone trying to prove they are Satoshi it would have been very simple just to provide a signed message rather than all the nonsense and plain lies that this guy has been publishing.

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

You're not wrong about the 50 BTC - but other coins have been sent to the same address - those could be moved (as those txs are indexed).

Well, even if he can move some of the early coins... it still does not prove that he is Satoshi. Let's say {conspiracy theory incoming} that some agency got hold of him very early on in the game and they seized

his documents... and waited for the opportune time to use it. Nobody back then, thought Bitcoin would become this big. Satoshi might have left these experimental information on pieces of paper or saved it in

digital form, and they only NOW were able to retrieve it. Craig like the Bond look and might be working with these agencies and Gavin to slowly ease into this position, until everyone believes this and then start

slowly selling off this wealth...  ::)

Well, even if he can move some of the early coins... it still does not prove that he is Satoshi. Let's say {conspiracy theory incoming} that some agency got hold of him very early on in the game and they seized

his documents... and waited for the opportune time to use it. Nobody back then, thought Bitcoin would become this big. Satoshi might have left these experimental information on pieces of paper or saved it in

digital form, and they only NOW were able to retrieve it. Craig like the Bond look and might be working with these agencies and Gavin to slowly ease into this position, until everyone believes this and then start

slowly selling off this wealth...  ::)

Then why lie and copy and paste Satoshi's signature pretending that he created it from the hash of a Sartre document?

For someone trying to prove they are Satoshi it would have been very simple just to provide a signed message rather than all the nonsense and plain lies that this guy has been publishing.

.....

If he can actually move coins from the genesis block then I will openly admit he is Satoshi and just be disappointed that my mind have fantasized a better man than what Craig is appearing to be, but like most people here I very much doubt that will be the case.

Well, even if he can move some of the early coins... it still does not prove that he is Satoshi. Let's say {conspiracy theory incoming} that some agency got hold of him very early on in the game and they seized

his documents... and waited for the opportune time to use it. Nobody back then, thought Bitcoin would become this big. Satoshi might have left these experimental information on pieces of paper or saved it in

digital form, and they only NOW were able to retrieve it. Craig like the Bond look and might be working with these agencies and Gavin to slowly ease into this position, until everyone believes this and then start

slowly selling off this wealth...  ::)

My personal opinion is that Dave Kleiman was most likely to be Satoshi Nakamoto (he is now dead...).
This is an interesting read in case you missed it:
http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460 (http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460)

If he can actually move coins from the genesis block then I will openly admit he is Satoshi and just be disappointed that my mind have fantasized a better man than what Craig is appearing to be, but like most people here I very much doubt that will be the case.

It cant be coins from the geneiss block as they are unspendable (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10009/why-can-t-the-genesis-block-coinbase-be-spent). At best it can be the next block 1 or block 9.

This echos my sentiment exactly.. well said sir !

Like come on guys, you really want this guy to be Satoshi ?

...
I don't see a problem with him being satoshi.

Except he plagiarizes his works and also backdates specific planted information to scam people.
That doesn't sound very nice.

if he moves anything it will be a low number block miner which he bought the keys for and paid a lot of money to do so.

Is there a web site that we can monitor Satoshi's addresses in real time? Can't wait for this to happen...

However, my impression is that Satoshi is someone who is sharp, decisive, provides simple solutions and never drag/sit on issues... I am a bit disappointed to find that Craig is Satoshi, and that he kept delaying signing or moving coins... How difficult is that?

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).

You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto

In the video halfway down this page (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36191165) (captioned "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright says he is Mr Bitcoin"), at timecount 0:18 the conversation goes like this:

Reporter: "So you're going to show me that Satoshi Nakamoto is you"
Craig Wright: "Yes"

I'd say that sounded pretty much like he's claiming he's Satoshi Nakamoto, wouldn't you ?

And now this idiot is putting my quote into every single topic as well.

What a tool!

(well - I'm not going to follow around posting into every single CW topic like @TBTB so I'll just let him play his babyish games)

Anyone can make a watch only wallet with 10,000 addresses, load up bitcoin core, and just let it watch all day.

You'll get a notification when any coin in that wallet moves.

I'm pretty sure some people have already done it. If not, it's a simple matter of getting the first 100 or 1000 or 10k addresses from the blockchain or any block explorer.

Will he accept? :D

https://twitter.com/LisaNEdwards/status/727820853413482497 (https://twitter.com/LisaNEdwards/status/727820853413482497)

No what? Charlie Sheen as Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) in new blockbuster movie? Please.
This whole situation with 'real' Satoshi is so damn convenient for Gavin... and I remember it all started with the blocksize debate.

He kind of contradicted himself though, he said that he was part of a group of people who were the creators of Bitcoin. Implying that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is more than one person.

Idk, but if Craig Wright proves he is Satoshi, and Hollywood decide to make a movie with Charlie Sheen starring in it, then I believe we FAILers deserve some tip for spreading the idea. ;D

the satoshi pseudonym is of one person... ONE
but satoshi and other people like Hal finney and a host of other people (all with their own pseudonyms) helped program bitcoin.

even now today there are hundreds of people programming aspects of bitcoin.

but with all that said.

craig wright is not satoshi, nor any other prominent coder of the early days

i dont think he will prove it.. all he will do is make a phishing site that looks like blockchain.info and try to convince people the transaction on that site is real and all other blockchains and sites which dont display it are wrong or tweaked to hide the transaction in some conspiracy theory to attempt to pretend he is not satoshi.. instead ofcourse the truth... that craig isnt satoshi

Interesting reading, but can this be accepted as part of the truth ???

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html)

Interesting reading, but can this be accepted as part of the truth ???

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html)

Another interesting reading:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4htw3t/how_to_steal_54_millions_of_dollar_from_the/)

;D

Allright, since this mummer's show doesn't seem to increase the value of Bitcoin, we'll have to wait at least more 4 years for the truth? :)

I'm waiting him to post a message with Satoshi's account here. That's a si ne qua non things for me to believe that he's Satoshi.

If he can actually move coins from the genesis block then I will openly admit he is Satoshi and just be disappointed that my mind have fantasized a better man than what Craig is appearing to be, but like most people here I very much doubt that will be the case.

That proves nothing and I believe that theymos has blocked the account...

I hope so. I prefer to never know who's Satoshi than recognising that this clown is him. That would prove that he gots access to that account, that he of course could not have bought, though.

In probably that he would have to sign a known Satoshi address before the account was 'unlocked'.

It must have been manually removed from the list by theymos. I know satoshi's account was locked a
while ago but not sure why it needs to be removed from the memberlist (unless it needed to be to lock it adequately).

He kind of contradicted himself though, he said that he was part of a group of people who were the creators of Bitcoin. Implying that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is more than one person.

Well, how many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

Though you are correct that the coinbase in Block #0 is unspendable,
there are numerous txs that have added to those bitcoins within that address.
https://blockchain.info/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa (https://blockchain.info/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa)

Many users have added/donated some bitcoins to that address for fun.
Currently those added bitcoins exceed the 50 unspendable by 16+ bitcoins.

Those 16+ can be moved by Satoshi, since those coins come from spendable parents.

No, you are incorrect. See below:


Satoshi could move all other coins within the genesis address.
The address is not what has been marked as unspendable.
Only the original 50 coins have been "voided" for transfer.

If he log in in the bitcointalk account I can believe he is satoshi nakamoto.Because he is not online here on this forum?

did he perform that genesis block trick?  8)

Logging in from the account doesn't mean anything.His password will be stored in the database,in case the database is leaked anybody can post from the account and claim they're Satoshi Nakamoto.From what I know,the account is already banned in the forum by theymos.

I like number 4, lets give it a couple months to get everything figured out though  8)

I like number 4, lets give it a couple months to get everything figured out though  8)

Well, how many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

How many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

Forget him. Someone else has already said that... copy pasta...

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.