Bitcoin Forum

There is a  great  thread Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message in Bitcoin Discussion.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960'

I wanted to fork this to a new thread under Development & Technical Discussion forum that focuses on a technical review/analysis of the Tulip Trust addresses CSW is claiming he owns.

Some related news article related to the review in case you haven't been tracking this looney tune and his clown show:
https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-wright-submits-list-of-bitcoin-addresses-to-the-court-roster-contains-spent-blocks/
https://www.newsbtc.com/2020/05/25/old-bitcoin-miner-proves-craig-wright-no-access-tulip-trust/
https://support.bityard.com/hc/en-us/articles/900001073723-Satoshi-era-Bitcoin-Miner-Calls-Craig-Wright-a-Fraud-Using-His-BTC-Addresses
https://cryptonews.com/news/satoshi-era-bitcoin-miner-calls-craig-wright-a-fraud-using-h-6638.htm

I am proposing applying Sergio Demián Lerner’s research on Extra Nonce patterns that dates back to 2013. While his specific conclusions might still controversial, the extra nonce patterns associated with specific miners is generally accepted I think (let me know if you disagree on that point and we can discuss that some more). 

For more background on the Extra Nonce analysis and its implications I would recommend:
https://news.bitcoin.com/strong-evidence-suggests-a-single-entity-mined-more-than-1-million-bitcoin/
https://blog.bitmex.com/satoshis-1-million-bitcoin/

Since Sergio isn't active on bitcointalk anymore I thought it might be interesting to apply his line of research to the CSW claimed addresses and see what it tells us --sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  He pretty much appeared to have claimed all of the old unspent addresses but not all...interestingly he even added addresses that were spent event recently.  That is why I think the graphic might be worth a look.

To do this I would plot the coinbase blocks heights and extra nonce for each of his 27,973 addresses CSW submitted mostly to the court:
TheArchaeologist already conveniently extracted the addresses here: https://eli5.eu/analysis/csw_tulip.txt
I can add to the charts other unsprent blocks NOT claimed by the madman and even the 145 signed NOT by CSW addresses for additional context.

Let me know if anyone is interested and I will generate the charts. 

I looked up one of the addresses related to this as documented in the article https://blog.bybit.com/insights/credibility-questioned-is-craig-wright-lying-again/ (https://blog.bybit.com/insights/credibility-questioned-is-craig-wright-lying-again/)

When I run a search on 1FbPLPR1XoufBQRPGd9JBLPbKLaGjbax5m on blockchain.com there are 4 transactions associated with this address including a coinbase transaction.  However, none of the transactions are sending Bitcoin out of this address.

I don't understand how the owner of 1FbPLPR1XoufBQRPGd9JBLPbKLaGjbax5m could have Signed a transaction with the "Liar" message when they never sent out any bitcoin from that address to begin with?  Signing only occurs when the owner spends UTXO.

Thank you

when you have the private key you can create a signature from any data that you want, whether that "data" is a serialized transaction that you want to send or a message string, the process is the same.

Thanks pooya87 that makes sense now.  

I want to confirm I can verify the Signature myself by using the process outlined in this YouTube video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H0wtyP6hbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H0wtyP6hbQ)

Specifically the formula is at the 9:53 minute mark.  I wanted to just include an attachment of the formula but I don't know how to add attachments on this forum.

You can't.  It's not a feature enabled on this particular site.  You can upload it somewhere else and provide a link to it, though:

http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/sigformula.png

27,973 CSW's claimed Tulip Trust addresses:
CSW claimed that are entirely unspent: 27,899;  Block Height Range: 1 - 75,400
CSW claimed that are with some or all spent: 74; Block Height Range:  3,607 - 75,295

Out of the 27,973 a total of 145 addresses were used to signed a message: "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud…..We are all Satoshi"   

I already plotted there extra nonce values for these in the other thread:


Assuming these addresses belonged to a single miner the first green box is interesting with the two side by side parallel lines:  Doesn't it suggest that this miner had (at least) two mining computers that he restarted at roughly the same time to produce these tight parallel lines? Then one of the computers appears to have been restarted resetting the Extra Nonce value back to zero.  Any other theories?

Here is my first attempt to plot CSW claimed addresses.  The first chart is near useless because at the extra nonce for the claimed address blocks go intro the stratosphere but I am including it for context.
I think the legend is self explanatory.  The intent was to show the Extra Nonce values for ALL blocks from 0 to 76,000 broken down by color/shape:
The CSW claimed blocks are color coded as either unspent, spent or not his because the block was part of the 145 addressed used to the sign the 'Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud' message.
what was NOT claimed are shown as either shown as unspent or spent.

https://i.imgur.com/C1jsLWC.jpg

Setting the chart's Extra Nonce to a max of 7,000 allows more insight I think:

https://i.imgur.com/tK9d7OW.jpg

Any questions, comments or graph requests?

Beautiful!

"I have no further questions, your Honor."

...

Someone ping @MyLegacyKit on twitter: https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit

The #faketoshi fraud timeline ...
- https://seekingsatoshi.weebly.com/fraud-timeline.html

one more for now.  I am removing the not claimed SPENT blocks layer (since not interesting to CSW since no $ left  ;)) and zooming down to max 3,000 Extra Nonce level to help see the claimed and unclaimed unspent patterns across the bulk of this claim:

https://i.imgur.com/j6TjJ1e.jpg

"... "Out of the 27,973 a total of 145 addresses were used to signed a message" - DougM

Yes and no. Craig took these 28k addresses (created by Shadders in 2019), made a subset of 16,404 addresses, and filed that list in January 2020, claiming to have been compliant with court order."

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1295397741737250817

 ;D

Ah thank you for the clarification.  So you recommend I extract the addresses from this PDF (16,404 total) and plot them instead since they are his 'latest and greatest' list eh?
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.7.pdf

Was anything able to be learned or deduced from this?

Mostly that CSW seemed to target addresses with unspent coins that spanned what appeared to be multiple early miners based on patterns in the data making his claim even more implausible.

true, but his claims were "implausible" the first day when he tried to bribe so that they could vouch for his lie. and the last nail in his coffin was the second day when he tried to fake a signature and failed miserably. ;)

Craig Steven Wright is living up to this. In my humble opinion he has been given too much celebrity during the last years. With all the compelling evidence pointing out to his lies and misconduct this should have been buried already.
In any case, excellent analysis: I am not a tech guy but grasping the basics I can definitely see through it. Thanks.