It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.
You should be thankful that you are not banned (yet) due to the amount of spam that you've posted in the recent days. |
|
|
|
I think I'd rather use my mobile data, if I log onto the local Wifi surely they could tamper with or intercept my transaction.
The chances of this happening are very slim. Why would anyone want to risk their position by tampering your small transactions? However, I do understand your point with mobile data (although your ISP could do the same). They want to promote their «Crypto Valley Zug».
Taxes are very, very low in Zug and now they want to join the "new movement". After "Panama Papers" they need good publicity.
I don't see anything wrong with that? |
|
|
|
You should just drop the ban hammer on everyone who posts anything about CSW from now on, new thread or any old post.
That is a bit extreme. However, the staff is definitely being too soft here. Everything could have been discussed within a maximum of 2-3 threads, and there are certainly more than 10 open ATM. So the whole Satoshi thing is just a steaming load of BS I take it. Ah well.
Did you not hear that (apparently) CW bought Bitcoins at the peak on Mt.Gox (there's information on reddit)? This is definitely something that someone who owns so much Bitcoin would do.
Apparently some people think that signing 1 message from a known Satoshi is conclusive proof; sorry to break it to you, but it isn't. |
|
|
|
In der Stadt Zug können ab dem 1. Juli
Technically they don't accept Bitcoin payment yet, but this will happen within 2 months (albeit, this is great to hear). For those that are interested, the population of the city is: ~27k. the question is: will Zug hold the BTC or change them to fiat.
Well, it comes down to the reasoning behind the decision. If there is someone from Switzerland or the area, they could very well easily find this out. |
|
|
|
This might be interesting and relevant. This definitely sounds like something that Satoshi would do, considering he has ~1 Million Bitcoin.  According to the Mtgox leaks from early 2014, our brand new 'Satoshi' Craig Wright bought 17.24 bitcoins at a rate of $1198 each.As /u/winlifeat posted here, Craig was user 'e62d5e53-0dbc-44be-9591-725cd55ca9dd' at the Mtgox exchange. With this identifier, it's possible to look up his trades in the 2014 leak. I posted the raw data in this pastebin, you can import it into spreadsheet software like Excel to play with it yourself.
He started trading at 22/04/2013, this is just after the crash of the April 2013 bubble (or the 'Cyprus bubble'). He lost interest pretty quickly, because activity stopped 27/04, only to come back 25/11 around the peak of the last bitcoin bubble. His average price is actually $120 and he bought around 50 bitcoins, but his last buy was 17 bitcoins at around $1200. He ends up with a balance of just under 15 bitcoins when mtgox shuts down, so he probably lost another few bitcoins with trading. (The trade data in the leak stops at November 2013)
|
|
|
|
There should be accountability.
I disagree. You would just increase the difficulty of moderating here. If someone gets the banhammer on Poloniex, for example, you know which mod gave it.
Only certain staff of a certain rank can ban, so it is irrelevant. Do groups attack mods because of it? No, and they would know better than to do so without warrant, unless they all wish to get banned.
Mods sometimes get attacked here for practically no reason (including myself).
Anyhow, I do not feel that this is the appropriate place to discuss this. If you want to discuss it with other members, I suggest opening a new thread in meta. |
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan. Reason: Ref. spam. |
|
|
|
As long as Satoshi isn't really the NSA, he/she can be anyone in the world for all I care. I'm good.
Actually, it should not even matter that much who he is. I still don't understand why people have this so called "Satoshi-obsession". No one is Satoshi untill the person in question shows valid proof by signing from Satoshi's old addresses.
That is not conclusive proof. "We are all satoshi" -- except non of us has control of $1 million bitcoins (almost half a billion usd) like Satoshi, so apparently one person does have extraordinary power over btc for as long as they want.
1 Million BTC = 1 Million BTC; the fiat equivalent is irrelevant. Besides, nobody in their right mind would try to cash out a large portion at once. In any case, I think it is highly likely that one (NSA) or many intelligence agencies already know who Satoshi is. At this point it may take an NSA leak to finally unmask him.
Extremely doubtful. |
|
|
|
What do you think would be "good limitations"?
You're asking quite a difficult question. I can't really tell you what the perfect combination is. There were several proposals now that are different, some would give miners more control, some were basing on the average size of previous block size in X period of time and so on. More research and testing is needed in this area to determine what the right proposal would be. |
|
|
|
The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.
Correct. This would only work if all participants of the system were honest and mean no harm. This is obviously not the case with Bitcoin as it keeps being attacked via various methods (FUD campaigns, spam, TX spam, etc.) It is however, far too early for this to happen. What is needed right now is a dynamic block size limit, that expands using a predictive model of the same function which models the minimum increase in network bandwidth over time around the world.
There was talk about this being implemented at a later point. However, one has to set up very good 'limitations' so that the dynamic block size limit can't (hopefully) be abused in any way. |
|
|
|
When a message is deleted, it should say which mod actioned it.
It really shouldn't, else this will open up potential problems (e.g. groups attacking specific moderator for the deletion of their posts). For a recent deletion, I know that it isn't Blitz, who is the mod for that forum, so it could be any of the supermods or admins. Therefore, to whom does one direct the issue?
When we are talking about posts made by people above the rank newbie, the contact order is: board moderators -> global moderators. |
|
|
|
That's right. We should never deny the real Satoshi. How come its possible to prove particular person to be Satoshi or not.
Well, technically there is no way to prove whether Satoshi is behind a certain address right now. There are so many possibilities that certainty is not an option anymore. Quick examples: 1) Satoshi was a group. 2) Someone attained access to some of his keys, somehow. However, signing a message from some of the known addresses would be a decent start (unlike what the current scammer did). |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
scam or not, i am waiting bitcoin rate rise up until $800  You are obviously here for the wrong reasons. US$450,000,000 is equal to 1 million bitcoin, imagine if real satoshi comes out with 1 million bitcoin and he forced to pay tax US$450,000,000.
Bitcoin price could down to $0.01 or less.
It would probably be a temporary effect. Basically the market would temporarily collapse due to increased supply on the market; that does not mean that it won't go back up. Imagine the panic if those coins started to move without notice..
That is pretty much impossible as there are individuals (and groups) that are closely watching those addresses. |
|
|
|
Doesn't matter for me if it's really him or not as long as no one will dump the un-moved bitcoins to the market or there'll be panic selling.
Now you know what the general idea behind this story is (or the support for Anderesen's proposal). There are other possible (hidden) agendas that we might not be aware of. My thougths are:
* this guy is not Satoshi
* Satoshi either cannot access his funds (people often throw away/lose things they've used testing/toying around and it may be the case), either he's dead.
It is also quite possible that he has attained access to one of Satoshi's keys somehow. We can't really know for sure since nobody knew who Satoshi was (while he was still around). |
|
|
|
Regardless if this article is true or not, I always take everything on the Guardian with a grain of salt, I don't know if their tech related articles are more trustworthy.
They are definitely much better than those that have jumped on the "is 100% Satoshi" train. Most of the big news channel dont give any f*cks about bitcoin. They got their attention on other more viral things. (terrorism, ISIS, etc)
Not necessarily. However, we can clearly see here that their 'research' is inadequate. Most of the news revolving around Bitcoin tend to be false. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
