“Motion to compel people to apologise to me”?One of Last of the V8s’ links eventually somehow led me to an exemplary demonstration of Faketoshi’s legal acumen. Red boldface is mine; ordinary boldface and italics are as in the original fakery ( so to speak): https://web.archive.org/web/20190604133326/https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-and-science/In time, if I have to, I will work one by one through every person in the BTC community, until they all either wear orange suits, apologise, or disappear. No exceptions. [...]
The process of what’s going to happen is that I’m going to make people like Roger Ver, Vitalik Buterin, and the Core team stand up in court and formally apologise or be in contempt. They can work out how long you get to stay in prison when you’re in contempt and choose when they want to come out of the orange jumpsuit and apologise. You see, I don’t care whether you believe. Belief has nothing to do with science. You could say that you don’t like me and that in your opinion I haven’t given strong enough evidence, which sorts of things are legal and covered under free speech. Lies, defamation, and hate crime are not covered under free speech.
[...]
You get your day in court. You get to make claims about how I lied. Then, I get to show how you were spreading false information and that nothing you’re bringing up is true.
After doing so, you apologise. Such is how truth works. Such is how the legal system works. How it works—really? Where? Is that “how the legal system works” in exactly the same sense that “Craig Wright invented Bitcoin”? Or did he just tip his hand about jurisdictions in which he may potentially file frivolous lawsuits? I pose that in the form of a question to the forum legal-eagles, who must understand my natural incredulity at the notion that judges be some finger-wagging schoolteachers who say, “Now, now, you must apologise—go sit in the corner wearing the (orange) dunce hat, until you say you are sorry.” Of course, hereby only considering the point arguendo, courts in various places ( apparently including Australia) may consider whether or not a defendant has apologised, as a factor mitigating or aggravating monetary damages for defamation; and judges in many if not most jurisdictions may enter injunctions to restrain defamatory speech under penalties for contempt. But there is a world of difference between any of that, and ordering an apology, viz., ordering compulsory speech under penalty of some “remedial” * imprisonment of indefinite term. (* In some jurisdictions, imprisonment to compel compliance with a judicial order is called “remedial”, in contradistinction to “punitive”, on the ostensible grounds that its purpose is to remediate an ongoing contempt, and not to punish the contemnor. This logic is questionable at best, whereas indefinite imprisonment for stubbornness is in fact quite punishing, no matter what legal fiction may be applied. Anyway, this is irrelevant to the curious question of how Faketoshi expects for judges to find his hated heretics in contempt in the first instance—not only as a factual matter whereas he is in fact lying, but also as a legal matter. I would suggest that as a matter of law, Faketoshi’s argument would be less frivolous if he were to claim that all Faketoshi Deniers are insane, and seek orders committing them to mental institutions. The Flat Earthers may have similar luck with that strategy, methinks: People who believe that the ground beneath their feet is a giant ball rotating at high speed are obviously insane!)I hesitate to call this a facial absurdity, only because defamation law varies widely, and I am not an international law expert (or even a lawyer). I cannot be sure that some jurisdictons outside my legal reading may have extremely stupid laws that I would find abhorrent in principle. (Happens all the time.) I think that Faketoshi is probably just making this up as he goes along, per his usual custom;— falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, after all. However, I cannot be sure of it here—not as I am sure that he is a liar and an identity thief and he is not Satoshi Nakamoto. Again, that is considering the legal question arguendo (‘for the sake of argument’). Even if such a jurisdiction exists, Faketoshi would need to prove his case there; and that would require a jurisdiction so corrupt and/or stupid that its courts could be “somehow” persuaded to doing tantamount to adjudging heliocentrists liable of heresy “defamation”. And not as I can call facial absurdity on this—say what!? Lies, defamation, and hate crime are not covered under free speech. Putting aside my free speech principles against “hate” laws, just how does Faketoshi suppose himself to be a victim of a “hate crime”? Is the class of Satoshi Imposters a protected group? Perhaps a race or religion? What about people who denied others’ suspicions that they were Satoshi? Did Hal Finney commit a hate crime by denying his own Satoshihood? Alternatively, the way I’m going to clean up the space is to force every single person involved in the space to either swear they are Satoshi and created Bitcoin or back down and apologise. This requires no further comment for anybody who knows anything whatsoever about how laws actually work anywhere. Or simple logic, for that matter. Or— sanity. By the way, I am impressed that gmaxwell has incurred such hatred; I must work harder! ...people like Greg Maxwell are the opposite of what Bitcoin creates... O, what a prospect. I shudder to imagine the glee with which “Dr.” Wright fancies this: The Great Greg Maxwell forced to kneel and recant—no doubt whilst muttering beneath his breath, E pur si muove!
Speaking of Greg Maxwell, he just made an important post in another thread. I will hereby excerpt only a part; I recommend reading the whole thing: And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.
Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature. The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.
[I will be replying on that thread to something else that gmaxwell said there. For the benefit of those following this thread and not that one, I will edit this space with a cross-reference and a brief quotation of my reply.]
|
|
|
|
Old key is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159946.msg46696549#msg46696549. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
This key expires tomorrow. New key generated.
Fingerprint:
1F2E 62A4 553E DA69 3A11 C923 44E3 4D3B 633C F4EA
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=V0Bx
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Date: 17/02/2020
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=DjjO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello, World!
2020-02-17: I am Lauda.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYIAB0WIQQfLmKkVT7aaToRySNE4007Yzz06gUCXkpXbgAKCRBE4007Yzz0
6kNHAP0ZdN0OrzGSHTlMZeckeB5cBVzpwFCLlF1Bz0xP/qLQ+QD8Cti8A5CFnbWZ
3fRsTOLsa4qPkFSZDeWVprhrk+9Rsg8=
=otu8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Quoted and verified. Purr at PGP. :-) Hiss at the forum’s ad-hoc means of less-securely reinventing key management. :-/ |
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing your wisdom here, nullius! Cu plăcere, GazetaBitcoin! Your ideas are great and I just hope theymos will read your post here. Maybe he will make a change based on your suggestion, though. I also always hope for forum improvements. Unfortunately, given the problem of what seems to be a bit of software misdesign: Those fields are actually built a bit deeply into SMF for some reason, so it's not completely trivial to change, but it can be done. Low on my to-do list, though, as hugeblack mentioned. I think that at least in the short term, a more practical hope here is to encourage people to put their PGP fingerprints in the “other contact info” field, as I do! Perhaps a thread should be someday started to encourage that. However, I think we first need more PGP advocacy on the forum; otherwise, we would be putting the cart before the horse. (Perhaps another idiom with a literal Romanian equivalent?)I posted a PSA in Beginners & Help on why people should care about PGP fingerprints. For the how, I have a simple, forum-oriented, extremely basic PGP tutorial in the pipeline. In the future, I also hope to contribute to such fine efforts as this (n.b. my name in the credits). Together, we can build community efforts to help people secure their forum identities using the power of strong cryptography! Also, what AC2 copy did you lose? What do you mean by AC2? Assassins' Creed 2?  Bruce Schneier’s Applied Cryptography, Second Edition (1996) gave me my first solid introduction to cryptography. The book details how programmers and electronic communications professionals can use cryptography — the technique of enciphering and deciphering messages — to maintain the privacy of computer data. It describes dozens of cryptography algorithms, gives practical advice on how to implement them in cryptographic software, and shows how they can be used to solve security problems. Thus, it was a book for programmers who wished to implement cryptographic software without shooting themselves in the foot. Not so much a book for cryptographers—who must study how to (0) break ciphers, * then (1) design new ciphers, and/or write the low-level crypto primitive implementation code that is a type of black magic. (* As a commonplace heuristic, a cipher should distrusted unless its designer has long past study and experience in breaking ciphers. That is the “don’t waste your time” threshold for other cryptographers to take the cipher seriously, and try to break it themselves. If it passes that peer review, then the cipher may be trustworthy.)It was also (and may still be) a useful book for those who wanted deeply to understand how to use cryptographic software. I myself did not yet have significant coding skills when I discovered AC2. Still, it helped me to develop the correct mindset. That made me a “power user” of cryptographic software written by others, and helped to lay the foundation for my future coding. Of course, AC2 is now technologically obsolete and thus, mostly of mere historical interest. Published at the height of the 1990s Crypto Wars, it taught a whole generation of cypherpunks and cypherpunk sympathizers the practical implementation of applied cryptography, per the title. It was a sort of a textbook for those who wanted to learn how to follow the adage, “cypherpunks write code.” Besides that, I didn't know that in English exist also the saying "to not see the forest for the trees". I was sure it is a Romanian saying. Apparently, it is not. We have this saying as well, translated ad literam. As a guess from one who should know well enough to look up the history of the phrase, my immediate hypothesis is that it may be the type of idea spread through the European upper classes, who had Latin as a common language, and then filtered down into the vernacular. By comparison, European folk-dances show much variation; but ballet and ballroom dances were spread through Europe by the upper classes. Many high-culture dance styles (especially, ballroom dance styles) were much influenced by local folk dances, and in turn influenced folk dances in other parts of Europe. Consider that to be more of a demonstration of how to form such hypotheses than anything else. The next step would be some philological research, which may show the hypothesis to be wrong. Unfortunately, many reasonable-seeming hypotheses become wildly incorrect urban legends or “folk etymologies” that are flatly wrong, e.g., the incorrect notion that the phrase “give a damn” originated from “give a dam” with reference to a low-value coin. I give a damn about correctness. |
|
|
|
On Cause and EffectI find it remarkable that the trolls are fixated on the removal or downgrading of tags, which is an effect—rather than the apology, change of behaviour, and mutual agreement to stop fighting, which are the cause. Remarkable, as in literally, “should be remarked upon”—not unexpected, unusual, or surprising, per the usual connotation.
Extreme out-of-context cherry-picking to turn an obviously sarcastic remark into a serious admission.
Thanks. It is overt evidence of the same <sarcasm>honesty</sarcasm> that you usually manifest more covertly.
Yeah, I totally said "Look everyone! nullius admitted to secret underground meetings!".. Nope.. Do you not expect readers to have the capacity to see context? Well, there is your usual “honesty”— i.e., talking from both sides of your mouth. A reading of your post according to the “ordinary reasonable person” standard makes my point for me, insofar as any ordinary reasonable person can see that you stripped the clause which made it crystal-clear that I was simply ridiculing the notion. An ELI5 is not required; but for the lulz, let us see how different your post looks when the clause you omitted is restored: secret underground meeting where we get our orders from an evil cat stroking a pet human
That would explain a lot.. Looks like some deals are going on here, but nobody cares about TECSHARE.. LOL, yes: “That would explain a lot.” So would actual witchcraft! And I am sorry, Mr Quickseller, if you did not realize that simply making peace with Lauda requires that you shall be abducted by space aliens for the implantation of Lauda-alt mind-control devices in your brain. Well, it is now part of the deal. The flying saucer will be at your house any moment, for your psychotronic “onboarding” before you are used for breeding experiments. Anybody who denies this is only a brain-chipped catbot covering up THE TRUTH about you and Lauda, as you will soon see PROVED in a thousand troll posts against you. Alas, Quickseller, no good deed goes unpunished.
Do you know anything about any deals made? Eh?
You seem a bit overly defensive on that subject now..\ I am not taking the bait, which is almost comically foolish insofar as anybody can see that I am mostly ignoring the cacophony of accusations from the trolls here. “Defencive”? Not quite—oh, wait: Will you next claim that because I refused to be defencive, I must be hiding something? I did not deny the existence of secret underground meetings with secret deals!I was interested in the overt evidence of your usual dishonesty, as I said. Your custom is to be more slippery, as you are here. So having said, I will not argue the point. Complaints 2>/dev/null (Thanks, Anonymous, for the upgraded shell script!)
|
|
|
|
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5384/53846125.htmlsecret underground meeting
That would explain a lot.. Looks like some deals are going on here, but nobody cares about TECSHARE.. out-of-context cherry-picking to turn an obviously sarcastic remark into a serious admission. Thanks. It is overt evidence of the same <sarcasm>honesty </sarcasm> that you usually manifest more covertly.
|
|
|
|
I should catch up on this and a few other threads. Meanwhile, a few quick notes... Why do you guys keep on fighting?  Human nature, kitty. From the moment that I saw this, I accurately predicted that trolls would seize the opportunity to attack both you and Quickseller. (Ain’t it funny, Quickseller: I have been perennially accused by multiple persons (cough) of being a Lauda alt—and now, you’ve been accused of having sold your account to Lauda. You see how that works... Well, I will see you at the secret underground meeting where we get our orders from an evil cat stroking a pet human. Cheers. ;-)What I did not expect was for people who customarily lauded your years-long battle to Protect The Forum From Qucikseller to suddenly forget the terrific effort and energy that you expended toward what, for you, could not have been other than a sincere goal of Protecting The Forum. So, it is now quite suddenly high time to accuse you of anything from foolishness to ulterior motives of scamming with Quickseller? Perhaps I may still be naïve: I did not see that coming. Should have. I do like it when people show their true colours. I prefer honesty, whether it’s intentional or not.
To be filed away for anytime that TECSHARE tries to appeal to theymos’ authority: I am sorry to say it Theymos, but you are a rube. Just another example of TECSHARE’s recursively descending hypocrisy: - When TECSHARE agrees with theymos, and/or can twist a cherry-picked theymos quote to suit his needs: “theymos says so. Obey the boss.”
- When TECSHARE disagrees with theymos: “Theymos, [] you are a rube.”
in the spirit of Ancient Rome, what has been democratically decided A small historical aside: Rome was never a democracy. In the era of the Republic (including the time of the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage), it was a society divided into rigid social classes, with most of the power held by patricians as a sort of a large, hereditary quasi-aristocracy. In the time of the Empire, obviously, Rome was a dictatorship—literally, a dictatorship, starting with the Senate’s grant to Julius Caesar of a lifetime title * of dictator perpetuo. That was whilst he was alive; after he was dead, they passed a law declaring him to be a god, and the name “Caesar” became a title forever synonymous with “Emperor; lifetime dictator” not only in Latin, but also in German ( Kaiser), Russian ( Czar), and other languages. (* In Roman law, the position of dictator had previously a short-term position of emergency power for leadership in times of existential threat to Rome; cf. Cincinnatus, who was glorified for voluntarily renouncing his absolute power of dictatorship as soon as the crisis was resolved—15 days into his six-month legal term as dictator.)Athens had a bout with democracy. The right to vote was reserved to free adult male citizens, thus excluding women, metics (legal resident aliens), and a massive slave population—only about 10% of the population had the vote. The system was still so unstable and prone to corruption that it lasted for less than a century in truly democratic form. Worst moment of Athenian democracy: The vote to kill Socrates. Best moment of Athenian democracy: The rise of a strongman populist leader, Pericles, whose very name grew to symbolize the glory of Athens at its height. * nullius doubts that this “democracy” thing ever really worked as advertised, or ever will. |
|
|
|
Why did I just write a long post in Meta advocating the import of PGP fingerprints? XKCD #1181-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Signed,
Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCXkcnOQAKCRA228A4i3Sc
ixUGAJwJP2WaRtRRQoH2oRuib6SxiitnpACfdpOP4PzmLqAOJgM5Ly9HYNzu8lI=
=HmWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
$ gpg --import faketoshi_key.asc
$ gpg --verify faketoshi_message.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri 14 Feb 2020 11:03:21 PM UTC
gpg: using DSA key B96194D3FD955B88522B056F36DBC0388B749C8B
gpg: Good signature from "Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>" [unknown]
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: B961 94D3 FD95 5B88 522B 056F 36DB C038 8B74 9C8B
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
mQGiBEkJ+qcRBADC+PIFe02H2rnJ69n3nxbN/ANBdImKDckcXSGFSP8zdQa0V4kp
j0n6Diclaf53U8TtnfbmprLr9jtGdwd2ElvVAm7ykPEUCIgTUfBuqo4TNT+ojLHF
urcvJMWtoKaQRWWeMqAvkGApDr1cx/3OWthhqD3x9aTBMFoCjDe6TwpkhwCg2nrb
tYrAmCz9GQfzyxmkSwXqzfsD/j5MLYF29lMm1dA7IQSIsh8B1d3M6JM53s9TvQRz
5xrnNIt+AVpEK5dy3Av5Y72jtdjqwCitH5U6ciolKZtVQuZG06pPOja9jPcxB0vR
bYW2Iwj+k/+UAmKg/TYgmBmD2ywcwBrc0Xmd+Z+Drvrxbfo/3wwwHctLu+z8228Z
TlTUBACgDZj+pCes64E4SCOPYBXZD989TVeo5rPNTTso9p0wU7btMl+5f2yxTeLU
gaDBCTBNXZWSGMzZ2rV9keHaKxL+Fev5czlnbSWTLmzQzrm0nsESt8yoV1k8at4O
HGWJ5w1N955r7U3k1mIT6WRSdLBUIvcD2OJ0fRyp81MkGvl4UbQjU2F0b3NoaSBO
YWthbW90byA8c2F0b3NoaW5AZ214LmNvbT6IdwQTEQIANxYhBLlhlNP9lVuIUisF
bzbbwDiLdJyLBQJJCfqnAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQNtvA
OIt0nIusSgCfYryezf/iWF4dDjdBGuudQ6bCGRkAnAhtPedNaR429TK6zkEDlbnp
rCPRuQINBEkJ+qcQCACdmQxjwIyjEtAMnq6hN81KzobNxJTBDWv1BbrVCfdJXqvo
9mh8agQV8I3pI+aNUhNZevgET71fQHz6+95yPMj7YE2SQFSfmmlmhthSAkLXfoJY
xDtTGVTJ5sKJujk7hOAxUdZe24+UsNQkvfU42vSvH54j32QUwDXRKcV9W1kK6bIZ
s+X22fbusVdC/EmBMEpdtHqSvvunP3pPthp4+Ew/G65Op4k8o9a6GDt7V2oJ7gce
OSvFQZkTD9VuBzlWbD7NuN5+BKciPPBWUtvfpAJPcb/3AjX/+OVqw2pu5I4IVmPR
RIANXSmbV4KgYsTJ3TQs2SHjYtcrMdQC0gGYMWY3AAMHCACXWZLjuqWqUKdDSY5g
CqQ9ySRDIvlY8Xbgt6X3D2El7Mtfox7Q4WApzqfnDVvd5Vd0xXIb1ZSTcwVciq4a
qjrbOVN2Eu9/BMAAdp9AABHGSJ0VsP8Hpx3r0HyHlEuqB9IS4+vbxIDpqONFWAxL
ifLxKY9Gi8sSWRLFQK0Fn1d/F979HhVGjagyktbg/rLQoGTBuRO/55crlQnXUf7S
d+ltO3prvPvzhZyTgrz2VOVfMLnmFd83vmGjKrNtQpVKxOLWIbYT+npADgwoPVtA
lcm4CMFiROv2+TdWI+uw/unkwqUnu7ooY3hX/WtldVCCVD+hhKwqs2gAbWhR9WZ1
zKHZiGAEGBECACAWIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCSQn6pwIbDAAKCRA2
28A4i3Sci0IZAKC0XH7lRViSVwpzTUQCM1qMgSDJ+QCgs8Eh8w4rMA/lCsS50nZH
jqGT8es=
=QHXp
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
$ cat faketoshi.conf
cert-digest-algo SHA1
default-preference-list AES256 AES192 AES128 CAST5 3DES SHA1 SHA256 RIPEMD160 ZLIB BZIP2 ZIP
$ gpg --faked-system-time "1225390759!" --options faketoshi.conf --expert --full-gen-key
[...]
gpg: WARNING: running with faked system time: 2008-10-30 18:19:19
Please select what kind of key you want:
(1) RSA and RSA (default)
(2) DSA and Elgamal
(3) DSA (sign only)
(4) RSA (sign only)
(7) DSA (set your own capabilities)
(8) RSA (set your own capabilities)
(9) ECC and ECC
(10) ECC (sign only)
(11) ECC (set your own capabilities)
Your selection? 2
DSA keys may be between 768 and 3072 bits long.
What keysize do you want? (2048) 1024
Requested keysize is 1024 bits
ELG keys may be between 1024 and 4096 bits long.
What keysize do you want for the subkey? (3072) 2048
Requested keysize is 2048 bits
Please specify how long the key should be valid.
0 = key does not expire
<n> = key expires in n days
<n>w = key expires in n weeks
<n>m = key expires in n months
<n>y = key expires in n years
Key is valid for? (0)
Key does not expire at all
Is this correct? (y/N) y
GnuPG needs to construct a user ID to identify your key.
Real name: Satoshi Nakamoto
Email address: satoshin@gmx.com
Comment:
You selected this USER-ID:
"Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>"
Change (N)ame, (C)omment, (E)mail or (O)kay/(Q)uit? o
We need to generate a lot of random bytes. It is a good idea to perform
some other action (type on the keyboard, move the mouse, utilize the
disks) during the prime generation; this gives the random number
generator a better chance to gain enough entropy.
We need to generate a lot of random bytes. It is a good idea to perform
some other action (type on the keyboard, move the mouse, utilize the
disks) during the prime generation; this gives the random number
generator a better chance to gain enough entropy.
gpg: key 36DBC0388B749C8B marked as ultimately trusted
gpg: revocation certificate stored as '/home/user/.gnupg/openpgp-revocs.d/B96194D3FD955B88522B056F36DBC0388B749C8B.rev'
public and secret key created and signed.
pub dsa1024 2008-10-30 [SC]
B96194D3FD955B88522B056F36DBC0388B749C8B
B96194D3FD955B88522B056F36DBC0388B749C8B
uid Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
sub elg2048 2008-10-30 [E]
$ gpg -a -o faketoshi_key.asc --export 0x8B749C8B
$ nvi faketoshi_message.txt
$ gpg --options faketoshi.conf -u 0x8B749C8B --clearsign < faketoshi_message.txt > faketoshi_message.asc
Now, observe that most of my focus here is on authentication of an identity, and not simply on providing a means of contact. A comparison of the communications security of PGP to that of ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger would be laughable. Placing a PGP fingerprint in one’s profile is a statement of cryptographically strong identifying information, not merely a bit of contact info. That, indeed, is why I have kludged my PGP key fingerprint into my profile and displayed it in my forum signature, ever since I started actively posting. I am 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C; 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C is me; and if you want to authenticate my identity, I explicitly request that you verify digital signatures rooted in 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C.Merited by nullius (10)Kek, only one interesting thing: i can't find any pgp signature or bitcoin signature from nullius after his return (since 2nd January). His pgp keys is well known - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3107429.0Are you sure this is real nullius? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
PSA: *Always* verify digital signatures.
If somebody claims to be me, and he refuses produce
a fresh signed statement signed with a key certified by
0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C (whether as a subkey,
or through proper rollover(s) to a new master key), then you must
conclusively presume that he is an imposter and an *identity thief*.
Signed,
nullius (2020-02-14)
In homage to Grand Duchess Anastasia and Satoshi Nakamoto:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCXkbeaQAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SYTHAQD3Qu3qQSrTgO4PTuHtyUnevNEvy6EELXz6I+iGEV8sxAD/UG+ulc0Jrd7j
LjL18mAodvlGIaPppfCGldxHwseNJwg=
=4VkN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity. Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity. With my large boldface supplied: Topic: satoshin@gmx.com is compromisedToday I received an email from satoshin@gmx.com (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps satoshin@gmx.com expired and then someone else registered it. Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.) * nullius asks, “But what is Satoshi’s PGP key fingerprint? If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?” The email said: Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you. Not exactly Satoshi's normal style.  * nullius asks, “The key that I just downloaded from your link lacks any Web of Trust signatures. Anyway, suppose that I don’t already have verified keys from anyone who knew Satoshi. What then? Does this look right to you?” $ gpg Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
gpg: WARNING: no command supplied. Trying to guess what you mean ...
pub dsa1024 2008-10-30 [SC]
DE4EFCA3E1AB9E41CE96CECB18C09E865EC948A1
uid Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
sub elg2048 2008-10-30 [E]
With a tiny programming effort, I could even more closely fake a “Satoshi” key. With that plus a few CPU cycles, I could fake the 32-bit “short” keyid; with computational work on the order of what the Bitcoin mining network does in one-half second, I could even fake the 64-bit “long” keyid. But I could not fake the full fingerprint!Stop identity theft using the power of public-key cryptography!Cut off imposters at the threshold.Always make sure that you have the right key. Check PGP fingerprints!
Local rules: Trolling, Faketoshi shilling, and replies to such things will be deleted at my exclusive discretion. DNFTT. Bad technical advice may also be deleted, unless it makes for a good opportunity to correct common misconceptions. Posts doing the latter are encouraged.
Posts which quote the whole OP will be deleted on sight. Insubstantive posts, “me too” posts, etc. will also be deleted, even if well-meaning. Please be considerate of readers.
Newbie-level smart questions are welcome. Newbie-level discussion by technical experts is very welcome.
Please keep technical discussion at a level appropriate for the Beginners & Help forum. Further explanations are welcome, e.g. as to why I used the options that I put into faketoshi.conf. Most of all, I welcome good advice about how to verify PGP key fingerprints in a non-ideal world—where not every key is in the Web of Trust, and not every newbie has even a verified starting point in the Web of Trust.
I will reserve a post for downlinking the best posts on this thread, for linking to translations, and for other metadata.
|
|
|
|
OP, good idea except for the “Telegram, Discord, Skype and Instagram” part. The research into actual ongoing usage (or the impossibility of such usage) of the various old popular IM networks is most useful. Unfortunately, I doubt that the forum will add, remove, or change the existing profile fields anytime soon. Too bad. This thread caught my attention because I was involved in a similar thread in December of 2017—when I was a Newbie actively posting for two weeks, as noted below. At the time, I suggested a PGP fingerprint field. Now, I must address something that theymos apparently said whilst nullius slept.
An important security message from Mr 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C, a.k.a. “nullius” #976210:I’ve long thought there should be a spot for PGP fingerprint.
PGP fingerprints are SHA-1, which is insecure. The OpenPGP standard really needs a complete new revision... theymos is wrong here, and he should not be FUDding the security of PGP fingerprints whilst a revised standard is slowly grinding its way through the IETF process. SHA-1 is badly broken against collision attacks. SHA-1 MUST NOT be trusted for any purpose requiring security against a collision attack, period. (Now, where is SHA-1’s trust page?)An attacker who did a SHA-1 collision attack against PGP key fingerprints could generate two different keys that have the same fingerprint. That’s it. He could not determine in advance what the fingerprint will be; and he could not by thus means generate a key matching somebody else’s already-existing fingerprint. There are many uses of hashes where collision attack resistance is important—especially, any scenario where an attacker can generate benign and malicious versions of a message (a contract, a CA certificate request, etc.), induce an innocent party to sign the benign version using a digital signature based on SHA-1, and then apply the same digital signature to the malicious version. Git is also vulnerable to an attacker generating benign and malicious versions of a commit, although as a practical matter, the attack seems difficult to carry off with a plaintext source code commit. Regardless, as a precaution, Bitcoin Core uses custom commit-hook script generate a SHA-512 tree hash, and also makes use of signed commits. Generally, I would be much more wary of images, PDFs, and other blobs committed to a git repository, in any scenario where a malicious committer could benefit by sneaking in a bad version. Whereas a PGP fingerprint is not such a scenario. A PGP fingerprint needs resistance to preimage attacks, not collision attacks. SHA-1 still provides a 160-bit security level * against a preimage attack. (* Simplified for the sake of explanation. Please don’t counterargue with some research paper shaving two or three bits off the security margin, or whatever; I would not consider SHA-1 to be “broken” against preimage attacks, unless someone shaved it down significantly below the approximately 2128 amount of work needed to break other some cryptographic primitives used by PGP, e.g., the best known attacks against Curve 25519.)As specified in the current version of the OpenPGP standard, at RFC 4880 § 12.2, a v4 key’s fingerprint uses SHA-1. The way that it uses SHA-1, an attacker would need to carry off a full * preimage attack to make himself a key matching someone else’s PGP fingerprint. That is infeasible. (* “Full”, in contradistinction to the partial preimage attack that Bitcoin mining uses for proof of work. Similarly, it is trivial to make a key matching a 32-bit PGP “short” keyid, and not-infeasible to do the same attack against a 64-bit “long” keyid. That is why I have always listed my full PGP fingerprint in my forum signature.)The “RFC4880bis” draft revision of the OpenPGP standard prospectively adds v5 keys, with fingerprints using SHA-256. Those will provide a 256-bit security level against preimage attacks on the fingerprint. My root-of-trust PGP identity key fingerprint is based on an Ed25519 key. A Pollard’s rho attack could solve the DLP for my key with about 2 126 work (← note: 126)—to say nothing of a hypothetical future attacker with a large, efficient quantum computer. (I don’t think that’s a significant practical concern to Bitcoin now; but an identity key should be able to last a lifetime, at least.)I am certainly interested in better options for my identity key*. But whilst those are yet unavailable, it seems pointless for me to quibble over the security level of a v4 fingerprint with its 160 bits of preimage attack resistance. (* Linked post is by nullc, who is not me. Oops.)Now, observe that most of my focus here is on authentication of an identity, and not simply on providing a means of contact. A comparison of the communications security of PGP to that of ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger would be laughable. Placing a PGP fingerprint in one’s profile is a statement of cryptographically strong identifying information, not merely a bit of contact info. That, indeed, is why I have kludged my PGP key fingerprint into my profile and displayed it in my forum signature, ever since I started actively posting. I am 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C; 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C is me; and if you want to authenticate my identity, I explicitly request that you verify digital signatures rooted in 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C.Merited by nullius (10)Kek, only one interesting thing: i can't find any pgp signature or bitcoin signature from nullius after his return (since 2nd January). His pgp keys is well known - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3107429.0Are you sure this is real nullius? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
PSA: *Always* verify digital signatures.
If somebody claims to be me, and he refuses produce
a fresh signed statement signed with a key certified by
0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C (whether as a subkey,
or through proper rollover(s) to a new master key), then you must
conclusively presume that he is an imposter and an *identity thief*.
Signed,
nullius (2020-02-14)
In homage to Grand Duchess Anastasia and Satoshi Nakamoto:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCXkbeaQAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SYTHAQD3Qu3qQSrTgO4PTuHtyUnevNEvy6EELXz6I+iGEV8sxAD/UG+ulc0Jrd7j
LjL18mAodvlGIaPppfCGldxHwseNJwg=
=4VkN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity. Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity. With my large boldface supplied: Topic: satoshin@gmx.com is compromisedToday I received an email from satoshin@gmx.com (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps satoshin@gmx.com expired and then someone else registered it. Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.) * nullius asks, “But what is Satoshi’s PGP key fingerprint? If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?” The email said: Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you. Not exactly Satoshi's normal style. * nullius asks, “The key that I just downloaded from your link lacks any Web of Trust signatures. Anyway, suppose that I don’t already have verified keys from anyone who knew Satoshi. What then? Does this look right to you?” $ gpg Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
gpg: WARNING: no command supplied. Trying to guess what you mean ...
pub dsa1024 2008-10-30 [SC]
DE4EFCA3E1AB9E41CE96CECB18C09E865EC948A1
uid Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
sub elg2048 2008-10-30 [E]
Whereas in the context of what is really a discussion of forum identity, theymos’ deprecation of PGP fingerprints is not seeing the forest for the trees. As its primary means of authenticating identity, the forum relies on plain-old password authentication! (And it has been hacked in the past.) Even a totally obsolete v3 PGP fingerprint using MD5 would be incomparably more secure than the forum’s login system for the purpose of securing user identities!https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2001/0315.html#6Remember, strong encryption is not our problem; we have secure algorithms. In fact, it's the one security problem we have solved; solving it better just doesn't matter. I often liken this to putting a huge stake in the ground and hoping the enemy runs right into it. You can argue about whether the stake should be a mile tall or two miles tall, but a smart attack is just going to dodge the stake. - PGP v4 fingerprints, SHA-1 preimage attack resistance: A stake one mile tall.
- Future PGP v5 fingerprints, SHA-256 preimage attack resistance: A stake 1.6 miles tall (256/160).
- Forum login: LOL, 0 bits of cryptographic security. It is a centrally controlled identity which can be trivially impersonated by anybody who can in any way gain administrative-level access to the forum’s SMF installation, and by Cloudflare, who can see all login passwords and logged-in cookies in-transit. My very first Newbie post in my post history:
I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare.
(I seem to also remember a Schneier quote about attackers climbing in through the window, after you secure your door with an unbreakable lock. I can’t find it now. It may have been in AC2; I lost my copy of AC2 whilst fleeing the CIA due to undisclosed personal difficulties adventures circa 2011. Help?)
My Newbie suggestionLet’s google first to see if things have been suggested before.  Yes, but you missed an earlier suggestion on a thread whereby I myself replied, when I was a Newbie. Well, from your above quote, it looks like Mr Nasty was a fan of my Newbie posts. ;-) Or what's most secure that we would want to advocate people use?
I might say Keybase, as long as people use their own PGP keys & not the ones Keybase generates.
For chat: Jabber (for OTR), Ricochet, Tox. Simply for use of the fields: Straight-up PGP key fingerprints! Please. If possible, with means to time-lock them instead of pasting ad hoc messages into the “stake your address” thread. That could solve so many problems. Keybase users could also post their PGP key fingerprints, of course. But that way, the fields would not be Keybase-specific. [...] Besides having suggested profile PGP fingerprints when I had been posting for but a fortnight, I believe that I was the first person to ever suggest time-locking a commitment of a PGP fingerprint in a forum profile. It is actually not the best solution. A much better idea would be to give pseudonymous cypherpunk users the option to irrevocably commit an account to be bound to PGP fingerprints, TOFU as for the first committed key, with a strict key-rollover rule requiring bidirectional cross-certification between the old key and the new key. That idea has some subtleties, obvious failure modes, and nonobvious edge cases that I don’t think I should discuss at length here, when the chance of it being implemented Any Time Soon on the forum is effectually nil.
P.S., please never tie anything into Keybase! The stupidly misdesigned verification procedure in their web app makes it impractical to keep a profile updated without installing their software, and entrusting one’s keys to their software on a network-connected computer—or else blindly copypasting their shell scripts into a network-connected machine that has both gpg and curl (!). This is unacceptable to me. I have a warning posted on my long-disused Keybase account; and I may perhaps delete the account entirely, due to the impracticality of keeping my key updated there. |
|
|
|
In case you don't know, here is a nice article about how the story unfolded a few years ago: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creator/[Note article date: “05.02.16” American-style, = 2 May 2016 — nullius]
When rumors surfaced early last month that Australian cryptographer Craig Wright would attempt to prove that he created Bitcoin, Gavin Andresen remained skeptical. As the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, his opinion counts: Andresen is among the earliest programmers for the cryptocurrency, and likely the one who has corresponded more than anyone with Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin's pseudonymous, long-lost inventor.
[...]
"The procedure that’s supposed to prove Dr. Wright is Satoshi is aggressively, almost-but-not-quite maliciously resistant to actual validation," wrote security researcher Dan Kaminsky early Monday. After more analysis, Kaminsky updated that assessment: "OK, yes, this is intentional scammery."
On a newly-created website, Wright published a blog post featuring what appeared to be a cryptographically signed statement from the writer Jean-Paul Sartre. It seemed intended to show, as in Andresen's demonstration, that Wright possessed one of Nakamoto's private keys. But in fact, Kaminsky and other coders discovered within hours that the signed message wasn't even the Sartre text, but instead transaction data signed by Nakamoto in 2009 and easily accessed on the public Bitcoin blockchain. "Wright's post is flimflam and hokum which stands up to a few minutes of cursory scrutiny," wrote programmer Patrick McKenzie, who published an analysis of Wright's message on Github. "[It] demonstrates a competent sysadmin's level of familiarity with cryptographic tools, but ultimately demonstrates no non-public information about Satoshi."
[...]
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. He was visibly emotional," Andresen says. "He’s either a fantastic actor who knows an awful lot about cryptography, or it actually was emotionally hard for him to go through with this." Craig Wright is a “confidence man” and career scammer. It is not exactly news that experienced scammers are indeed “fantastic actors” who realistically simulate emotions they do not feel. File that part under, “Do I need to explain this like you are literally five years old?” :-/ Whereas the connected clause, “...who knows an awful lot about cryptography” demands another either-or: Either Gavin Andresen knows an awful negligibly, infinitesimally little about cryptography, or he had an ulterior motive for boosting Craig Wright’s perpetration of grand-scale identity theft with authoritative “Bitcoin Chief Scientist” expert praise that was as fake as Wright’s Satoshihood. The Gavin Question: Stupidity or malice?The proposition of malicious ulterior motives must invoke the ancient question, Cui bono?Subject: Gavin will visit the CIAI want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories: I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community. Subject: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign RelationsI've accepted an invitation to do a question and answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, DC on Thursday, February 6, 2014. I've been told anything related to the Council on Foreign Relations tickle's peoples Grand Conspiracy buttons, so I thought it would be best to be open about exactly what will happen. I hope it doesn't spark as long a thread as my visit to the CIA, but Bitcoin is a lot bigger than when I visited the CIA... When somebody is a guest of such “interesting” entities as the CIA and CFR—I mean here, when he actually chums up with them, and that is not an “space aliens told me that he might secretly communicate with them” sort of speculation— and then, he in fact proceeds to undermine Bitcoin in every way he can (with his boost of CSW being far from the only such misdeed), that preëmptive bashing of “conspiracy theories” reads as if he doth protest too much, methinks.https://web.archive.org/web/20120712200425/http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. (Link already handy for another post that I am preparing on a different topic. :-/ )So, that is the “Gavin is compromised!” theory. Whereas Craig Wright’s “proof” of a Satoshi signature to Gavin was the kind of idiotic charade that would not fool anybody with an IQ of at least 90, who had at least read the Wikipedia article on digital signatures. The only alternative theory is thus that the “Chief Scientist” of the ill-conceived “Bitcoin Foundation” is himself so ignorant of cryptography that he does not know how to verify a digital signature! This, in turn, would require an outward-spiralling technical ignorance enveloping everybody who ever endorsed Gavin’s expertise: Satoshi himself, various Core members... Could that multiplicative, exponentiating group incompetence be so? Really? The actual creator of Bitcoin extensively corresponded with an idiot who doesn’t know how to verify a digital signature? In this case, Occam shaves against discarding the “conspiracy theory”. The simplest, most probable explanation is that Gavin is compromised.
Indeed: Cui bono?Now, bearing in mind that Gavin has been a friendly guest of the CIA and the CFR, let us see what he created by endorsing Faketoshi. Who benefits, indeed? In the following quotations, I deliberately cherry-pick so as to bring out the subtext beneath Wright’s empty emotionalist appeals to things that scare people (drug dealers, etc.—whom I myself personally despise, by the way: I don’t do drugs; I have never bought anything off the “ darkweb”; I just want privacy, because it is my right!). Bracketed material is added by me, sometimes in summary; boldface, red, and (except for a section title) large fonts are mine, whereas italics are as in the original. https://web.archive.org/web/20190228100312/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/careful-what-you-wish-for-c7c2f19e6c4fBitcoin was never designed to help an anonymous money-transfer system...
I do not like Wikileaks, and I have never been a fan of Assange’s methods....
Any blockchain is able to be controlled and made to work within the legal frameworks of where it exists. It does not stop government taxing, and it does not bring down banks. It was never designed for such a purpose.
A blockchain is... incredibly simple to trace when the parties to a transaction have breached the law, and it allows a complete audit trail to exist. The past is something people do not understand, and few have learnt. In the 90s, a far more anonymous electronic cash system was developed, and since then, many others have been created.
DigiCash was founded in 1989. Unlike Bitcoin, DigiCash was based on an anonymous model. The system incorporated the transfer of blinded transactions that used DigiCash as a settlement system. Bitcoin uses an open pseudonymous model...
Chaumian eCash can be implemented inside Bitcoin script. I know it well; I have patented it, and will in time realise how it can be achieved. The issue here is that the main issue with eCash was that it used an anonymous currency. Bitcoin does not face such an issue and the regulatory issues that follow...
Bitcoin is an immutable ledger... Bitcoin is a permanent and an unalterable evidence trail. I was not afraid of Gavin and when he met with the CIA. Bitcoin is an immutable data store, that is something that honest government desires.
I needed to fix what I allowed [sic]...
I was embittered for many years.... [A brief swipe at Timothy C. May...]
I have worked in digital forensics a long time prior to creating Bitcoin. I only ever worked for the prosecution....
There is no form of PoW or PoS or any hybrid system that cannot be regulated and monitored, and the most beautiful part of what I am releasing (and have completed) is that the more you try to make something anonymous (rather than pseudonymous), the more it can be controlled. The more you seek to be like Zcash or some other crime coin, the more privacy you give up.
Lightning—all about losing data
The economy is all about information. Bitcoin was a means to take data and add value, it is an informational commodity; that is how it obtains value.
In a perverse twisting of this, Lightning was created...
The creation of off-chain channels that allow information to be deleted [sic]...
It is why the Core team have capped Bitcoin at 1.0 MB and refuse to allow it to scale. It is why they added SegWit and other completely ignorant and insecure changes that have been discarded when I spoke to some of the same people a decade ago. Let’s see this again:Subject: Gavin will visit the CIAI want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories: I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community. Subject: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations"I’m still convinced he’s Satoshi despite the really weird proof he’s put in his blog post," says [Gavin] Andresen. He stands by a statement he published on his website this morning: "I believe Craig Steven Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin." https://web.archive.org/web/20190414230321/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/satoshi-nakamoto-a7c4cf21253e[Opens with a swipe at Timothy C. May...]
Privacy and anonymity are polar opposites... [sic]
To create Bitcoin, I used the very system of thought it is designed to collapse.... All of what I have said and done is hidden in plain sight. Such was the nature of my company, Panoopticrypt...
Bitcoin destroys anonymity in all its forms.... [Followed by an appeal to the emotions of “The proletariat” (!)...]
I was a part of the movement that was the cypherpunks. Not because I agreed but because it needed to be stopped. When you understand Bitcoin, when you understand a sound system of money that acts to allow exchange privately [sic] but with an immutable evidence trail, you will start to understand why I created Bitcoin. I am not exactly going out on a limb here in positing that the CIA and banks (and organizations where these sorts of things get cozy) indeed benefit from Faketoshi. They would thus have the motive. In Gavin, they would have the means to obtain, in Craig Wright, the opportunity. N.b. that potential motive this is not mutually exclusive with Wright’s obvious personal motive of scamming hapless newbies for money with his pump-and-dump altcoin, falsely advertised as “Bitcoin”.
I saw this years ago. (And that’s why I am not rich.)Because “Lightning is nascent”, I have recently begun talking about talking about something I hereto held my tongue about to avoid FUDding Bitcoin before a fix was ready: The draft of one of my not-yet-published essays opens with the observation that Bitcoin has a fatal flaw; and I continue with some personal discussion of why I’m not “Bitcoin rich”: I spent years casually watching Bitcoin as an intellectual curiosity, whilst assiduously avoiding use of an append-only global public ledger—an idea which frankly horrified me. (My proposed solution is Lightning. By the way, observe who hates Lightning and the Layer-1 technologies that enable it.) BSV agrees with me, after a fashion: Bitcoin destroys anonymity in all its forms. [...] The path forward is already set in stone. [...] When you understand Bitcoin, when you understand a sound system of money that acts to allow exchange privately but with an immutable evidence trail, you will start to understand why I created Bitcoin. Orwellian word-twisting and imposter-claims aside, the quoted portion is correct: Bitcoin, as originally designed, is an anti-privacy technology. I saw that years ago. That’s why I am poor. I am not revealing non-public information by pointing out that “nullius” appeared on the Zcash project forum before appearing here. The Zerocoin paper caught my attention in 2013, and I am too patient for my own good. I am not advocating Zcash here—to the contrary! Lightning makes “privacy coins” obsolete. The biggest incentive that I can think of to keep Bitcoin’s design “set in stone” is to retain its anti-privacy characteristics. BSV openly, explicitly declares that this is its agenda! WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. FINANCIAL SURVEILLANCE IS PRIVACY. Wake up, people! This is not about Craig Wright. This is much bigger than a scam to grab money (though Wright is no doubt enjoying that ancillary benefit for himself). It is a strategy to impose KYC-GovCoin by the backdoor.... that Occam plus all available evidence show that Satoshi just made an awful mistake in his belief that “pseudonymous” transactions would provide sufficient privacy. Satoshi was a genius working on an extremely difficult unsolved problem: Trustless, Byzantine fault-tolerant transaction ordering. Well, that is a technical description; the colloquial explanation is that Satoshi wanted a way to make people who distrust each other all agree on one financial ledger, without any central authority to resolve disputes. Satoshi was mortal. He was a genius, but he was not a god. He solved one problem that had crippled previous digital monetary systems, and thereby inadvertently introduced a problem which is actually much easier to solve. From a technical perspective, it is understandable that he failed to foresee how powerful blockchain analysis would become. (I foresaw it; but I am not Satoshi.) Lightning is the solution, * for exactly the reason that Craig Wright hates it! Lightning is a network of private ledgers which are all synchronized by a global public ledger. The private Lightning ledgers hold your private bank statements, by rough analogy—the global public ledger shows only the opening and closing of the private ledgers. Do you want to avoid publishing your bank statements on the public ledger? Move to Lightning! Lightning is the next step in perfecting Satoshi’s true vision of freedom.(* And n.b. that I cut my teeth on what Craig Wright calls a “crime coin” (!), as quoted above. I lost much of my money in Zcash—and knowingly so, painful though that has been: To me, privacy is more valuable than money. I am pleased to be able to move on to Lightning, which has better privacy, and is Bitcoin. Moreover, other strong privacy solutions for Bitcoin are also in development.)
Gavin’s Overall Pattern of Supporting Fork AttacksIn 2015, only about nine months before he boosted the Faketoshi (the forker and fork-forker extraordinaire), Gavin Andresen knifed the rest of Core in the back, and joined surveillance and financial censorship fan Mike Hearn in an early prototype of a fork-attack against Bitcoin: “Bitcoin XT”. This post is already too long; and my eyes are blurry after searching for links and quotes for this post and others. Would somebody else please help concisely to debrief readers on the history here, and its relevance? For now, I will simply excerpt a 19 August 2015 IEEE Spectrum interview with Dr. Adam Back, the inventor of the Hashcash which Satoshi used as the basis for Bitcoin mining (as cited in the original Bitcoin paper): https://web.archive.org/web/20150820000929/http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup[Dr. Adam] Back: Gavin [Andresen] naively thinks he'll do the coup, force the issue, and then invite people to participate in the coup. However, Mike [Hearn] states on the BitcoinXT website that he is the final decision maker (or benevolent dictator as he puts it). So, its clearly intended to change the decision making process. And Mike has not been without bias and controversy.
It seems quite unlikely from indications I see that any of the core people who maintain Bitcoin's security will participate in BitcoinXT. It is therefore not clear that BitcoinXT will have the resources or expertise to maintain it's safety and security. Quelle surprise that after he supported Bitcoin XT and then boosted Faketoshi, Gavin then supported Btrash; e.g.:@gavinandresen tweet ( archive): Bitcoin Cash is what I started working on in 2010: a store of value AND means of exchange. So, how’s this shaping up? - April 2011: Gavin visits the CIA.
- January 2014: Gavin visits the CFR.
- August 2015: Gavin joins the first fork-attack against Bitcoin, “Bitcoin XT”.
- May 2016: Gavin publicly endorses Faketoshi’s technical claim to have “verified” a Satoshi signature—a claim that is later used to promote the BCH fork-attack, and is the sole basis of the BSV fork-attack plus Nchain frivolous legal attacks.
- Late 2017: Gavin supports BCH fork-attack on Bitcoin.
That’s a summary, and I am tired. Others should feel free to fill that out a bit (but please keep it to the major points, not minor details). N.b. that Gavin’s more recent equivocation over Faketoshi does not alter the fact that he gave him a critical boost at a critical moment; and he does not seem terribly eager to try to stop the monster which he himself gave life.
For relative brevity, I will leave aside for now the question of how Gavin’s behaviour with the odious “Bitcoin Foundation” fits the foregoing argument. Anyone else care to take that up? If so, please keep it brief and relevant to the topic of showing how Gavin’s boost of Faketoshi was only a part of his consistent attempts to undermine Bitcoin. If you really want to get into it, create a new thread focused on that topic—quote excerpts and link to it here.
The Same Standard Applies to MeLet’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did. Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence: | achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature. What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
Despite the strength of the foregoing argument, I need not hereby positively conclude the question whether Gavin acted from stupidity or malice. For it is unnecessary to reach a conclusion either way: Those are indeed the only options, and either one damns Gavin. Wherefore I conclude: Perennial fork-attacker Gavin Andresen is jointly responsible for having essentially created the Faketoshi scam, which would have fallen flat as a clown act if the so-called “Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist” had not wrongfully supported Craig Wright’s grand-scale identity theft against Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr Andresen is untrustworthy. |
|
|
|
Indeed, quite incidentally or perhaps inadvertently, William Shatner now appears to of 'joined' Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam] with the following tweet(s)! ... "Why can’t he prove it? 🤷🏼♂️
From what I’ve read is that some mysterious bonded courier would deliver the keys (which honestly is a scene right out of Back to the Future.) If he is, he should be able to prove it. This is like the modern day search for Anastasia."- https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/1226894636699942914[...more quotes and links...]Holy fork! This suddenly makes want to watch Star Trek. My respect, Captain Kirk!There is hereby an important lesson: Whether Shatner borrowed my idea, or he indpendently thought of the same historical analogy (which would be an big coincidence due to the timing ;-), the truth is spreading—and that’s great for Bitcoin!Shatner is a celebrity with a giant microphone. Through his social media and his entrée to the mainstream media, he will carry Anastasia’s message to masses of people—and they will carry it to their Facebooks and Twitters and IRL chit-chat with their friends. I did not make Project Anastasia for the Bitcoin Forum only. I made it as a message to be built on Satoshi’s own forum, and spread by a cadre of Bitcoiners to every other venue of discussion. A community is made of people, I am a person—so I decided to lead by example, starting with two topics showing the types of discussion that I hope others will join me in carrying forward, far, and wide into many languages and many venues of discussion:- Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon, a positive essay to explain why my motto is, “There is only one Bitcoin”... I think it is important to keep this principle: Always say what you are, before you say what you are against. [...]
- Project Anastasia...
In the long term, these two will only be the beginning... I always work slowly, but I am a patient man; and I have started my Bitcoin advocacy with the intent of growing it to have a long-term large effect, not of making a drama splash and then getting bored. Bitcoin is worth love, it is worth working for— and it is worth fighting for.I assure you that the emotional impact of my Anastasia essay was fully, consciously intended—and moreover, intended to be exemplary: This is how it’s done, folks! [...] Wherefore I encourage others to spread the Anastasia Bitcoin message to other venues of discussion, and also to create similar forms of argument upon the principles that I have hereby set forth. People should neither ignore Wright, nor wildly lash out at him: Keep focus, keep the high ground, and keep hitting the key points, repeatedly, in every single discussion so that he cannot get away with these cheap psychological ploys. (...etc.... I think also in a few other places that I didn’t find on a quick review...)I have been intending to elaborate on the necessity of starting with this thread, and spreading the message elsewhere. Evidently, the discussion has gotten ahead of me at warp-speed!Please, could some Trek fans help me out here! It’s the that best I can do. :-(Of course, among other means of spreading Anastasia’s message, it is fully appropriate to tweet links to this thread...
On General Knowledge and IdentityA neat demonstration of why Hyena-style tactical diversion must be cut off at the threshold: Such arguments about alleged general similarity of knowledge and ideas can lead to absurdies which are comical, if not made with malicious intent. Maybe William Shatner is nullius, who invented Bitcoin?Could be funny, if it were not malicious disinformation intended to be brainwash people who lack the technical expertise to make their own assessments:I know the language Craig speaks very well and as a professional in my field I can say that Craig clearly knows what he is talking about. LOL, troll:Nullius' knowledge about blockchain science and cryptography is a dead giveaway.... He could even be Satoshi.  (Gleb Gamow also once joked in good humour that I may be Satoshi due to my use of two spaces after each sentence. Key terms: “joked”, “good humour”. Sorry, I can’t find it now.) Funny!Or nullius is Shatner? I myself have futilely tried to crack Satoshi’s keys using magick, for the principal purpose of signing a message that says, “I am not Satoshi. — nullius, Bitcoin Forum #976210, PGP fingerprint 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C” ;-) A takedown of Faketoshi’s technical incompetence is important in its own way. That has been done many times—here, on Reddit, and pretty much everywhere else that this matter is discussed. But it is a discussion which should be cut off cold when shills use claims of “Dr.” Wright’s alleged expertise to divert and reframe so as to sneak around the threshold question. I myself will happily engage a debate over Wright’s expertise (or lack thereof) if and only if he produces a Satoshi-signed message which identifies him as Satoshi. *crickets* |
|
|
|
This was always correct use of the system, I'm really tired of this "only trade" or "only scammers" nonsense that's being portrayed by others. It is incorrect. I must remark, there are two very different visions of how the trust system should be used. I agree with yours (and sorry, I am indeed a sort of extreme version of you on that point). In another thread, Quickseller reasonably disagreed with my tag on TECSHARE without picking a fight with me over it. Ultimately, the community will move to an organic consensus on what best benefits the community as a whole: A narrowly limited reputational system that exclusively focuses on direct evidence of trading reliability, or a more robust reputational system that encompasses trustworthiness of character (which is indirect evidence of trade risk, as well as being important in a thousand other ways). Although, as a cypherpunk, I have a yen for discussion of pseudonymous reputational systems, the subject is hereby off-topic beyond noting that reasonable people can debate that point reasonably. There is no gang. There is no abuse in QS's case. I will not repeat myself. Moreover, attempts to polarize this thread and turn it into a flamewar are despicable. It evident that certain parties want for you to have a continuing forum war with Quickseller, because they benefit from conflict qua conflict and from you having more enemies. Don’t let these sowers of discord get to you, kitty. |
|
|
|
-snip- Haha, called it: It's difficult to make sense of their incoherent ramblings, but it also seems as if CSW and Ayre are gearing up for some kind of legal claim against the entire blockchain "database"...? They seem to be suggesting that while Bitcoin is under MIT licence, the ledger isn't and so therefore is a "breach of contractual rights": https://mobile.twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1224753981206990853Good catch! On the side, I am trawling through some of CSW’s older essays to show what his ultimate agenda is: His ends sought by such means as would be merely absurd, if they were not so potentially harmful. What is he even talking about though? This year I take charge and control of my system[5]. Those on the copied systems that are passing themselves off as bitcoin, BTC or CoreCoin and BCH or BCash are hereby put on notice. "Take control"? If it's under an individual's control, then it's not decentralized, it's not bitcoin, and it's worthless. "Those on the copies systems are put on notice"? What's he going to do, sue every developer, every exchange, every merchant, every wallet, every user? Because he has such a strong track record when it comes to winning lawsuits.  The danger is that he may FUD Bitcoin analogously to how BSD was treated as radioactive by business owners worried about liability, at just the time when Linux was nascent. (Important distinguishments: In that case, it was not Linux’s fault that an unrelated corporation decided to do some copyright trolling—and the original lawsuit there was not totally frivolous from a legal perspective, at the time before all the remaining AT&T code was stripped out on an emergency basis.) In the future we're going to see more crap like him threatening any business that accepts Bitcoin with patent litigation, to which the common response will be "damn, this bitcoin stuff isn't worth the trouble" from most parties who's business isn't primarily about Bitcoin. How could you expect otherwise when your response to wright is "damn, this wright stuff isn't worth the trouble"?
I know the language Craig speaks very well and as a professional in my field I can say that Craig clearly knows what he is talking about. In that case, perhaps you could start working through the long list of errors, inaccuracies and incompetence displayed by CSW and explain how someone who knows what he's talking about could make so many? See below: No, not unless he passes the threshold: Observe that besides some insults ( e.g., “segshit”), hv_ kept trying to lure people into an endless argument over issues that are both irrelevant to my OP, and unreasonable to even consider when Craig Wright has not produced a cryptographic authentication of his claim to the identity of a cryptographic innovator who has known public keys.The answer to every statement he ever said about Satoshi's wallets or ownership
of same should have been "sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake" This is called a threshold question. An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached. Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood. It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else. I have deleted Hyena’s post ( Loyce archive) due to his violation of the thread-local rule clearly stated in OP: Moderation note: Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood. And I am in a bad mood. Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. Thank you. Any further posts by him in this thread will be deleted, unless he posts a threshold Satoshi-signed message identifying CSW as Satoshi. |
|
|
|
Quicksellout7 humilating himself in public Alas, Quickseller, no good deed goes unpunished. For my part, I found your apology to Lauda to be quite as dignified as such a thing can be, and presumptively sincere, in large part because it was not some apology-culture ritual self-humiliation to fulfill an implied condition of promised forgiveness. Either that or he finally sold his accounts like nullius appears to have done. LOL, you “truthfully” daring sockpuppet, you got me! I sold my account and my PGP private key to somebody who has exactly the same enigmatic personality, inimitable writing style, depth of ideas, and originality of thought as I have. It was as if I long slept, then awoke in a fantasy world: A world superior to this one, in which there are two of me! So, he sent me some big BTC in exchange for my credentials. I tossed in my longtime friendship with Lauda as a “buy one, get one free” sort of deal. Signed, nullius’ twin
Are you now claiming that Laura is trustworthy and their account should be red trust free? What lauda did was wrong, and was a display of poor judgement. With that being said, what happened, happened a long time ago, I have good reason to believe lauda is remorseful for what he did, and to my knowledge he has not made a similar mistake since. I have left the extortion thread unlocked, and it will remain that way provided no trolls bump it to stir up drama. In addition to being remorseful, Lauda was also punished with the severe consequences of being fired from a prestigious paid job that was probably quite important to her: You got what you wanted. Lauda is no longer a staff member. You can lock this thread now. Ouch.But the admins of this forum must have their reasons for removing Lauda as a staff member, which (unfortunately) I think will never be made public. You don't think it had something to do with the fact that lauda recently admitted to trying to extort someone? Indeed, I think it had everything to do with it: Lauda did something wrong, was punished, and then rapidly regained people’s confidence by remorsefully accepting that, and continuing to otherwise contribute to the community—instead of creating ten thousand whine threads as many of her haters do, “Reeeeeee authoritarian boss theymos fired me from my job—so unfair!!”(By a comparison of apples and oranges about two very different wrongs, I think that you would have done well to have said, * “Hey, tspacepilot, if I was going to get busted, at least it was by someone with rigorous forensics instead of reasonable suspicions inflated to ‘compelling evidence’ through armchair guesswork,” and taken whatever practical steps necessary to right wrongs.) (* To overextend the topic title’s allusion to a point nearing non sequitur, Hannibal and Scipio Africanus mutually agreed that if one of them had to be defeated, at least he would be defeated by the other. They respected each other with a noble attitude, as if each thought: If I must fall, let me fall at the hands of the best, who is my equal. Much though the Romans hated him, Hannibal’s defeat was an historic tragedy. —Well, I think that I have now passed the point of tragically torturing a noble analogy until it no longer makes any sense. My apologies to Hannibal.) Wow This will hurt the forum. Lauda was one of the most active staff members. As a practical matter, the forum’s loss may be my gain. If I ever start a service dealing with the public, I intend to attempt persuading Lauda to accept the position of holding a large, shiny ban-hammer. Good help is hard to find, and I need somebody to protect the good people. Complaints > /dev/null.
I purposely left this thread un-moderated, despite suggestions and warnings from others, so that observers can observe the true nature of people. Alas, Lauda, no good deed goes unpunished. This peace is not related to any other disputes, nor did this peace happen in one singular day, nor can it happen unilateral (don't expect my forgiveness to those who (haven't stopped their activities or) run around behind my back and consistently speak ill of me - that is not changing our ways, that is not peace, that is not honesty in peace..). QFT. For my part, I may shoot holes in some of the haters later. Busy now. |
|
|
|
I did not put any conditions on my apology to Lauda. Nor did I make demands after the fact. It was an acknowledgement that I was in the wrong. Cherry-picked as something that ought be highlighted. I can’t speak for Lauda, but I don’t believe he has any corrupt intentions in creating this thread. I can’t speak for Lauda; but I would guess she saw what I did, i.e. that you could have no ulterior motive for reaching out with that apology, when you had... ...no assurance (or even rational expectation) that the reply will not be, “Too little, too late; go die in a fire”? It actually takes some sincerity and courage to do that. I, for one, believe you, at least on that point (and it’s an important one). See below for further analysis.
An important point to note: I argue the following from my own perspective. As I recently observed elsewhere: I must note the mutual distrust, in fairness to Quickseller: I have obviously and unapologetically always been on Lauda’s side in that dispute; and I must recognize that Quickseller had his own perspective on that, even if I think his perspective was dead wrong.
The Quickseller case is unique: Downfall from grace;—now, possible redemption?Fact beats detective novels: A respected member of the community rapidly became the forum’s most-distrusted virtual leper according to BPIP way back when. The rigorous application of forensic authorship identification left people feeling deeply betrayed by someone who had been so trusted. The individual in question then seemed as if he had embraced the lifetime devotion to revenge once sworn by the boy-Hannibal to his father: “I will use fire and steel [and much forum badness that nullius will hereby avoid mentioning on a thread about peace] to arrest the destiny of Rome.”I believe that Quickseller is a highly intelligent individual which is precisely why I previously saw him as very dangerous (in comparison to just some dumb troll, of which there are many). O, he of Punic faith! Quickseller would never have been so widely despised, if he had not previously been so widely admired. From my limited knowledge of forum history, most of the few users who had a downfall of such magnitude had done bannable offenses, and were banned. He hadn’t, and he wasn’t; and so he went on the warpath with few friends, and many enemies. His Nemesis: Lauda.With this new détente, can Quickseller completely turn things around for a rise as spectacular as his downfall? Time will tell: In reputational matters, it is far easier to destroy than to rebuild. I am curious to see what Quickseller may choose to build on this forum going forward. In this circumstance, I don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody with a Lauda tag to suddenly come crawling out of the woodwork with vociferous complaints in the “peace” thread. Those who do so, are only thus proving that they lack the sincerity that Quickseller has shown, as described below. Indeed, it is trolling with flamebait; and moreover, it is offtopic: What does any of this have to do with Quickseller, or with Lauda’s announcement of peace with Quickseller? http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5379/53799851.htmlNow only to get to the other dozen or so people you attack... [...] I would not hold out much hope for any kind of peace with TECSHARE when he himself reacts to others’ newfound amicability by trying to start a fight. ~ ~ [...] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2758665Name: truth or dare
Posts: 11
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
Position: Newbie
Date Registered: February 10, 2020, 07:08:35 PM
Last Active: February 10, 2020, 11:13:20 PM It is self-interested gratuitous bellicosity, and in boorish poor taste.
Care to elaborate?https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=84866Merited by ibminer (3)(Edit)
P.S. I am not buying this spirit of forgiveness crap, maybe the OP wants to run some shit with an ex-scammer and wishes to take off the baggage or whatever. ibminer, that was meritorious? The edit apparently occurred within the 10-minute (?) period in which the post does not show an edit time. allahabadi, you evidently do not know Lauda very well. I would suggest that bad people should try to corrupt her into such a conspiracy, because it is a probably a good way for them to earn red-tags. Anyway, what “shit” would you expect for Lauda to “run”? Selling pills, maybe?
The Quick QuestionI will hereby present some evidence of the sincerity of Quickseller’s motives that I myself found significant, but I did not previously intend to ever discuss publicly. For the record, I noticed similar things that I will not mention here: I consider myself to be an astute observer, who sees what others do not; I do not want to write a guidebook for manipulative types to show me what I want to see. (And to any impartial observer, the following will speak for itself as to my wisdom.)The prelude to this thread really began here: Topic: @PrimeNumber7 is an alt account of @Quickseller Subject: I am not Quickseller.Merited by nobody—but I presume, not unnoticed by Quickseller.Sorry... On principle, I will not become Quickseller for the purpose of smacking down alleged Quickseller alts.In the same thread, I also brought out other old “Quicksy” quotations for the purpose of telling others that they should avoid following that example. As I am (or was) wont to do, I also ridiculed old Quickseller quotes in a few other places; but nowhere else did that so neatly intersect with the topic of a controversy which surely must have caught Quickseller’s attention. And golly darn, what will I now do without “Quicksy” as a rhetorical foil representing all ills of the forum? ;-)Whereupon, I observed, inter alia:- Quickseller’s only plausible direct motive to suddenly retract a thread that hadn’t been bumped in eleven months, which nobody else was discussing, was that he sincerely realized it was wrong, and he was ashamed of it.
It could not plausibly have been a trick, for a reason that I recently stated in another thread:
...suddenly, publicly, unilaterally apologize... for years-old threads, with no assurance (or even rational expectation) that the reply will not be, “Too little, too late; go die in a fire”? It actually takes some sincerity and courage to do that.
I would not accuse Quickseller of expecting for Lauda to treat him kindly. And had Lauda wanted to reject his apology, then I myself would have backed her unequivocally on the principle that after all he did, she had the right to say, “too little, too late”. It was an awfully big risk for Quickseller, with no sure reward but to assuage his own conscience. - Although I agree with Lauda that PrimeNumber7’s identity is not proved either way, I think that Quickseller’s behaviour at the sidelines of that controversy is circumstantial evidence that they are probably two different individuals.
Quickseller is proud. He would not eat humble pie for Lauda just to protect his own work building an alt identity: Instead, I expect that he would ruthlessly counterattack, as he has done many times before when others wrecked his deceits. But if another person were being smeared with what I called “Quickseller-stench”, using what I identified somewhere as “Quicksold” twisted logic, then that may cause him to rethink some of his past behaviour—as he did, within 48 hours.
(All the moreso if they may be separate people who know each other IRL—which would be none of anybody’s business, except insofar as it may explain the thin evidence connecting them. However, I do think that Quickseller may have behaved similarly, if PrimeNumber7 were just an innocent stranger who got blindsided by being pinned with the Quickseller stigma. In that case: “WTF, now some poor random bloke is getting torched with an accusation of being me!? I am sincerely sorry that I made similiarly wrong accusations in the past.”)
This, in turn, is evidence that his motives are sincere: The whole scenario invoked remorse in him, and he acted accordingly.
(N.b. that analysis of PrimeNumber7’s identity is off-topic here; thus, I have confined the foregoing to a narrow discussion of what reasonable inferences may be drawn about Quickseller’s motives for apologizing to Lauda.)
Because this is an Internet forum ( sigh), I must state explicitly that none of the foregoing evidence is conclusive, and all of it must be weighed carefully. Together with my other observations, it is sufficient evidence for me to consider Quickseller to be prima facie sincere, absent contrary evidence.
The Acts of QuicksellerI'd like to see an explicit statement of what you have done in the past which was not best for the community. And then, maybe provide some examples on what you would "believe to be best for the community" moving forward? Although your questions are reasonable, I respectfully suggest that this is a long-term question—and one of acts, not words. For Quickseller to publicly browbeat himself in some ritual ceremonial apology is neither necessary nor sufficient; and for my part, I am more hopeful because I don’t see him making grand promises for the future. Talk is cheap. “Time will tell.” I have noticed that quietly, without fanfare or pretense, Quickseller has recently retracted some of the dirt he slung out against a few other people—not only the pill thread against Lauda ( which was only on everybody’s minds because I myself had recently been calling attention to it). That is a good sign; I hope he that will do more of it, and do it right quickly. I say “hope”, because the best thing about his apology to Lauda was that it was of his own initiative, unrequested and unexpected. I would not give him so much credit, if he were to mouth a bunch of apologies just because someone told him to. After having swum in a sea of red for years, how high a standard can Quickseller set for himself here? To be clear, I am not trying to rehabilitate Quickseller: That is up to him. —Up to him, as he stepped up of his own initiative to amends with Lauda. My position is actually a fair bit harder than yours, ibminer: I simply step back and watch him do what he wants. I will pass my judgment on the results of him acting of his own free will. I hope that I will be suitably impressed. It will not hurt my feelings if I am not. I am probably the most unforgiving person on this forum; Quickseller was never a simple troll. (I always accused him of worse in the sense of “evil mastermind”; but that is beside the point.) In the long term, for my part, I couldn’t care less either way about whatever vision Quickseller now sets forth for doing the “best for the community”. I want to see it. If he does good things, then I will applaud that!—if he does bad things, then I will urge others to treat him a thousandfold as harshly as they did before, with no third chances—and if he does nothing, then he will just fade to grey as a moderately interesting has-been who, at least, is no longer widely hated. Meanwhile, I will treat him with a judicious neutrality. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
Amazing! Two more translations were posted within three hours of each other. Soon, indeed, the whole world will know to properly identify Craig Wright’s scam as identity theft.
Maraming Salamat, Baofeng, for the Filipino translation! Ang pagkakakilanlan ng hindi nagpapakilalang tagapagtatag ng Bitcoin ay ninakaw ng isang impostor.
Si Craig Wright ay isang magnanakaw ng pagkakakilanlan:
Hatur Nuhun, Husna QA, for the Indonesian translation! (And this is the first time that my mundane communications with a translator have been wholly PGP-encrypted. Husna takes his crypto seriously.) Identitas anonim pencipta Bitcoin dicuri oleh penipu
Craig Wright adalah pencuri identitas:
...with my further thanks again to Taikuri, Gazeta, and Manish for starting this trend!
Craig Wright claimed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that he controlled 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
He presented a sworn document purportedly created in 2013 where his lawyer swore that Craig controlled the address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF
The funds in this address were used as collateral for his business ventures. Unless there is something that I missed here, I doubt that Craig Wright has access to the 1Feex private key. Let’s lather up with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and shave down the following with Occam’s Razor: - To damn all the more by understatement, CSW has a known history (!) of claiming possession of private keys which, in fact, he does not possess. What evidence do we have that his 1Fee private key isn’t just like the Tulip briefcase-load of Satoshi private keys being handled by an action-movie secret-agent courier?
- Anybody who actually stole almost EIGHTY THOUSAND BITCOINS (!) should damn well know to never associate himself with that his stash of loot in a document filed with a court (!!). Would a bank robber point to his stolen sacks of cash in a court filing?
- To my knowledge, there is no evidence that CSW has any advanced hacking skills (or even a competent understanding of how Bitcoin works). Is there any evidence that he is concealing a keen technical intelligence behind his shrewd techno-clown showman swindle?
- The 1Feex address is a longtime popular mystery, and most people have no idea what it is (2014-12-28: The only mention of “Gox” in that four-page thread, with no mention of the hack: “The 1Fee address is probably an MT Gox address although there is no direct evidence, just circumstantial.”). Yes, I know of later-discussed evidence in various places. But try web-searching the address by itself, with no mention of Gox; you will find endless pages of social media speculation and fantasy completely unrelated to Mt. Gox.
CSW could have simply picked that address the way almost everybody else finds it: Looking at the richlists. Faketoshi Classic: “Hey, I need me something to claim as collateral... hmmm, let’s see: What Bitcoin address has lots of money just sitting there?” - Most lawyers and most courts are ignorant of technology—and you must multiply that factor a thousandfold for anything pertaining to Bitcoin in 2013! It would be much easier to fool them than to fool (or “fool”) Gavin; and it’s unlikely that anybody would even keep an eye on the address to see if funds moved later. A career scammer would know this. It is just the type of human vulnerability that he exploits daily.
- If, as I suspect, Faketoshi may be on a leash being held by whomever I suspect to have compromised Gavin, “whoever” wants efficient, covert means to disrupt Bitcoin. And if you want to shave away “whomever”, just consider that greedy, Bitcoin-hating scammer CSW has probably heard of a “short”.
Regardless of the difficulty that the 1Fee possessor may have in recovering spendable money from it, anybody with private key to that address could wreak at least short-term havoc on the Bitcoin market—not merely in terms of the direct economic effect of “only” eighty thousand bitcoins, but much moreso through the FUD “news” headlines that could be generated. Nuff said?
Whereas a real blackhat would may not want to disrupt the Bitcoin market that way, if he anyway has plenty of spending money from other hacks. Why? For better or for worse, the “you shall protect Bitcoin” aspect of the Social Phenomenon applies to blackhats, too—at least to some degree. I think to myself, if I were an intelligent blackhat acting only from rational self-interest, what would I do with 1Fee? Probably more or less sit on it as my cold-stored nest egg and proof of ultimate pwnage, as I merrily spend all the other bitcoins that I have stolen in smaller, more easily-laundered amounts. What? Do I want to FUD the market for the money that I enjoy stealing and spending? Lulz, I’m rolling in gold—I will not smack the goose that lays the golden eggs.
That being said, the question of whether or not Faketoshi possesses the 1Fee key is almost irrelevant at this particular moment if he claimed possession of stolen property in a court filing. Either he essentially confessed to interesting crimes or, more likely, he committed a whole bundle of other interesting crimes rippling outward from lies told to a court. In terms of his fate, the question of whether or not he actually possesses said property is thus tantamount to asking if he shot himself in his left foot, or shot himself in his right foot. Of course, that question is much more interesting to any Gox creditors; but that is a separate issue, and unlikely to be a big issue due to the unlikelihood that he actually has a private key which he may have only “proved” to his lawyer similarly to how he “proved” a Satoshi key to Gavin.
I am 99% certain that it was Craig S Wright who masterminded the Mt Gox robbery. If this can be established, Evidence establishing 99% certainty? I doubt it, but I want to see it proved if it’s true. Instant “game over” for Faketoshi, Nchain, and probably a few other bad characters closely associated with him. Maybe also even a bit more recovery for people who got Goxed. So... proof? (Preferably in a concise link to/quote of more discussion elsewhere.)
It might be easier to start a lawsuit to recover the $700 million in MtGox coins that were stolen in 2011 that he claimed to have the private keys to in 2013. If CSW claims to control the keys, then those are stolen funds and must be surrendered. I will file that under “maximum lulz”: Obviously, his defence must be to prove that he deceived a court in 2013! Any which way it plays out, it would be mighty tough for people with badges to ignore. “O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
— Sir Walter Scott |
|
|
|
You [TECSHARE] can't understand the substiation. I have tried hard to explain it. Everyone else can though, and that's what matters. Boldface: Thanks for the TL;DR of a part of what I just said. ;-) You can keep posting that my claims have no basis if you think being a parrot will work for you. :/ Here, let me update my post for you: I wish I had your [nullius’] ability to ignore unethical idiots. :/ I find it beneficial to the health. :/ You know the aphorism about “wrestling with a pig”; and... TECSHARE races to the finish line of an Internet Argument! |
|
|
|
I wish I had your ability to ignore unethical idiots. :/ I find it beneficial to the health. :/ You know the aphorism about “wrestling with a pig”; and... TECSHARE “winning” ...I don’t run on that track. OK bud - when Techy claims to win because you won't reply, I'll point users to this information. Thanks. Though I am not exactly afraid of TECSHARE making ten thousand posts on this forum, excitedly announcing that he “won” an Internet Argument because I explicitly refused to waste my time arguing with accusations by a known troll that any reasonable person can see are wrong. LOL. Anybody whose opinion actually matters will see that I am simply ignoring a pro-grade Internet Arguer who is trying to bully me with high-volume nonsense. That is what an impartial observer will see as for me—unlike suchmoon, who has spent the past nine pages dodging and then ignoring, inter alia, the iron logic of a simple syllogism, “If ~nullius, then ~Vod; if not ~Vod, then not ~nullius” over the singular tag for which she initially declared she would exclude me. (Her and eddie’s attempts to shift the goalposts notwithstanding.) Whereas if xolxol and similar creatures declare that TECSHARE “won”, then—well, I couldn’t care less.
Evidently addressing TECSHARE and Vod in the context:Are you guys still fighting behind this? Come on, y'all can forgive and forget.
I mean, Quickseller and Lauda had a dispute for years, and if they could come to terms with each other, you can too. That’s a quite different situation, not really relevant here; if warranted, I will address it in the pertinent thread. The summary is that it has evidently been a process of two parties starting from a position of extreme mutual distrust, and slowly working toward the start of a common understanding with a hopeful future. I must note the mutual distrust, in fairness to Quickseller: I have obviously and unapologetically always been on Lauda’s side in that dispute; and I must recognize that Quickseller had his own perspective on that, even if I think his perspective was dead wrong. I really don’t think it is a matter of “Eh, shrug, ‘forgive and forget’.” Not for either of them—and I would not trivialize it that way. Thus, sorry, I actually don’t see what your point is—unless you are suggesting a forecast that TECSHARE will go through a long period of not attacking Vod, and then suddenly, publicly, unilaterally apologize to Vod for years-old threads, with no assurance (or even rational expectation) that the reply will not be, “Too little, too late; go die in a fire”? It actually takes some sincerity and courage to do that. Whereas this is TECSHARE’s response to Lauda’s announcement of the new peace between herself and Quickseller: Trolling with bait to ignite a flamewar by derailing the peace thread into a “dozen or so” other ongoing fights in other threads, i.e. more “winning” in the retarded sense.http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5379/53799851.htmlNow only to get to the other dozen or so people you attack... Quickseller was never a simple troll. (I always accused him of worse in the sense of “evil mastermind”; but that is beside the point.) And I must remark, although he said earlier in this thread that he disagrees with my tag on TECSHARE, he has been fair here in the way that I can “agree to disagree”. Anyway, pugman, I would not hold out much hope for any kind of peace with TECSHARE when he himself reacts to others’ newfound amicability by trying to start a fight.
That statement wasn't directed at you. I appreciate the clarification. Sorry I scrolled straight past a post in almost illegibly bad English by an alleged/putative CH sock in the short span between this... ~ Demanding me to address some "points" sounds an awful lot like cryptohunter...and this: Hey cryptocunt, you try two hardy notttalky the inglich good. I furthermore presumed that insults were directed at me, because I am the topic of this thread, wherein you have previously seen fit to call me a... complete buffoon ...as part of your life advice to me, which I duly filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️ In the future, when cryptohunter has been mentioned, I will try to pay more attention to things that I would otherwise ignore, instead of drawing such inferences as seemed reasonable, but turned out to be in error. I will edit this post with an appropriate correction (clearly marked as an edit).
To avoid letting this post run too long and unwieldy, I must leave other issues for later. |
|
|
|
scammers are cunt,cunts are scammers afaik you're a cunt so you're a scammer?
we dont give a fuck with your problems keep posting here twathole
Apparently you care enough to keep responding to Tman's posts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Dumb shitnugget and general whackjob xolxol is just trying to cadge freebie insults off TMAN, instead of paying for services like a man. I can smell the stink of his desperation to have TMAN curse him out! What a wretched little beggar. superiority, sir?
you are a bitch for calling me sir, you are prime example of someone who needs my services. - Your bank promises you courteous customer service while it pretends to safekeep your pretend-money. It then treats you like dirt (unless you have €normou$ a¢¢ount$, in which case its representatives will kneel and offer to fellate you).
- TMAN promises to abuse you while you pay him, and you will like it. Meanwhile, he will provide “best services” to you.
Banks: 0; TMAN: 1. |
|
|
|
Thank you. I am out of merit and source merit, so I cannot merit your post at the moment. I gave my very last smerit for this (having recently depleted my stockpile by merit-bombing all the awesome translations listed in my signature). For me to see, “You have 0 sendable merit (sMerit) which you can send to other people.”, it is indeed an historic moment for the forum. ;-) (Just saw before posting: Whoops, no longer 0.) I do promise to not repeat previous mistakes and to always do what I believe to be best for the community. I look forward to seeing that! |
|
|
|
|
I am probably the most unforgiving person on this forum; and I respect you all the more for this, Lauda.
It is indeed an historic forum moment; and as a practical matter, it opens the potential for much good in the future. When I was a Newbie, someone I respect in the Development and Technology forum quietly advised me that Quickseller has some real skills. (My contact did not praise him as a genius—just said, he knows his tech stuff.) This has later influenced my own behaviour in an odd way, insofar as I have shuddered to imagine the time that Quickseller must have invested in all those old flamewar threads instead of building something positive for, foremost, himself. What a waste. It was a practical object lesson to me on the personal cost of perpetual flamewars, whether one is right or wrong. Well, I am curious to see what Quickseller may choose to build on this forum going forward.
As for you Lauda—no, I doubt anyone will accuse you of “being soft”. Per my own motto on the subject: “The harshest judges need the wisest judgment.”
Rome never forgave Carthage: Instead, they totally annihilated Carthage. I take it that you are mulling an alternative history: What if Rome and Carthage had made peace? It is an interesting thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
