Yeah I'd say so, I'd imagine would be easy to set up a man in the middle attack and have away with your passwords etc.
That is what SSL/TLS is for. |
|
|
|
It's easy for everyone to comment on "how stupid it would have been to use his real last name if he wanted privacy", but this is in hind sight! There is a lot of evidence that Satoshi went through great lengths to hide his identity from day zero. The email address (throw away) on the white paper and p2p2 foundation have never been used (or at least found to be used) for anything else either before or after the release of the paper. He used TOR likely from the very first day. As Gavin pointed out he never talked about himself. The same is true if you look at this posting history going back to the first announcement. Nothing that would time his online identity to any physical location. Nothing about local events, the weather, his past work, his experiences. If he is from the west coast of the US, he delayed posting to newsgroups and forums to give the indication he was in another time zone. If he is an American he chose a London newspaper headline rather than numerous US ones to choose from. Pretty much everything points to a purpose driven man and the purpose was to remain private. While it may be possible he did all that and still released the paper with his own name it would seem to be completely out of character. |
|
|
|
Dorian may have been unfamiliar with the term "bitcoin" but assumed that the reporter was using it as a reference to some other classified work.
Who says Bitcoin wasn't some classified project at one point in time and that he did indeed work on it, hence he couldn't speak about it? ~BCX~ Alternatively it is possible he misheard he. She said Bitcoin and he heard _______ (the name of a project he worked on that was under NDA). The guy is 68, had a stroke recently and English isn't his first language. In the video he did make references to "BitCom" even after the reported said Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It's because we accept money from buyer X and send it to seller Y, that makes us a money transmitter (even though we don't touch fiat). Have you obtained legal counsel advising you that? There is an exception to MT definition at federal level and that is for a payment processor. As an example credit card processors and BitPay are NOT money transmitters. http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/fincenruling2003-8.html(5) Money transmitter—(i) In general. (A) A person that provides money transmission services. The term “money transmission services” means the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means. “Any means” includes, but is not limited to, through a financial agency or institution; a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both; an electronic funds transfer network; or an informal value transfer system; or
(B) Any other person engaged in the transfer of funds.
(ii) Facts and circumstances; Limitations. Whether a person is a money transmitter as described in this section is a matter of facts and circumstances. The term “money transmitter” shall not include a person that only:
(A) Provides the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services;
(B) Acts as a payment processor to facilitate the purchase of, or payment of a bill for, a good or service through a clearance and settlement system by agreement with the creditor or seller;
(C) Operates a clearance and settlement system or otherwise acts as an intermediary solely between BSA regulated institutions. This includes but is not limited to the Fedwire system, electronic funds transfer networks, certain registered clearing agencies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and derivatives clearing organizations, or other clearinghouse arrangements established by a financial agency or institution;
(D) Physically transports currency, other monetary instruments, other commercial paper, or other value that substitutes for currency as a person primarily engaged in such business, such as an armored car, from one person to the same person at another location or to an account belonging to the same person at a financial institution, provided that the person engaged in physical transportation has no more than a custodial interest in the currency, other monetary instruments, other commercial paper, or other value at any point during the transportation;
(E) Provides prepaid access; or
(F) Accepts and transmits funds only integral to the sale of goods or the provision of services, other than money transmission services, by the person who is accepting and transmitting the funds. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6e68addf743067048f93c5740352a74f&node=31:3.1.6.1.2.1.3.1&rgn=div8In the event this is useful to your cause and you decide to not close, nobody can again say that "D&T is an altcoin hater" (although for the record I find most of them of dubious value). This post should be considered informational and is not legal advice. Your situation may vary based on unstated or misunderstood circumstances. You should obtained independent qualified legal counsel. The statements made her are my own and may not reflect the views of Tangible Cryptography, Inc or it's subsidiaries. |
|
|
|
|
electronic cash or virtual currency is a pretty only concept. Computer scientists have been thinking about it going back decades before that report.
What is novel about Satoshi solution is the decentralized network, the use of proof of work (mining) to force a consensus on transaction ordering to solve the double spend problem, and the paying the miners the subsidy of new coins to jump start the network.
The paper doesn't cover any of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a decentralized network, not sure if it was planned but not knowing Satoshi at this point is a good thing. It forces developers to work together without a king to issue decrees. It prevents the media from "attacking the man not the idea". It shows that Bitcoin as a concept is larger than any single person. Satoshi "left" (although I am sure he i still around under other aliases) and the project went forward.
|
|
|
|
So in short; if there is a nerdy looking scientist standing next to your computer with all kinds of probes hooked up...it's probably not a good idea to start signing 200 transactions using the same key.
Or your exchange or eWallet operator is clueless about information security and is running it on a VPS and the datacenter admin is extracting keys from the hypervisor. Still there are much more probable attack vectors from using a VPS. It is a good general reminder that information security begins with physical security. |
|
|
|
I thought we established Dorian isn't satoshi
What about a sociopath loser down on his luck who sees 1M BTC as his ticket out? Newsweek put a target on this guy. Lotss of nut jobs in the world and not everyone on this forum is convinced, not think about the general public. |
|
|
|
Gosh I used to think that Newsweek is quite trustworthy periodical, but it turned out not to be like I thought...
They went bankrupt and were re-organized. Pretty much a rag with the newsweek name/brand (which is devaluing about as fast as MtGox). |
|
|
|
|
... tomorrow they would have a press statement saying the Satoshi story was incorrect but it isn't their fault due to a fact malleability bug.
Too soon?
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC two companies tried it. One went bankrupt and the other (blockchain.info) stopped due to fraud. Those SMS payments can be charged backed and my understanding is the carriers just rubber stamp it ("oh you didn't buy that let me remove that charge").
|
|
|
|
And I won't buy that anyone is the real satoshi until I see a transfer from the genesis block to 1C54eeTaX68XNSJbUrmfJPwp7KT8VBGaHZ
You will be waiting a long time. The genesis block is unspendable due to a bug in the early client (which is continued in all future clients to avoid the potential for a hard fork). |
|
|
|
Wasn't the first implementation of BitcoinQt written in PHP?
No. The first version of bitcoin was didn't use QT it was command line only however it was C++. QT is a C++ library there has never been any version of the "bitcoin client" (later named bitcoin-qt) written in php. |
|
|
|
holy fooooooooooooooooooook! The real Satoshi returns Looks legit to me. I think the age in the blog is Satoshi's real age. 38 sounds correct with the C++ language style he uses. Now of course, Google (who owns ning) now knows where that post came from. Would have been better is he signed it with his PGP key (or the private key for the coinbase reward in the genesis block  ). You mean the key for the alert system. He gave that info to Gavin, so there's no evidence that its him if he did. Not the alert key, also IIRC the alert key has been changed. The genesis block has a coinbase tx. https://blockchain.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26fSatoshi's very first wallet would have the private key for address 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa. A message signed with this private key would be the strongest proof possible. It is the only block which is absolutely known to be mined by satoshi. |
|
|
|
Who are these guys in the list? Search results for '0x18c09e865ec948a1' Type bits/keyID cr. time exp time key expir pub 1024D/5EC948A1 2008-10-30 Fingerprint=DE4E FCA3 E1AB 9E41 CE96 CECB 18C0 9E86 5EC9 48A1 uid Satoshi Nakamoto < satoshin@gmx.com> sig sig3 5EC948A1 2008-10-30 __________ __________ [selfsig] sig sig 04143362 2011-11-01 __________ __________ lzsaver < lzsaver@gmail.com> sig sig DAB591E7 2013-03-27 __________ __________ theymos <theymos+pgp@mm.st> sig sig F2E50027 2013-04-19 __________ __________ Antony Bailey < support@antonybailey.net> sig sig 2346C9A6 2013-05-10 __________ __________ Wladimir J. van der Laan < laanwj@gmail.com> sig sig FFDB1CCC 2013-07-01 __________ __________ [] sig sig F91975FE 2013-09-20 __________ __________ Cubaguy < cubaguy@gmail.com> sig sig 7471C2D0 2013-09-21 __________ __________ Harald Schilly < harald.schilly@gmail.com> sig sig1 67E4FA04 2013-10-12 __________ __________ Peter Todd < pete@petertodd.org> sig sig 7B536415 2014-03-06 __________ __________ Satoshi Nakamoto (Resident of California) < satoshin@gmx.com> sub 2048g/D6AAA69F 2008-10-30 sig sbind 5EC948A1 2008-10-30 __________ __________ [] http://sks.pkqs.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0x18C09E865EC948A1Just people who signed satoshi's key indicated they feel it is valid. How accurate that is depends a lot of how vigilant the signer is. You could sign his key (with yours) right now if you wanted. |
|
|
|
holy fooooooooooooooooooook! The real Satoshi returns Looks legit to me. I think the age in the blog is Satoshi's real age. 38 sounds correct with the C++ language style he uses. Now of course, Google (who owns ning) now knows where that post came from. Would have been better is he signed it with his PGP key (or the private key for the coinbase reward in the genesis block ). |
|
|
|
I KNEW I WAS RIGHT!
Yes that was the important part. Not the fact that none of Satoshi's accounts have been active for more than two years and there was a post by one of them in the last thirty minutes. |
|
|
|
holy fooooooooooooooooooook! The real Satoshi returns Hopefully that is the only thing he posts for four more years. Would just drive the media crazy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
