nope
craig made a txt file of public keys and got dave to notarize them as authentic (no private key verification by the way) and this formed the tulip trust.

the tulip trust was then used to attempt to scam the australian government out of tax stuff. which is where craig fled to the UK.
craig also scammed some shareholders out of investments by liquidating his company by blaming the australian tax office for not paying out.

craig wright was in legal troubles from 2013. doxxd himself to media in 2015 hoping the community would come to his aid(obviously didnt) and then he went on a deeper flip flop mission in 2016.

it was not a DK 'introducing' CSW. but a CSW announcing DK involvement as part of the SN scam, outing DK as a partner to try to add substance to the lies because at the time CSW didnt seem smart enough to have figured out what bitcoin was really about so needed to name a computer forensics specialist to up his own rep as a partner.

DK did not 'introduce' CSW. nor did GA

heres some tips. bch and bsc are not btc. so if csw was satoshi. then csw could easily 'spend' the early mined coins of the blockchain of bch and bsv as those public/private keys are the same for the chains but are not part of the shoddy trust 'holdings' known as tulip

Here to claim the bounty once again (maybe this time for real) ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux


Inspired by https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.187.0.pdf

and: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11381625

and: https://ylilauta.org/kryptovaluutat/99793976

Was it declared that he was Satoshi?

From some comments on Twitter, Craig Wright lost because he was abusive of the judicial process, proven not credible, and a liar who commited perjury. But the BitcoinCashSV hodlers will tell you, "Satoshi is brilliant for proving to the world that he is not Satoshi, protecting his identity, but he is Satoshi because look".

DaveKleiman– Dave brings more than 22 years of security focused information technology experience.  He has analyzed more than 100 cases including cases involving enterprise technologies such as Windows Server, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL, Microsoft SharePoint, and Microsoft Dynamics GP.  Dave has testified at many trials and depositions in civil and criminal matters, rendering expert opinions regarding computer‐related data and operations in Federal, State, and Military courts as a computer forensics expert and has served as a court appointed neutral expert.  His testimony and analysis has included information technology, cellular phone analysis, email analysis, internet analysis, developing and evaluating electronic discovery plans, evidence spoliation, intellectual property, trademark and patent infringement, insurance claims, fraud, business reorganization, and breach of contract.  Dave has an extensive list of computer security and forensic certifications, he is one of less than 100 Microsoft Enterprise Security MVPs in the world, and he developed a Windows Enterprise operating system lockdown tool.  Dave has made appearances on national news television as a subject matter expert in computer forensics.  He has been published in more than ten books including The Official CHFI Exam Study Guide for Computer Hacking Forensics Investigators, and has created many tools, tricks, and tips for time saving forensic techniques and has them published across the Internet as well presents them in labs at many national security and cybercrime conferenc

Today, Andresen fully believes that Wright is Nakamoto. Now he'll have to convince the rest of the world, because he's among the only people to have seen what he claims is the best evidence in Wright's favor.

Editor's note, 4/30/2019: In the days following publication of this story, WIRED published an update that identified inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the notion that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. Wright later came forward to claim that he was indeed the creator of Bitcoin, but offered some evidence that appeared to be fraudulent. This piece has been updated to clarify Wright's claims, and the headline has been changed to make clear that WIRED no longer believes Wright is likely to be the creator of Bitcoin.

...

i thought the same thing. that it was craigs plan win or lose it would be used somehow to his benefit. but i need to read a court transcript to know more as media currently reads it as craig owing 50% of any coin mined before 2014 rather than a specific list of source

Very good point. It encourages me to think more about an incentive mechanism.

the problem is in that first step: choosing a long and truly random passphrase that can not be guessed at all. generally speaking people have shown that they will always choose things that can be guessed which makes brainwallets bad in general.
otherwise there have been users that created brainwallets and posted the address as a challenge online and it was never broken.

if someone insists on using brainwallets then i can only suggest using some other method other than a simple SHA256 on it. something unique that nobody knows. that way to steal the funds the hacker has to find 2 things: the random long passphrase and the hash algorithm.
for example you could use a KDF function such as scrypt with custom settings (eg. n=2048, r=5, p=2) and derive a 32 byte key from that. or using SHA3-256, SHA512/256, Blake2b-256,... the list goes on.

ps. BIP39 is also worth mentioning here as it is a mnemonic which is a set of words in any language which you could memorize instead of a brainwallet. it is harder but it much safer since they represent a good random entropy. this could also solve the "torture" problem as you could add a single "word" to the list as its extension so you have 1 mnemonic but two wallets. the wallet with the mnemonic can contain a small amount that you could reveal under torture! and the wallet with mnemonic+passphrase contains the actual funds. => good for paranoid people.

i hope you realize that using brainwallet like that is the worst thing you can do for generating a new private key because brainwallets are known to be insecure because people are rarely capable of creating a truly random "passphrase". so know that if you decided to create a paper wallet with a password there is a very good chance that someone is going to steal your funds pretty easily.

Thank you,

I'm now thinking of an open source (both client/server and web) application/UI layer for a moderately improved version of git backed by again a modified version of IPFS. Users install git2 locally but git uses IPFS2 as both filing system and for some authorization tasks. UI uses IPFS2 for authorization tasks as well.

I mean, a distributed, decentralized file hosting is a bad ass. any thing like permissions, accounting, security stuff, anything could be representable as a file and what our UI needs is just downloading the required file(s) which he has basically the key for.

Using IPFS is good idea, but i don't see how decentralization is possible. Usually we still need trusted people for some specific tasks, such as approve pull request, manage release, create new branch, etc.

The way i understand IPFS, i think we only can achieve distributed Git repository

I've just received this e-mail from Github:

So, people of Iran(like me), Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Crimea (200 millions?) are subject to US Trade Controls as a whole and they can't use GitHub accordingly  

Any comments?

it is not and it is at the same time!
basically when the adoption grows it means the number of all types of users is growing. both those who are in for the decentralization and want to fully benefit from it, and also those that don't get the point of decentralization but at the same time they still want to use bitcoin.
not to mention that many of these users will slowly learn more about bitcoin and migrate to "real bitcoin wallets" and that means Coinbase was a great starting point to introduce bitcoin to a lot of people who want an easy entrance instead of being subjected to a lot of complications on their first day.

can u please tell me can i send a fake bitcoin transaction if its possible how it works ?
i am using this information for school project

You are welcome.

The ultimate solution to mining variance is low difficulty (and not forming syndicates/pools  because it is the operator who decides about the block contents) and it is achievable by retiring winner-takes-all philosophy and replacing it by a contributor-takes-share alternative.
Youcan imagine several protocols for this but the one I've become totally fascinated by, is when you combine this idea with a sharding algorithm. Principally it is possible because each shard is responsible for a part of the network and you need to distribute both incentives and costs.

It is what I've mentioned earlier in my previous post, both centralization and scaling problems have roots in the same flaw: winner-takes-all. In my design the whole mining job is divided between tens of thousand of shards, each with very low difficulties, so very low variance for small miners and it is how we get both birds, decentralization and scaling, with just one stone.

As of your speculation about governments engaging in mining, I do agree it will be good news for bitcoin but not for centralization because we are talking about very unreliable actors with high possibility of collusion and worst intentions ever, we need small farms, individual miners, hobbyists, ... all over the world to decide about every single block they mine to resists against such possibilities, otherwise it would be easy for governments to push on pool operators and impose censorship on individuals and even nations. The only force which is able to resist such scenarios is free will of small miners who can directly act and decide.