|
meine quellen sind nicht ausschliesslich reddit. scheinbar aber deine sonst haettest du mitbekommen das er steuerangelegenheiten in der hoehe von 54 millionen AUD mit dem australischen staat hat.
ist doch fuer ihn kein problem nach deiner logic, oder. er ist satoshi. er sitzt auf ueber 1 million bitcoins. warum nicht einfach etwas verkaufen und schon ist er seine sorgen los.
warum nach london fluechten. warum diese beknackte story drumherum mit website.
wenn er will das man ihm glaubt ist es fuer ihn sehr einfach, oder?
warum kann er nicht? oder will er nicht, weisser mann?
|
|
|
|
Die Identität von SN ist den meisten von uns doch eh egal.
Stimmt, was mir sauer aufstößt ist jedoch das Verhalten CW gegenüber. Meines Erachtens haben wir hier die äußerst ungute Situation das sich der Erfinder (er war es sicher nicht alleine, er sagt ja selbst andere hätten ihm geholfen) des Bitcoins outed und von der Community mit Häme überzogen wird. DAS ist mir ganz sicher nicht egal! Dem stimme ich voll und ganz zu. Sowas ist nicht die feine Art. DITO! Ich persönlich finde CW ist kein schlecher SN. Die meisten befürchten wahrscheinlich, dass er seine 1Mio Coins auf den Markt werfen könnte, daher die Ablehnung. die ablehnung beruht meines erachtens auf einer rein subjektiven abneigung ihm gegenüber, viele hatten wohl irgendwelche idol-vorstellungen von SN und jetzt kommt so ein leicht mürrisch dreinblickender australischer professor daher und behauptet SN zu sein. und prompt befindet man sich in einer art denial-schleife gefangen. man ignoriert positive hinweise und geilt sich kollektiv an allem vermeintlich negativen auf. übrigens hat Jon Matonis bezeugt das CW sowohl Bock #1 gesigned hat als auch den immer wieder verlangten block #9 http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.de/2016/05/how-i-met-satoshi.htmlliesst du auch im englischen teil und auf reddit mit? scheinbar nicht oder? weder das von andresen noch von matonis bezeugte laesst sich unabhaengig ueberpruefen. damit sind sie als unglaubwuerdig einzustufen bis wright fuer die oeffentlichkeit nachvollziehbar beweise liefert. an dem tag des treffens mit andresen und matonis wurde kein signatur file von den electrum servern von einer britischen ip runtergeladen. electrum wurde zum signieren verwendet beim treffen. gut moeglich, dass der client manipuliert war. wright hat anscheinend am peak von 1200$ bitcoins gekauft. sein ganzes auftreten zeugt von einer hoechst seltsamen persoenlichkeit. vermutlich war David Alan Kleiman SN. er ist 2013 verstorben. man weiss im moment nicht ob und wer zugriff auf die satoshi million hat. es gilt zu pruefen ob und ab wann wright in den satoshi prozess involviert war. es koennte naemlich sogar sein er hat komplett alles gefaelscht. david kleiman kann nichts mehr dagegen tun. wright hat massive geldprobleme. anscheinend versucht er an die satoshi million ranzukommen. er vermutet sie bei freunden oder der familie von david kleiman. wright und david kleimann haben frueher zusammen publiziert. das muss aber nicht zwingend bedeuten das david kleiman ihn in Bitcoin involviert hat. |
|
|
|
I believe Craig might have created Bitcoin with help of others, mainly Dave. Time will tell.
I think the most sensible theory going is that Kleiman was the voice of Satoshi on this forum; the times during which he posted seems to suggest he was doing it from the states. I think Wright probably wrote the white paper and had Kleiman edit it. Here's a good article: http://gizmodo.com/is-dave-kleiman-the-missing-link-in-craig-wrights-satos-1774519534 nice, thanks! this whole story is as ugly as possible and the main reason for the large confusion right now is pure greed. it seems the hunt for the satoshi million has started. for me david kleiman is the real SN and wright is just a fucking bastard! |
|
|
|
ok thanks! i found the record. next step would be to contact the investigator and ask him. is it difficult to fake a death in the US? i mean you have no registration record of the existens of a human as far as i know. just the driver license, right? |
|
|
|
pls post a screenshot of the replied email. I'm not going to request it. I don't give enough of a fuck to do it myself. Gleb might. from where did you get this info above then? investigator name: Jenkins, Doug |
|
|
|
pls post a screenshot of the replied email. |
|
|
|
but we have a gap here:I believe the closest we have to Satoshi these last years, is this: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlThat particular email is not known to be hacked (but we can't say for sure that it isn't), there is no spoofing involved, and he also had to register and verify the email to the mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010329.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010327.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010334.htmlThe writing style and essence of what is written does not have any troll like qualities like the spoofed "I'm not craig wright, we are all satoshi" message that appeared a few months later. The August one isn't spoofed, it is serious and consistent in writing style, while also trying to "sneak in" some comment of concern for bitcoin itself - as far as node incentives go. Kind'a like, since I broke my silence, let me also say this that is bothering me for a while. As far as I'm concerned it is legit with very high probability. Which, in turn, would imply that if I'm right then Satoshi was alive a few months ago. It would also imply that Craig Wright writing with one space, instead of two, is fraudulent, and that no writing style change has occurred for Satoshi, despite the passing of time since 2010. if this above is SN and SN is David Kleiman then he is alive. Call me mad but it could be to protect David Kleiman. All the actions of the friends and family. EDIT: and he wrote with two spaces!! https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
|
|
|
|
Thanks, it seems a legit account. Not even in the following page, where it seems are listed people passed away on 26 April. you're right! nothing. http://www.jewishjournal.com/obituaries/article/obituaries13so what does it mean? he is still alive? EDIT: is there an official register of persons which passed away in the US? Bruno, your help is much appreciated. |
|
|
|
One more thing. How is that Craig Steven Wright was privy to David/Dave Kleiman's birthday but such is NOT published anywhere else on the Internet (Fact: Dave Kleiman was adopted)?
And he appears to have died on his birthday? The official cause of death is listed as natural, and Conrad remembers hearing that the MRSA had stopped Kleiman’s heart.
http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460 |
|
|
|
Gleb are you ale to find this InfoWorld article about Bitcoin in early 2010?
i want to know if it could be true or if the basement of Gavin Andresens involvement into Bitcoin has something to do with his visit in Australia.
EDIT: found it.
On my short list, bud, upon seeing it first posted. Allow me to get caught up. I have 20 taps opened now and my head is exploding. I just got back to my hotel room and told my wife that I'm doxxing Satoshi.  |
|
|
|
where does this 1.1 million figure come from other than Mr wright's imagination? plenty of people have stated they were mining away when others still think it was only satoshi.
ya but it could be satoshi managed to mine 1million coins before mining got out of hand. the contract is most likely a fake. |
|
|
|
can you see it? two spaces after a sentence already. not beetween two words. a habbit of both of them. ...
...
...
Not to dis your assessment but there are other "punks" who utilize two spaces after a full stop. When I first started online at the end of the 90's, I thought it weird to see only one space since I was taught two spaces in high school typing during the late 70's, so I opted to use two spaces, but soon foregone the practice because I felt that one space looked prettier (yes, that word best describes my feelings then and now), where two spaces came across to me as (seriously, I can't explain it, but I know I wasn't fond of it any longer). but then SN grew up in the times of typewriters if he have this habit. and adam too. http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/how-many-spaces-after-a-periodEDIT: you're right it proves nothing! to much people have this bad habit. |
|
|
|
can you see it? two spaces after a sentence already. not beetween two words. a habbit of both of them. Well, difficulty is a real number, its not a referance number
I fully agree that we need a more "human interpretable" form of a difficulty stat, Telling someone that the difficulty is 7,673,000 and that its going to rise up around by 1-2million more Really doesnt mean much to them, its just confusing to hear that "a bitcoin is now 7673000x harder to get than it was when it was first released" it really doesnt tell us much.
Right thats approximately meaningless. Now the original or minimal difficulty is 2^32 so 7,673,000 x 2^32 is approx 2^55. How easy is that in comparison because 7,673,000 ~ 2^23. (I guess I must've mistranslated it before 55 not 52 bits) And when you see a bitcoin in hex (like with hashcash because that is what the coin is) you can visually *see* those 55 bits. This is the latest hash from the block explorer: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000e3d3268e05a9901759c1452590d0838a80aeb8abaea59f1e9fand bingo I can count 0s (14 of them) multiply by 4 (bits per hex nibble) and I know that is a 56bit hashcash collision. (You get lucky and an extra 1 bit half the time, 2 bits 1/2 time etc). Adam Hi Digging myself out of the newbie jail. But a real question - why is difficulty not expressed in bits? With hashcash I always used eg 20bits. I think bitcoin is currently at 52. As bitcoin mining is hashcash mining plus an extension to allow fractional bits (rather than to find k 0 bits, to find a number < 2^k where can be fractional). But its hard to be 100% certain if I even correctly converted that because this page is unnecessarily complex for a very simple actual problem: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficultyand bits are very easy to read. If one looks at the hash output in hex just multiply the leading 0s by 4 (and the next nibble figure out if it is >7 = 4 bits, > 3 = 3 bits, > 1 = 2 bits and 1 = 1 bit (and obviously 0 would be another leading 0). QED trivial, human comprehensible difficulty that can be handchecked. That was part of the design aim for hashcash to simplify the computational, programming and human verification. Adam additional block chains would each create their own flavor of coins, which would trade with bitcoins on exchanges? These chain-specific coins would be used to reward miners on those chains, and to purchase some kinds of rights or privileges within the domain of that chain?
Right, the exchange rate between domains and bitcoins would float. A longer interval than 10 minutes would be appropriate for BitDNS. So far in this discussion there's already a lot of housekeeping data required. It will be much easier if you can freely use all the space you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in Bitcoin's chain. Some transactions: Changing the IP record. Name change. A domain object could entitle you to one domain, and you could change it at will to any name that isn't taken. This would encourage users to free up names they don't want anymore. Generated domains start out blank and the miner sells it to someone who changes it to what they want. Renewal. Could be free, or maybe require consuming another domain object to renew. In that case, domain objects (domaincoins?) could represent the right to own a domain for a year. The spent fee goes to the miners in the next block fee. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
