>not even sure this puzzle is more than a fancy hunt the Wumpus game. This would make a great epitaph  I wouldn't be mad. |
|
|
|
There's something really spooky about this for some reason.  Not sure about spooky, not even sure this puzzle is more than a fancy hunt the Wumpus game. Besides, cjmoles is known for trying to play on the Felt. I'm just not that in to poker. |
|
|
|
We haven't even gotten to the fun stuff yet.
No....we haven't....It gets deeper! Just follow the crumbs. The idea of using the wisdom of the masses to covertly solve contemporary problems is huge! The utility of distributed networking applications is just barely being understood by the general public....The number of degrees in the "six degrees of separation" theory is quickly declining....think about that! While many are diving down rabbit holes in search of straw men like Satoshi, others are farming our data and using it to solve problems that cannot be solved alone....sometimes we have to step back to see the big picture!
...which may include disinformation. I went back through my notes (i didn't forget the milk), I've been sitting on this material since November then Craig distracted me from this brucey Mosaic (very capitalization of that last word  ). Subsequent to Craig and what I found prior to his emergence, I wrote about Peter Todd, Transit, David Birch, Nullc and a few others. The transit article is likely one of the most important clues as that transit network is very similar to the bitcon network laid out in the white paper (note: you have to buy the article if you don't have access another way, but maybe nullc still has it - or maybe Andreas S or Mssrs. Birch and Chaum have copies to share). I've written about Zooko concurrently with all of the other folks mentioned above - I keep coming back to him for some reason (he worked with both Chaum and Wei Dai at various points I believe). Ultimately, I'll need to get grave markers for my dead theories one day. Was that another clue?  |
|
|
|
The truth: the answer to everybody's question regarding the identity of the individual who is responsible for putting together all the "pieces" of the first workable peer to peer digital cash system is right in front of everybody's noses. I will provide some clues. Those searching for the guy in this picture have information: http://perplexcitycardcatalog.com/1/256/ the guy in the picture is named Satoshi. And the group working on this related encryption problem : http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14122 stumbled upon the concept of the decentralized component of "the ledger." Bitcoin basically presented itself....and the name given to the individual labeled as the creator of the technology can add no value to its existence. I'll take a longer look over the weekend. How did you find these clues? Sounds like you know the answer already - how? Briefly. Card #251 had some sort of code puzzle, the community working on the problem figured out that it was an encryption problem, they decided to brute force it, they built and distributed the client, they learned it wasn't efficient because each client was running independently, so they began the process of working on keeping track of eliminated combinations to distribute the workload across the network for efficiency....etc. Much of this stuff happened via ICQ and email but community recruitment was achieved via the forum thread above....pay attention to the dates and the type of people involved (where they are now is interesting)....notice the time frame when the project went dark....and notice https://www.distributed.net/RC5Card #256 has not been solved. It's all there...the rest you can find here and the early mailing lists. Thanks. Yep, already done - some of it cross-checks w/ some research I've been holding back for a few months... i recall trying to remember something about a dairy, a robot from turkey, a trust, a company called Bitcoin Ltd. (formed Feb 2009), a Yale father and son (one in London, one in Denver), plus an accountant Extra hint - http://www.economist.com/node/7001738 <---Basically the ledger created itself as a result of the above processes. Distributing the workload across the network, and keeping track of the sequences used in the brute force attack so that sequences weren't inefficiently ran twice (double spend problem), accidentally solved problems others were working on in co-related projects....the rest is history --> the real work began with all the familiar names and Satoshi Nakamoto is just a face on an unsolved puzzle card; who, by the way, is still waiting to be found so that he can give the secret passphrase away that he's been holding onto for all these years. Smile.... We haven't even gotten to the fun stuff yet. |
|
|
|
The truth: the answer to everybody's question regarding the identity of the individual who is responsible for putting together all the "pieces" of the first workable peer to peer digital cash system is right in front of everybody's noses. I will provide some clues. Those searching for the guy in this picture have information: http://perplexcitycardcatalog.com/1/256/ the guy in the picture is named Satoshi. And the group working on this related encryption problem : http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14122 stumbled upon the concept of the decentralized component of "the ledger." Bitcoin basically presented itself....and the name given to the individual labeled as the creator of the technology can add no value to its existence. I'll take a longer look over the weekend. How did you find these clues? Sounds like you know the answer already - how? Briefly. Card #251 had some sort of code puzzle, the community working on the problem figured out that it was an encryption problem, they decided to brute force it, they built and distributed the client, they learned it wasn't efficient because each client was running independently, so they began the process of working on keeping track of eliminated combinations to distribute the workload across the network for efficiency....etc. Much of this stuff happened via ICQ and email but community recruitment was achieved via the forum thread above....pay attention to the dates and the type of people involved (where they are now is interesting)....notice the time frame when the project went dark....and notice https://www.distributed.net/RC5Card #256 has not been solved. It's all there...the rest you can find here and the early mailing lists. Thanks. Yep, already done - some of it cross-checks w/ some research I've been holding back for a few months... i recall trying to remember something about a dairy, a robot from turkey, a trust, a company called Bitcoin Ltd. (formed Feb 2009), a Yale father and son (one in London, one in Denver), plus an accountant Extra hint - http://www.economist.com/node/7001738 |
|
|
|
The truth: the answer to everybody's question regarding the identity of the individual who is responsible for putting together all the "pieces" of the first workable peer to peer digital cash system is right in front of everybody's noses. I will provide some clues. Those searching for the guy in this picture have information: http://perplexcitycardcatalog.com/1/256/ the guy in the picture is named Satoshi. And the group working on this related encryption problem : http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14122 stumbled upon the concept of the decentralized component of "the ledger." Bitcoin basically presented itself....and the name given to the individual labeled as the creator of the technology can add no value to its existence. I'll take a longer look over the weekend. How did you find these clues? Sounds like you know the answer already - how? |
|
|
|
One interesting aspect of the Satoshi story is what Sergio Demian Lerner discovered with his analysis of the evidence about Satoshi in the Genesis block. Sergio figured out how many 2009 PCs Satoshi must have used, and how long for, to produce the exact block he wanted (i.e. he rejected thousands of blocks before settling on the one he bootstrapped the Bitcoin network with). See some of Nullc's comments about the computer (on Reddit) he's used to test things recently - its pretty balls-to-wall. Satoshi (apparently) must have been using over a dozen high-end PCs, hashing away constantly, to get his preferred Genesis block. Highly amusing fact: it took 6 days. On the 7th day, he rested Cheesy. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221334.msg12803522#msg12803522 |
|
|
|
You ever considered that we jumping from one guy to the next, because it's not just a single person... but rather a group of people? Something as brilliant as Bitcoin, cannot just be the fruit of one persons mind. We regularly have brainstorming sessions at work, and we usually come up with fairly good suggestions, when their is good interaction. I think this is the same thing... A group of guys met online and they had the same interest and at one stage they got together and discussed this in person. They formulated the White Paper for this idea together, but it was written by one person to create confusion. I still believe that Satoshi was just the leader of a group of people and not a single person.  Yes, absolutely. See the last part of the article. Satoshi could be multiple people or one person among a group or a lone wolf (including an org). At the moment, I think there are a handful of really good Satoshi candidates, some or more of which could have been working together at the time of the white paper (on bitcoin, or maybe just professionally in another capacity - perhaps Satoshi went rogue from the org). Today, I think Greg gets included in a very elite group of suspects that pass the laugh-test. I think the guy is crazy smart, generally a pretty good human being, but pretty firm in what he knows or believes - I don't think this is atypical for those w/ exceptional intelligence. |
|
|
|
No one knows who's satoshi. True. Its just a fun topic to bounce around. Clearly, no direct evidence here - just speculation (and this type is much safer than speculating on shitcoins). |
|
|
|
@Lauda - I empathize w/ Greg now. Go through some of my recent posts here, I listed Greg as preferred Satoshi candidate of mine. You [edit - I think I meant Franky here] are correct about not having linked writing styles conclusively - although I'm not sure even the best stylometry software can do that. I haven't run the software yet b/c IRL duties; when I made the post last night, it was really late. I will also agree w/ you that my initial post is just a musing - I'm not betting Greg is Satoshi one way or another. I just think it would make sense if he were and that it is plausible. About explaining this past year - 2015 and 2016 have had the scaling debate front and center to the extent main stream news has covered it. There have been intense debates. I think if Greg were Satoshi, I'd have a lot to reflect on especially from 2015 and 2016. Remember when Greg got called out for claiming credit for some of Satoshi's commits on Github? Remember how Gavin came to the rescue to explain that away? Such blips from the recent past take on new meaning if Greg is Satoshi. https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4550sl/greg_maxwell_unullc_given_your_valid_interest_in/https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/via @Midmagic, these tweets are interesting if Greg is Satoshi (and midnightmagic): https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/674514614772563968 ( http://archive.is/R0R4j) https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/76112785175617536 ( http://archive.is/jsdlW) https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/139822645301616640 ( http://archive.is/TkuGg) http://bitcoinvox.com/article/1041/satoshi-asked-wikileaks-to-avoid-bitcoin-in-2010https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/22863783508 <--- One of the most interesting to me, tons of reading + Jstor dump maybe offers insight into how Satoshi found an obscure 1968 article on transit networks ( http://archive.is/esGvo) @Franky If Satoshi was worried about being discovered from the beginning, its very possible he wrote in a way that would make author attribution analysis very difficult (i.e., mixing up spelling, punctuation, word choice). Its not that hard to copy and paste american english text into a translator that converts it into Aussie or Brit english. You can even make the text take on a pirate dialect. argh. People also take on words used by their friends. So, for example, if Greg were talking to a lot folks in the UK via ham radio, I could easily see him picking up British words: http://www.interceptradio.com/ham.php?call=NT4TNhttps://wdtn.co.uk/2014/09/14/nt4tn-launch-event/Ham radios are very John Galt-ish, by the way. |
|
|
|
That does make me curious though: If this turned out to be true, would the people that have been attacking Gregory stop because he's Satoshi?  I don't know what others would do, but I think it puts a totally different spin on the last year. I could very easily empathize with his various positions if he were to be Satoshi. Also, Lauda, I take it you don't find the Midmagic = Greg part that much of a stretch? If you can buy that, then making the connection to Satoshi becomes doable (not necessarily probable) - midmagic is competent and was hanging around the usual suspects at the time the whitepaper was released. Again, this is all from a position of love and admiration. |
|
|
|
These questions are pointless if you have a brain and consider the following:
1) If he is Satoshi, he will deny it.
2) If he isn't Satoshi, he will deny it.
What is the point of such article? To waste time? To get agencies to investigate Maxwell?
The point is to understand where this all came from a little better. People are inherently inquisitive. If Greg were to be Satoshi, it would explain a lot - but I don't know that it would change a lot. Greg is probably already being looked at by agencies anyway - either b/c he works for one (not saying he does, I just mean some folks think BTC is a govt project - the blockchain is the world's best surveillance system/honeypot) or because he's a leader in this community. Either way, if the answer is "yes, greg is Satoshi" - either in whole or in part - I'm impressed as a person could get and want to shake his hand. |
|
|
|
Over at the malcontents' rump forum, my old partner in crime (and sparring) Cypherdoc noticed, and remarked upon, the Adoptive Blocksize link in my sig. He only did so to imply contradiction in my agreement with Core' roadmap, despite me already explaining why different control variables belong in different experiments, the benefits of ossification, etc. Another poster, piling on, expressed confusion whether and disbelief that Arcticmine's post about the difficulty adjustment algorithm's is congruent with fluffypony's recent (and brilliant!) talk on flexible blocksize caps. That link to the Monero thread is baffling to me with respect to the presentation of a few days ago.
Looking over the "cryptonote penalty function", I don't see any variable that correlates in any way with CONOP.
I don't see any evidence there for anything other than some kind of function that artificially pushes against increasing blocksize. I can't conceive of any scenario where a scheme like that is ever going to be anything more than a roundabout way of targeting a crypto-denominated tx fee, even if it's Maxwell's "difficulty" penalty instead (which just thinly-obfuscates calculating the cost). AFAIK, the Monero part of fluffy's talk is discussing data resulting from running (in production) the code Arctic's post explains. Is it true? Perhaps bitco.in frequenting Monero fans Aztec/Arctic/Erdogan/NewLiberty/Zarathustra may be able to explain the facts of the matter to Cypher and albin? Seems like a teachable moment!  My sig now links to fluffy's talk, as it's much more entertaining for us casuals. So you finally admit to being a criminal... /s |
|
|
|
|
Amendment to my list: Theymos.
Theymos is a hard nut to crack. But, I think he's competent technically and should/could be on most short-lists for who Satoshi might be. Like others, I don't agree w/ him on everything - but that's just kinda life. He's preferred because he's known and clearly cares about the project. He's not a loose cannon either - he typically acts consistently which I equate w/ some level of stability.
|
|
|
|
|
The perfect Satoshi is the person who demonstrates evidence of themselves being Satoshi. But that's not what you're asking, you're askign about a preference. In no particular order:
1. Dorian.
2. Gavin.
3. Lurker/Backgrounder - This would be someone that is present, but not really active, in the community as an investor or adviser. This would be someone like Szabo, Zooko, Jed, David Birch (not an exhaustive list).
Common theme up til now I suppose: folks that seem like really genuine good people (not that others don't, others are just harder to read for various reasons). Flawed people - b/c everyone is flawed - can still qualify here. For example, Craig (and I'm just picking on him b/c of recent news) could still fit in my category #3 well enough in the future. However, he doesn't get preferred status at the moment b/c there's too much opacity about his situation.
4. Hearn - B/c that would be hilarious.
5. Nullc and Lukejr - B/c that would also be hilarious.
6. Sipa, Peter Todd, Mark F, Andreas S, Sergio L - These folks strike me as really smart and deep into the knowledge-base. I'd be really comfortable w/ any of these three not withstanding any social or philosophical things.
|
|
|
|
Damn lot of patents he is going after. Looks like he has backed himself up with a lot of attorneys and is going for it all. I am sure more evidence will come forward as he tries to prove claim on these patents.
Patents are not cheap, I thought Craig Wright had financial trouble that he is trying to dig out of? scam one person for £6000. create a couple patents. scam 20 people based on promises of 2 patents. get £120,000 to create 40 patents. set up a corporation under the false belief that the 40 patents can net 1billion (help he priced one business at that very recently) and scam even more people. mr wright is not a bitcoiner.. he is too involved in grabbing fiat. riding the bitcoin phenomena because governments and financial institutions do not quite understand it, to pretend he is highly involved in it. while holding no bitcoins and simply grabbing fiat at every door he knocks on shame on him read the LRB article. Its a company with backers who are filing the patents. it may not be craig's doing. he may not even be involved anymore (after he didn't play ball with them when they wanted him to come out) i read the article. more holes then swiss cheese. but with that said i did like the fantasy fly on the wall "observations" of the day in the hotel when he was being chased. but it could have been wrote more first person to atleast make it sound like craig was telling his narrative of events.. rather than a ghost writer who happened to witness it all from within a closed hotel room where only craig and his mrs were staying. In some ways, this article hurts the case that Craig is Satoshi. |
|
|
|
This is 0 evidence. In fact in the bbc article they admit at the end that this is basically more mental masturbation about the whole thing.
Was Craig Wright involved in the early Bitcoin days? Sure. Does this mean he is Satoshi, nope.
Hal Finney, David Kleiman and Nick Szabo to name some, are still more accurate candidates.
Correct. Well, tbf, I guess you might consider the BBC and O'Hagan articles as supporting soft/social/persuasive evidence. However, they strike me as relatively weak on their own and without the type of hard/direct evidence that most folks would consider both reliable and authentic (Ex: a spend from a Satoshi wallet - I don't think we can trust the funky 'signing w/ a key from a satoshi wallet method' at this point). In other words, as has been said by others, proof of Satoshi will come, if ever, via a combination of hard/direct evidence as well as soft/social/persuasive evidence. Right now, there is no hard/direct evidence; at best, there is some conflicting soft/social/persuasive evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
