The plot thickens.  Think about it - if you were purchasing a domain with your name in the title, why would you register it using an anonymous registrant to hide your name?
Forgot to tick-off default option "Protect my privacy for 5.99$ per year" maybe? That's one perfectly plausible explanation  It couldn't possibly be anything like My guess is wishful thinking. Never change, bitcointalk, never change...  not really sure where you're going with this. so you're saying that craig can deny his ties to the domain? what would that do? his claims on satoshi's identity were recorded in a video. Not suggesting that he did not claim to be Satoshi. Merely that not everything posted on the internet can be taken at face value. If he needed to claim that he is not the author of that apology, he easily could. And, of course, < >The BBC understands that this tweet signifies that Mr Matonis still believes Dr Wright is indeed Satoshi.
"A lot more people in the Bitcoin community are going to be unconvinced of Dr Wright's claims than will believe he is Satoshi, based upon what's happened to date," commented Dr Garrick Hileman, an economic historian at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.
"But many of the doubters don't want to be convinced. Satoshi has been mythologised and if you pull back the curtain, you shatter a lot of people's fantasies. |
|
|
|
The plot thickens. Makes everyone who says he was a fraud look like a total imbecile for not checking whether the website is really the official word of Craig Wright. In the thread of mine that Gregory Maxwell deleted, I made the point that those accusing Craig of fraud, hadn't done their homework. Lol.  Think about it - if you were purchasing a domain with your name in the title, why would you register it using an anonymous registrant to hide your name?
Forgot to tick-off default option "Protect my privacy for 5.99$ per year" maybe? That's one perfectly plausible explanation It couldn't possibly be anything like My guess is wishful thinking. Never change, bitcointalk, never change... not really sure where you're going with this. so you're saying that craig can deny his ties to the domain? what would that do? his claims on satoshi's identity were recorded in a video. Not suggesting that he did not claim to be Satoshi. Merely that not everything posted on the internet can be taken at face value. If he needed to claim that he is not the author of that apology, he easily could. And, of course, < >The BBC understands that this tweet signifies that Mr Matonis still believes Dr Wright is indeed Satoshi.
"A lot more people in the Bitcoin community are going to be unconvinced of Dr Wright's claims than will believe he is Satoshi, based upon what's happened to date," commented Dr Garrick Hileman, an economic historian at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.
"But many of the doubters don't want to be convinced. Satoshi has been mythologised and if you pull back the curtain, you shatter a lot of people's fantasies. |
|
|
|
The plot thickens. Makes everyone who says he was a fraud look like a total imbecile for not checking whether the website is really the official word of Craig Wright. In the thread of mine that Gregory Maxwell deleted, I made the point that those accusing Craig of fraud, hadn't done their homework. Lol. Think about it - if you were purchasing a domain with your name in the title, why would you register it using an anonymous registrant to hide your name?
Forgot to tick-off default option "Protect my privacy for 5.99$ per year" maybe? That's one perfectly plausible explanation It couldn't possibly be anything like My guess is wishful thinking. Never change, bitcointalk, never change... not really sure where you're going with this. so you're saying that craig can deny his ties to the domain? what would that do? his claims on satoshi's identity were recorded in a video. Not suggesting that he did not claim to be Satoshi. Merely that not everything posted on the internet can be taken at face value. If he needed to claim that he is not the author of that apology, he easily could. And, of course, < >The BBC understands that this tweet signifies that Mr Matonis still believes Dr Wright is indeed Satoshi.
"A lot more people in the Bitcoin community are going to be unconvinced of Dr Wright's claims than will believe he is Satoshi, based upon what's happened to date," commented Dr Garrick Hileman, an economic historian at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.
"But many of the doubters don't want to be convinced. Satoshi has been mythologised and if you pull back the curtain, you shatter a lot of people's fantasies. |
|
|
|
Kind of disappointing.
Expected a more spectacular finish.
This one is lousy. No thumbs up for the author.
No, no really. I expected nothing more. The whole case and Craig's strange approach, beating around the bush, not confirming anything, not revealing EASY and the most believable evidence - such as simple signed message of Satoshi's early address was enough of confirmation of a hoax. And so what is his motivation  To destroy Matonis and Andresen? |
|
|
|
Are you sure you are not Craig Wright? you sound similarly delusional.
Are you sure you can understand the technical post to which you are replying? Prove it. |
|
|
|
More Importantly - what a dickhead. He is still not denying he is Satoshi. Just some BS about being a little crybaby girl.
And YES - '..their honour and credibility has been irreparably tainted by your actions..'
Well, he's either Satoshi, in which case that would make little sense; or he's a con man, in which case it would still make little sense. Finally someone with a brain stem. But he may be playing a different genre of con. BCX pretended he would attack Monero, ostensibly because he shorted it. Craig is up to something. |
|
|
|
Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact. You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you. How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains. A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say. Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted: 1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation). 2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer. I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem. Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one. Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much. |
|
|
|
Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact. You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you. How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains. A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say. Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted: 1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation). 2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer. I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem. Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one. Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much. |
|
|
|
Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact. You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you. How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains. A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say. Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted: 1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation). 2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer. I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem. Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one. Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much. |
|
|
|
Your thread was deleted because it was utterly moronic, even more so than your usual bullshit. Everyone who had the misfortune to read it is now dumber for having done so. Go ahead and sell your coins, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
The Bitcoin maximalists are having a heart attack because they don't like the facts. While there are facts I don't like, I can accept them and I've never suffered a heart attack as a result. Though it's irrelevant since you've never said anything that even remotely resembles a fact. You are free to present a refutation of anything I've written. So far, I've seen no technical argument from you. How can I? One can only make a technical argument against disputed facts, and as I said, nothing you've ever said resembles a fact, disputed or otherwise. I presented a technical argument. Regardless of the actions of Craig, that technical argument remains. A technical argument by definition is not a fact. It is a technical position that stands to be debated. So if you are unwilling to respond technically to my technical points, then obviously you have nothing technical to say. Here are some positions I made which you and no one else has refuted: 1. Craig said he signed a hash of some Sartre document but did not disclose which portion of the text. No one has written a script to prove that no portion or combination of portions of that Sartre text will not hash to the value that was signed. Thus I stated until someone has proven that it is impossible for Craig to later show that some portion of the Sartre text will hash to the sign hash value, then you can't claim with certainty that he can't do that. At the bare minimum, those who were checking Craig's proof, should have at least run a simple script to try every contiguous portion (no permutations) of the Sartre text (which is a tractable computation). 2. I have stated that no one seems to know why Bitcoin employs double hashing, and I have stated a theory that double hashing may weaken the collision resistance of the SHA256. I gave my logic for why that may be the case. I also note that SHA256 is documented to be reasonably close to being broken with 46 - 52 of the 64 rounds already broken. Thus I presented the theory that perhaps the double-hashing might push the vulnerability over the edge of breakage of 64 rounds. I didn't present that as a likely theory. I presented it as a point of discussion. If you have no way to refute this technical possibility because you don't know a damn thing about cryptographic hash function construction then that means you are not expert enough to comment about the quality of my theory. Do you for example even understand why two SHA256 hash function applications in series is not equivalent to 2 x 64 rounds? I ask you a specific question and I expect a specific answer. I understand you don't like me, but that is your personal problem. Only a technical reply from you is relevant. Of course you can't make one. Also how do you know that Craig didn't withdraw his plan because I just explained how he may of accomplished the feat he claimed he can do? I mean if someone could even explain the rational justification for the double-hashing, then we wouldn't be wondering as much. |
|
|
|
I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.
It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through. Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP). Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it. |
|
|
|
I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.
It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through. Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP). Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it. |
|
|
|
I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.
It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through. Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP). Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it. |
|
|
|
It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen. He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen. But the saga may not be fully played out yet... |
|
|
|
I guess there goes your Bitcoin is broken fud theory.
It might still be technically valid even if Craig isn't availing of such a vulnerability. And I am not yet sure if Craig has quit. He would place himself in greater legal burden by not following through. Asking to have a technical discussion with a question mark and asking readers to please wait for the replies from other experts, hardly constitutes FUD. Please re-read the quote where I specifically stated those caveats from the very start (of course Gmaxwell deleted the thread but we still have my quote of the OP). Remember Monero (not smooth) ignored for a year or more my points about combinatorial unmasking and IP address correlation. Finally now they admit it. |
|
|
|
LOL, back to work  We don't know yet for sure who Craig is working for. This obviously was not done without a purpose. You don't take these huge risk (e.g. of being sued, etc) without a sufficient reason. |
|
|
|
It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen. He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen. But the saga may not be fully played out yet... |
|
|
|
It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen. He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen. But the saga may not be fully played out yet... |
|
|
|
It appears that the entire fiasco was crafted to destroy Matonis and Andresen. He has apparently taken the fall in order to hand more power to those who are not Matonis and Andresen. But the saga may not be fully played out yet... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
