Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof?  No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why) To me it's not obvious. Please explain. Well according to some blockchain analysts, Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin. If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username. So you would never spend a satoshi from your wealth and keep hiding? Then what would you do this for? The government may want to question you and keep you on watch if you made something that could replace the currency they're built on. The gov. should know (as Satoshi should also know btw), that he can't change the bitcoin system to a gov friendly system. It will not be accepted by the Bitcoin community. He has one voice as every developer has. He wouldn't be in danger only because he created a code he can't change anymore. He might be in danger because of the potential money that he holds, but a burn address would delete this problem as well. |
|
|
|
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? Of course that's the case. https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/There is good reason to believe Kleiman and Wright knew each other well. Wright posted an emotional tribute to Kleiman on YouTube (since removed) upon learning of his death. It is entirely possible that Wright was a trusted friend and confidante of Kleiman’s, and this might have given him access to information that ‘only Satoshi could have known’ that would have been useful when Craig Wright convinced Gavin Andresen of his legitimacy.
Makes sense, but why did they set up this obv. failed proof show with Gavin then? |
|
|
|
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why) To me it's not obvious. Please explain. Well according to some blockchain analysts, Satoshi is sitting on billions of US dollars worth of Bitcoin. If I was them, I wouldn't risk any possibility of being traced. This includes making a post on the internet or really doing anything online that involves that username. So you would never spend a satoshi from your wealth and keep hiding? Then what would you do this for? |
|
|
|
Thank you. With the S Curve Theory, would you say for those that are IN now, are innovators or early adopters?
Buy in at any point and buy more when it falls. It doesn't matter how you call yourself on the way up. |
|
|
|
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? His "proof" was just a copy of signature from an early Bitcoin transaction rumored to be made by Satoshi. There's no need for the real Satoshi to come and expose Wright. Craig Wright did it just to get attention, and argument that he is Satoshi is now used by big block trolls to misguide newbies into supporting their shitcoins, which tells us a lot about big blockers. IMO we won't hear about Satoshi again, because his presence would hurt Bitcoin - he wanted decentralized, self-regulating community, which achieves consensus on its own. If he stayed as benevolent dictator, some people would argue that Bitcoin is not really decentralized - kinda like Ethereum is now. I have no problem with SN hiding and I don't care about his real identity. Now I do care about people with an obviously great influence on some key figures, that claim to be the creator of Bitcoin and fail to show a proof to their claims. |
|
|
|
He was about to give proof that he was the real Satoshi. He once announced that he will move some of Satoshi's coins (which were mined in 2009 and not moved since). But later he went back on his promise, saying that he risked arrest from law enforcement agencies, if he prove that he was the real Satoshi.
Reality is: He can't, because he doesn't have control over any of Satoshi's keys. |
|
|
|
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? No, he knows that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever they are, would not risk communicating with the world ever again. (its kinda obvious why) To me it's not obvious. Please explain. |
|
|
|
Satoshi Satoshi Satoshi How long do we plan to discuss this topic? I suppose till the time when the identity of this person will not be uncovered by BBC or other historical channel. But let's come back to your idea. If so, it may be supposed that it is just profitable to Satoshi to stay incognito and even better that some other person is acting like "yes, Satoshi is me". But let's not forget that Satoshi Nakomoto is just a nik from the internet. Who is behind this nik is a mystery. Then SN would give his PGP keys to CW to definitely silence the people that wanted a cryptographic proof. |
|
|
|
|
Buy 0.1 BTC if you can't afford 1 BTC. I think you will never be too late. You might need to wait a bit longer depending on the buying point, but I would call it a good long term investment.
|
|
|
|
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. What proof could he have? I guess he could sign a message using a key from the genesis block, stating that Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Even then, this is not definitive. Control of a private key does not prove your identity. For example, it's possible for "Satoshi" to sign such a message from the genesis block coinbase address key, and for Craig Wright also to sign a message using the same key. What would that prove?  Control of the early wallets or his original PGP key would be the best as a proof. There is nothing else that could do it better. If somebody comes up with either one, he would destroy the rest of a good reputation, that Craig Wright might still have. |
|
|
|
Just an idea. If Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto, he would definitely risk the real Satoshi come up with a proof, that Craig is not SN. Is it possible, that CW explicitly knows about the death of the person behind SN, so he can make his claims without backing them up with a proof? |
|
|
|
|
Hashrate is going down, time to solve a block is raising.
|
|
|
|
|
How can that mean, that Bitcoin Core will be 'overtaken', when both chains are independent?
|
|
|
|
Besides a little more security on the BCH chain because of the hashrate, there is nothing to worry about. The longest chain means nothing.
You fools keep repeating this lie. Since this is not a 51% attack on the blockchain with the original Bitcoin consensus rules, the longest chain does not matter at all. Moron. Keep drinking the Core Kool-aid like all your little uneducated friends who can only listen to the drum beat without ability to figure things out on their own. Watch that BTC price cave into the BCH price over the next 30 days. So you have nothing more to say than a speculation about the price and you keep insulting people that are saying something against your opinion? This is so poor, RawDog, but I never expected any education from you. |
|
|
|
Besides a little more security on the BCH chain because of the hashrate, there is nothing to worry about. The longest chain means nothing.
You fools keep repeating this lie. Since this is not a 51% attack on the blockchain with the original Bitcoin consensus rules, the longest chain does not matter at all. |
|
|
|
|
Besides a little more security on the BCH chain because of the hashrate, there is nothing to worry about. The longest chain means nothing.
|
|
|
|
I don't think so, but I can't wait for the next airdrop.  |
|
|
|
The quick answer is that there is a set of formula that can be used for point multiplication so that a computer can quickly compute privateKey*G. However, there is no known set of formula yet for point division to quickly compute publicKey/G. It is not even known in mathematics if it will be possible to find such a set of formula for point division.
I don't have time right now to go into much more detail than that. Hopefully someone else will stop by to demonstrate why it is difficult with currently known maths.
This one is quick and easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZloHVKk7DHk&t=3sedit: The difficulty to compute publicKey/G is a little bit like root calculation. It is easy to find out the numer in one direction, but a lot more difficult to calculate it in the other direction. calculating 3.8 2 is pretty easy (3.8*3.8=14.44), but to find out the root of 14.44 you'll need a lot more computation. |
|
|
|
|
I bet 1 BTC, that OP's fake transaction "with closed fake net hash" has no more than 0 confirmations.
|
|
|
|
You should invest it in ethereum not bitcoin because bitcoin price is highest in crypto market
Wow! Much smart such advice. Very trading! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
