There is nothing proving any key was backdated. Starting in 2005/2006, it became clear that SHA1 was weak and that alternatives should be used.
So Satoshi knew SHA1 was weak, so he generated 2 keys. He used the weak key publicly, and didn't use the strong key. How does that make any sense to you? |
|
|
|
Why don't the admins look up the IP of satoshi and locate where he did login from, then U know where the real bitcoin developer came from.
they did.. result=tor node Exactly. Satoshi went to great lengths to maintain his anonymity. We won't find him putting his anonymity at risk by attending Bitcoin conferences. |
|
|
|
i remember you saying you can tell alot from the nonce. if you mean lack of difficulty to imply that there was only 1 miner for the majority of 2009. well that wont work because "difficulty" was only implemented in version 0.2 on december 16th and the first jump happened december 30th 2009. so before december 16th many people could mine at the same rate without any speedbumps ...which many did.
Browse through Sergio's blog. He has lots of great details into Satoshi's mining. https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/ |
|
|
|
Obviously one random early mined block could belong to anybody who just knew about Bitcoin since start, but does not prove it is Satoshi. Im amazed how much work Craig Wright put into the story and interiew but he does not deliver the only possible way how to prove it...
Sergio has done an excellent analysis of early mining. There is a distinct pattern to the early blocks that are virtually assured to be Satoshi's. https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/ |
|
|
|
The Satoshi millions in the trust also explains why it has not moved.
It makes no sense for a trust to hold unmoved coins. There would be no way to guarantee that the trust is the only one with the private keys, and thus they would not be safely locked away in the trust. |
|
|
|
Wright wrote, Kleiman had mined an enormous amount of bitcoins—an amount “too large to email.”
Emailing bitcoins? Huh? |
|
|
|
One of my favorite parts of that article:
"Last year, Wright publicly announced his plan to establish the “world’s first Bitcoin bank.”".
World's First Bitcoin Bank? Gee Wizz Satoshi...
What happened to people being their own banks?
Hey Satoshi, can you hold my private keys for me too?
Great point. Wright just doesn't sound like Satoshi did. |
|
|
|
|
How about something like this? Miners send a portion of the mining fee to the nodes that sent them the transactions in the block they solved.
|
|
|
|
Why spend all that money to make, what I consider to be, a pretty good product?
That's the genius of their scam. With a possible real product, they are mostly safe from the authorities. With a token effort at producing a real product, prosecuting them becomes quite difficult. That all hinged on pre-order funds. Now that they can't accept pre-orders, they have no way to perpetuate their scam. |
|
|
|
If they really intended to be thieving scumbags why not just let a few million dollars in preorder btc pour in and retire to a non-extradition beach house somewhere?
There're lots of other kinds of fraud. From day one their MO was this. Over-promise and tie up pre-order funds so that customers couldn't get refunds and/or purchase competitors' products. We even have Josh on record admitting that the delivery dates being promised were impossible. That makes them thieving scumbags. |
|
|
|
^^^ We won! Wait, what did we win?
Refunds! |
|
|
|
It will take hundred of years to crack one single private key with today's technology
No. You will never crack a good private key with today's technology. Never. |
|
|
|
With Casascius coins, or any other coins for that matter, this is impossible because the holographic tape is tamper proof and you can tell if the tape has been peeled off or not.
Your loss. How to rip off chennan. |
|
|
|
As long as we keep bumping this BFL SCAM thread, I love you.  |
|
|
|
This specific attack can also be mitigated by enforcing a bytes-per-sigop limit (policy change), as was merged into 0.12.0. Any miner that does not adopt this policy will still be vulnerable. A fee per sigop sounds like a good plan too. |
|
|
|
Yes it is, it just like crackin' a password. But it will take a long long long time to do it, because private key has so many characters in it.
The short answer is, "The earth will no longer exist by the time you guess a private key." Here's the long answer.  |
|
|
|
If you find where those guys (don't forget Josh) start working next, let us know. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
