There is a nice analysis of Wright's "proof" https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto/Wright has a history of fabricating evidence in support of his claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Despite his claims of not wanting the notoriety or the attention, he is going to a lot of trouble
to construct a reality of himself as Satoshi Nakamoto. In the almost 6 months since the first
Wired and Gizmodo stories were published he has had ample opportunity to prove conclusively that
he is Satoshi, and the protocol and requirements for doing so are well understood and not onerous.
They do not require a 10 page blog post with notepad screenshots of shell scripts explaining
Linux commands, file formats or OpenSSL.
They also do not involve tightly controlled demonstrations in an environment completely under his control.
The real creator of Bitcoin would know this.
The burden of proof for anybody claiming to be Nakamoto should be high. In the case of Wright,
because of his previous fabrications, that burden is greater. His claims have to be treated with
a great amount of skepticism, and his actions treated not as those of a sincere person,
but rather as those of a person with a history and reputation for deception. Wright has yet to meet
this burden, and until he does, Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
|
|
|
|
Gavin explains how Craig Wright convinced him: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hhecv/gavin_explains_how_craig_wright_convinced_him/Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.
That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.
I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).
I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post.
 Did they publish this signed message later ? EDIT: even if so, it could has been signed back in 2009. He have to include date in the message to prove it's signed this year. |
|
|
|
Oh holy shit, I was not aware that he was proclaiming it was him on his website, I thought it was just Gavin being a lunatic and falling for shit fake proof. LOL, $signiture will always have empty value  |
|
|
|
|
Already dumped. Will probably re-buy at ~350
|
|
|
|
Are you sure the world will still exist in 2020 ? |
|
|
|
|
May be excessive drugs abuse ?
|
|
|
|
|
China officially allowed direct bank deposits to BTC exchange and it was the signal to start the rally.
But it's not a bubble yet, until we touch the new ATH.
|
|
|
|
|
Many countries' economies are ruled by morons with obsolete minds.
|
|
|
|
As soon as finex launches licensed version of Willy Bot, we will see the next ATH  |
|
|
|
|
They f*cked people twice with flash crashes. It's pure gambling to continue trading with them.
Finex charts should be ignored. Their recent "low" is artificial and was caused by system glitch.
|
|
|
|
Manipulation |
|
|
|
|
Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.
In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.
|
|
|
|
Huh, what is 10,000 bitcoins ? Just one pizza |
|
|
|
It's not giving up privacy. It’s not like bitcoin will always be under DDOS or there would be a problem. If that happens there are other means to achieve privacy anyway.
How will you comment this finding: Connections are made over clearnet even when using a proxy or
onlynet=tor, which leaks connections on the P2P network with the real
location of the node.
source: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html |
|
|
|
@meono, you can comment it from your original forum account I don't find, where it is called. Can you show me?
There isn't It is simply not true, this place if full of trolls and ignorants that simply doesn't know and doesn't want to understand anything about the topic. It's a feature against dos attack, and if you don't like it? Bam! Just add -disableipprio before running the node/client. OMG!!! Move on. The most of the users are not aware about -disableipprio switch and this is not excuse. XT client has Anti-DDOS tor blocking feature enabled by default which means that user's privacy can be compromised. |
|
|
|
So basically don’t use TOR if bitcoin is being DDOSed.
Gotcha.
Your answer is pretty clear. So basically give up privacy. Gotcha. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin XT contains an unmentioned addition which periodically downloads lists of Tor IP addresses for blacklisting, this has considerable privacy implications for hapless users which are being prompted to use the software. The feature is not clearly described, is enabled by default, and has a switch name which intentionally downplays what it is doing (disableipprio). Furthermore these claimed anti-DoS measures are trivially bypassed and so offer absolutely no protection whatsoever. Connections are made over clearnet even when using a proxy or onlynet=tor, which leaks connections on the P2P network with the real location of the node. Knowledge of this traffic along with uptime metrics from bitnodes.io can allow observers to easily correlate the location and identity of persons running Bitcoin nodes. Denial of service can also be used to crash and force a restart of an interesting node, which will cause them to make a new request to the blacklist endpoint via the clearnet on relaunch at the same time their P2P connections are made through a proxy. Requests to the blacklisting URL also use a custom Bitcoin XT user agent which makes users distinct from other internet traffic if you have access to the endpoints logs. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23Source: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.htmlTo conclude. NSA/CIA can run simple ddos attack which activates "Anti-DDOS" backdoor in XT client which blocks Tor connections and de-anonimyzes users by revealing their real IP addresses. |
|
|
|
I'm pushing for BIP101. XT or Core I don't give a damn. I want bitcoin to scale. The blacklisting thing is just an OPTIONAL Ddos protection. Stop with all that paranoid FUD.
So please stop mentioning XP in your topics. BIP101 is not equal to XT. XT is the only implementation that support BIP101 right now so be it. Yet... They released it without waiting for consensus. It can be treated as just another altcoin fork. The blacklisting thing is just an OPTIONAL Ddos protection. Stop with all that paranoid FUD.
Yes, this leaves an option for NSA/CIA to start attack in order to de-anonymize all the Tor users. How so? This: Connections are made over clearnet even when using a proxy or
onlynet=tor, which leaks connections on the P2P network with the real
location of the node. Knowledge of this traffic along with uptime metrics
from bitnodes.io can allow observers to easily correlate the location and
identity of persons running Bitcoin nodes. Denial of service can also be
used to crash and force a restart of an interesting node, which will
cause them to make a new request to the blacklist endpoint via the
clearnet on relaunch at the same time their P2P connections are made
through a proxy. Requests to the blacklisting URL also use a custom
Bitcoin XT user agent which makes users distinct from other internet
traffic if you have access to the endpoints logs.
source: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
