BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!

[Gleb Gamow]

i guess Dave Kleiman will turn in his grave  



@Nice Try
thx for the info 

It wouldn't surprise me none that it's Dave who first updated the Wikipedia page minutes after the first announcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright

[1714148336]

1714148336

[1714148336]

1714148336

[1714148336]

1714148336

[1714148336]

1714148336

[elobizph]

Finally the one and only creator of Bitcoin revealed himself

[Denker]

I believe that such an announcement might be disastrous to Bitcoin if he was indeed able to prove himself.
One of the biggest selling points of Bitcoin was the whole "unknown founder" thing which proved that no one controlled the network.

That is bs.
Bitcoin is running without Satoshi for years now and will continue doing so.
Even if Satoshi would be found and put in jail, it won't break the protocol.
Bitcoin will continue to be what it is.Why should people stop using it just because the inventor is suddenly known?
That makes no sense.

[Gleb Gamow]

Come on! Not again please!
That guy really is an attention whore.
When he is Satoshi, well then I'm Santa Claus.
That dude shall sign a message or just shut tup!!

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/how-i-met-satoshi.html

Then, on June 4th 2015 during a conference, I arranged to meet fellow Bitcoin advocate, Craig Steven Wright, for a cup of coffee at the top floor of the AMP headquarters building in Sydney, Australia. After discussing many technical and economic aspects of the current Bitcoin protocol debates, I returned to my hotel room after an exhausting day. I remember saying to my wife that I had this weird feeling of having just met Satoshi. Of course, I continued the dialogue with Craig in the months after returning from Sydney and leading up to a private proof session in late March 2016.

[ecashpay123]

if your describe it little i know what are you talking about bitcoin.

[AGD]

Has someone till now has found any actual signed message by Craig? This news is all over the Indian national News channel(they don't usually show up stuff until they have some solid source).

If they only had the knowledge to differ a valid from an unvalid key. I think it is enough for them when one fiddles around with the keyboard and have some "KEY ACCEPTED" message coming up to have them convinced.

BTW. Gleb, you nailed it once again. Nice to have you here.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Come on! Not again please!
That guy really is an attention whore.
When he is Satoshi, well then I'm Santa Claus.
That dude shall sign a message or just shut tup!!

"Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies."

And we all know that Satoshi loved banks and big cooperations.


/s


@AGD
indeed  

[AhmedAshraf]

I believe that such an announcement might be disastrous to Bitcoin if he was indeed able to prove himself.
One of the biggest selling points of Bitcoin was the whole "unknown founder" thing which proved that no one controlled the network.

That is bs.
Bitcoin is running without Satoshi for years now and will continue doing so.
Even if Satoshi would be found and put in jail, it won't break the protocol.
Bitcoin will continue to be what it is.Why should people stop using it just because the inventor is suddenly known?
That makes no sense.

Do you realize that when I'm talking about the selling point, I mean the pitch to the general public. The average joe who has no experience with cryptography and doesn't understand the blockchain.
We might not need them embracing bitcoin just yet, but we will need them at some point.

[amiryaqot]

Well this time again we are seeking satoshi but i don't believe that person can be satoshi and the story behind is very funny, satoshi will remain mysterious character because nobody knows exactly who is that satoshi real but i am sure that person is not satoshi.

[findftp]

The man behind the handle Satoshi Nakamoto has died years ago and since then somebody is desperately trying to make the people believe he is still alive and to take over his identity. That's why Craig doesn't show any legit proof. Btw. Mr. Wright, I don't believe in Jon Matonis, but I do believe in the mathematics  of GPG and Bitcoin. If you were in fact Satoshi Nakamoto, you would agree and act accordingly. The fact that you don't, is proof enough that you're lying. Fuck you.

+1

Plus the fact it would mean the BBC is telling the truth for the first time in history.

Fuck the BBC (but thanks for the snooker) and fuck you Craig.

[eyeknock]

again and again, people claim to be satoshis before they proof it, this is so basic!:

point number 1-> you proof that you are satoshi by signed message.
point number 2-> you claim that you are satoshi.

why people continue doing the number 2 before the number 1?

[1Referee]

again and again, people claim to be satoshis before they proof it, this is so basic!:

point number 1-> you proof that you are satoshi by signed message.
point number 2-> you claim that you are satoshi.

why people continue doing the number 2 before the number 1?

Because people don't have anything that they can use to proof they are really Satoshi. It's just another lame attempt to create panic or whatever else their intentions are.

[Gleb Gamow]

For some real fun, head on over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright and watch the page get updated in real time via simply employing F5.   They're goin' fuckin' nuts over there.

Craig Steven Wright (born October 1970)[3] is an Australian computer scientist, businessman and the real person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.[4].

Just one of many iterations in the past hour.

[Nancarrow]

Hmm so after a quick skim of SCW's blogpost it's all "here's how you'd verify a signed message... if I were to provide one which I haven't prepared earlier... which I will... in a future post".

Degree of belief lowering...

Gavin Andresen has a post up saying he believes it's the real deal and has seen the demonstration. I admire him for putting that up. It's a real "in a day or so, my credibility will either be worth millions or nothing" kind of post.

Well I'll wait and see until/if:

1) SCW provides a signed message, preferably more than one.
2) Those in the know verify it checks out.
3) They also answer all the objections someone could reasonably point out (was the message crafted? Could SCW have got the private key by nefarious means? etc).
4) Someone gives a dummies guide for us popcorners to be able to verify for ourselves.
5) I go and do that.

I'm out.

ETA: Hang on, wait a second, not sure if 'not enough coffee' or 'too much coffee'...

In SCW's blogpost, is the idea that Sartre's quote, "If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner” is the message to be signed, and "IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh
dG9zaGkuCgo=" the signature? And that it's signed with the privkey of the address from which Satoshi sent to Finney in block 9?

Because if so, even a doofus like me could probably figure out how to verify that. It would go quite some way to alleviating my concerns. There'd still be the possibility that SCW is a bad actor that somehow stumbled upon the real Satoshi's privkeys. But IIUC, there's no significant possibility of "message carefully tailored to verify".

I guess I'm saying, "where can I find someone who actually knows this shit?". It's all very well for any of us to bleat "just sign a message with the privkeys" and smugly think we know what we're actually talking about.

[Denker]

So what was the whole point if this interview?
Craig said he doesn't need money and wouldn't take any.
He also said he doesn't want fame.No he wants to be left alone.
Others forced him to reveal himself as Satoshi and he is concerned about his staff.
So now he came out with the "truth" like: "Yes I'm Satoshi and now piss off!"
What??
Sorry but this doesn't make any sense imo.

[Denker]

For some real fun, head on over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright and watch the page get updated in real time via simply employing F5.   They're goin' fuckin' nuts over there.

Oh shit!
Man this better than watching any movie in cinema.
Bitcoin as soap opera back again.Awesome!

[Gleb Gamow]

So what was the whole point if this interview?
Craig said he doesn't need money and wouldn't take any.
He also said he doesn't want fame.No he wants to be left alone.
Others forced him to reveal himself as Satoshi and he is concerned about his staff.
So now he came out with the "truth" like: "Yes I'm Satoshi and now piss off!"
What??
Sorry but this doesn't make any sense imo.

"I firmly believe that now is the Wright time to smoke this field of opium."

[icey]

He seemed quite angry about it all..

Anyways, It's not the conclusive proof we all imagined we'd get if Satoshi was to ever reveal himself. The next few days will be very interesting indeed.

[bitbitch]

assuming this is legit, what's Wright's angle?

- why now?

[BitUsher]

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

Gavin, is either lacking skepticism due to a cognitive bias (Craig Steven Wright just happens to be a big blocker*) or is willing to use this fraud to further his agenda. Either way, I lost even more respect for Gavin with this blog post.

* "Mr Wright says that if he could reinvent bitcoin, he would program in a steady increase of the block size. He also intends to publish mathematical proof that there is no trade-off between the mass adoption of the cryptocurrency and its remaining decentralised. Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies." http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Anyone curious about the timing of this as well ? Just so happens that this is released right after the "deadline" of segwit be released where people are complaining that the HK agreement was not met regardless of the scalability timeline always indicating a simple pull request expected in April (which was met weeks ago)