BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!

[Gleb Gamow]

I've said before that this guy isn't Satoshi and I'll say it again.  No need for all this drama, a simple clue is in the writing...

http://www.drcraigwright.net/social-choice-bitcoin-arrows-theorem/

Is one of his blog posts

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination.  Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel.  They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once.  A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work.  Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power.  This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.  Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength.  It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.

Is one of Satoshi's posts

There is a critical but subtle difference, which tells me that Craig Wright is NOT the Satoshi that posted here.

Crag Wright writes blockchain, Satoshi always wrote block chain, with a space.  Why change the habit of a lifetime?

If you really want to find Satoshi, first whittle it down to everyone that writes block chain with a space.

He's not even using double spaces like Satoshi did (everywhere... from the bitcoin whitepaper to his forum posts).

Yeah, I just highlighted the most obvious (and relevant).  There are many occasions where the writing style is very different.

A persons writing style can change of course, but to do so to the extent where it is unrecognizable takes a long time!

My writing prowess has improved over the course of ~5 years that I'll been on this forum, but I concur with you that my style hasn't changed.

[1713530549]

1713530549

[1713530549]

1713530549

[1713530549]

1713530549

[1713530549]

1713530549

[AgentofCoin]

...

Odd, why a whole private group effort and not a simple public example? How hard is signing the genesis block?

Government operation. Attempt to control a majority of "experts" then force the faked proof on the community.
By using the "experts" to satisfy laymen and media, they could attempted a takeover/destruction with the second coming christ.

The real Satoshi could never have been such a whore as this Craig Wright is.

[OmegaStarScream]

This shit is going worldwide guys. It's sad (since it's probably fake).

[belmonty]

Out of curiosity, where are these 1 million bitcoins everyone is scared about. Is there really an address with 1 mill bitcoins, or there were a million bitcoins mined by satoshi in the early days that are unaccounted for? (and if thats the case why are people so concerned since they were probably sold and redistributed a long time ago?).

There isn't a single address of Satoshi's coins but yes cumulatively he has somewhere in the area of a million coins. There are users who have been trying to peg down every block he mined and have much better information on this than I.

This thread gives the technical details of how people tied certain coins to Satoshi. There's still debate about exactly how many early coins he mined, but it's a certainly a lot. Estimates range from 200k to over a million.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507458.0

[Gleb Gamow]

he is not satoshi.

all he done was convert an old existing input script into base64..
he did not sign anything nor did he prove anything.

you too can be satoshi (by doing what Craig wright did)

go to
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true

copy the input script
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce01

google "hex to base64"
paste in the input script
convert

MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
and now you have what appears to be a signature that is linked to satoshi funds.. and you never even needed a private key do to it

ask youself did you use a public key or private key. did it involve any sha or ECDSA process at all.. NO

i advise everyone to go to the media, contact section and message them of the fraud that craig wright is.

the only reason he is doing this is because he scammed some people into thinking he owns 1million bitcoins which he doesnt, but that blind ignorance caused those people to give him collateral based on the lie.. and now they are calling in the debt..

he fled australia to avoid immediate prosecution and is now trying to use the media as proof of ownership. without ever actually proving ownership

so please will everyone convert hex to base64 all the inputs of all satoshi funds to prove we are all satoshi..

craig wright deserves to be locked up because its not just identity fraud. the main thing is the millions of fiat he has scammed out of australian government and private investors using that id fraud, he has no bitcoin funds from 2009.

The above is proof enough for me that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen are not to be trusted. They of all people should've been able to see through the ruse when first presented, let alone come forward and defend their actions causing serious financial harm to others having trust in their judgement.

[Mang86]

What do you think how much bitcoinn has he? D:

[Wendigo]

So Craig could allegedly sign a message but couldn't move any of the coins held by Satoshi Nakamoto because there is a trust now in control of them. This is very hard to believe in my honest opinion and looks like a half-assed excuse on his part. It's also very surprising how no other expert other than Gavin Andresen stepped forward to validate Craig Wright's claims of being the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Something about this 'revelation' is very off.

[AGD]

Just want to sum up a little:

- Craig Wright has not been hacked. He really says he is Satoshi Nakamoto (proof on video), but failed to prove it to the public. He even made simple coding errors on his blog.
- Gavin, Jon and the other guy were not hacked, but they REALLY believe Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, because he signed some message in an unsecured environment
- Gavins commit access has been removed by core team, because they assume he has been hacked (obv. because a core dev wouldn't make such statement without publishing solid cryptografic proof)
- Andreas Antonopoulos was invited to the "Satoshi Nakamoto Revelation Party" but declined to go.

Did I forget something important?

[franky1]

So Craig could allegedly sign a message but couldn't move any of the coins held by Satoshi Nakamoto because there is a trust now in control of them. This is very hard to believe in my honest opinion and looks like a half-assed excuse on his part. It's also very surprising how no other expert other than Gavin Andresen stepped forward to validate Craig Wright's claims of being the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Something about this 'revelation' is very off.

he has no private keys.. he just has some numpty holding a piece of paper of public keys.
this numpty formed a trust under the pretense that it was an asset collateral, which wright then used this dodgy trust to garnish $54million from government budgets.

they are now calling in the debt. so he fled the country and is now seeking sanctuary in the UK

this $54million rides purely on the foundation that he must prove he has the real collateral (bitcoins).. the only problem, he doesnt

what are you missing?.. well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/

here it is explained better

Find first transaction by Satoshi in 2009 :
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true

Convert inputscript from hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

to base64
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

(thats it, you done pretty much the only thing that craig done)

this is a 7 year old signature of the transaction encrypted using the private key for: 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S 7 years ago
emphasis: the data is the transaction data(not a personal message).. that is 7 years old!! and publicly available

if he was to sign a message today! the signature, even when signed with the same private key would be completely different
emphasis: signing "my name is bob" would result in a different signature than "My Name Is Bob" even when both messages are signed with the same private key.

so if you see him display:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

he is not signing anything new. he is just literally copying and pasting a 7 year old message(tx) that was signed 7years ago

[Denker]

Just want to sum up a little:

- Craig Wright has not been hacked. He really says he is Satoshi Nakamoto (proof on video), but failed to prove it to the public. He even made simple coding errors on his blog.
- Gavin, Jon and the other guy were not hacked, but they REALLY believe Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, because he signed some message in an unsecured environment
- Gavins commit access has been removed by core team, because they assume he has been hacked (obv. because a core dev wouldn't make such statement without publishing solid cryptografic proof)
- Andreas Antonopoulos was invited to the "Satoshi Nakamoto Revelation Party" but declined to go.

Did I forget something important?

Nope that's pretty much it so far.
Great summary.Thanks.

[OmegaStarScream]

See how Andreas M. Antonopoulos got contacted ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hj1xu/why_i_declined_to_verify_sns_identity_two_weeks/ ) :

About two weeks ago I was contacted and asked to offer security advice for a project. I was asked to sign an NDA in order to discuss the project itself, something I am reluctant to do, in general. Once I received the NDA however, it became obvious that the project was related to verifying the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. I immediately declined the offer, declined to participate and declined to sign the NDA.
I'm sure many people will think I was wrong to decline the "opportunity" to verify SN's identity. From my perspective, the request for me to verify his/her/their identity is in itself an appeal to authority. It is replacing public cryptographic proof with endorsement by a third party. If SN wants to "prove" their identity, they don't need an "authority" to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner. To ask people in the space who have a reputation to stake that reputation and vouch for SN's identity raises many red flags in my mind.
I don't know if Craig Wright is SN. I don't care and I don't want to know.
As I have expressed many times in the past, I think the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto does not matter. More importantly I think it serves to distract from the fact that bitcoin is not controlled by anyone and is not a system of Appeal-to-Authority. Identifying the creator only serves to feed the appeal-to-authority crowd, as if SN is some kind of infallible prophet, or has any say over bitcoin's future.
Identity and authority are distractions from a system of mathematical proof that does not require trust. This is not a telenovela. Bitcoin is a neutral framework of trust that can bring financial empowerment to billions of people. It works because it doesn't depend on any authority. Not even Satoshi's.
Back to work.

[r1cochet]

The above is proof enough for me that Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen are not to be trusted. They of all people should've been able to see through the ruse when first presented, let alone come forward and defend their actions causing serious financial harm to others having trust in their judgement.

It will be interesting to see how Jon and Gavin react now their "coup" has been exposed. Either way it doesn't look very good....


https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/727175513047879680

[Denker]

See how Andreas M. Antonopoulos got contacted ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hj1xu/why_i_declined_to_verify_sns_identity_two_weeks/ ) :

About two weeks ago I was contacted and asked to offer security advice for a project. I was asked to sign an NDA in order to discuss the project itself, something I am reluctant to do, in general. Once I received the NDA however, it became obvious that the project was related to verifying the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. I immediately declined the offer, declined to participate and declined to sign the NDA.
I'm sure many people will think I was wrong to decline the "opportunity" to verify SN's identity. From my perspective, the request for me to verify his/her/their identity is in itself an appeal to authority. It is replacing public cryptographic proof with endorsement by a third party. If SN wants to "prove" their identity, they don't need an "authority" to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner. To ask people in the space who have a reputation to stake that reputation and vouch for SN's identity raises many red flags in my mind.
I don't know if Craig Wright is SN. I don't care and I don't want to know.
As I have expressed many times in the past, I think the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto does not matter. More importantly I think it serves to distract from the fact that bitcoin is not controlled by anyone and is not a system of Appeal-to-Authority. Identifying the creator only serves to feed the appeal-to-authority crowd, as if SN is some kind of infallible prophet, or has any say over bitcoin's future.
Identity and authority are distractions from a system of mathematical proof that does not require trust. This is not a telenovela. Bitcoin is a neutral framework of trust that can bring financial empowerment to billions of people. It works because it doesn't depend on any authority. Not even Satoshi's.
Back to work.

Andreas has always been a straight and honest person with ideals.
You have to give him credit for that not falling for greed and smear campaigns against others.
Now I'm convinced this is another social engineering attack against us.

[Cryddit]

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. 

Nothing to see here.  Move along.

[AGD]

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. 

Nothing to see here.  Move along.

/thread

[Gleb Gamow]

Interesting tweet by Andreas Antonopoulos.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/727175513047879680

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hj1xu/why_i_declined_to_verify_sns_identity_two_weeks/

About two weeks ago I was contacted and asked to offer security advice for a project. I was asked to sign an NDA in order to discuss the project itself, something I am reluctant to do, in general. Once I received the NDA however, it became obvious that the project was related to verifying the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. I immediately declined the offer, declined to participate and declined to sign the NDA.

I'm sure many people will think I was wrong to decline the "opportunity" to verify SN's identity. From my perspective, the request for me to verify his/her/their identity is in itself an appeal to authority. It is replacing public cryptographic proof with endorsement by a third party. If SN wants to "prove" their identity, they don't need an "authority" to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner. To ask people in the space who have a reputation to stake that reputation and vouch for SN's identity raises many red flags in my mind.

I don't know if Craig Wright is SN. I don't care and I don't want to know.

As I have expressed many times in the past, I think the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto does not matter. More importantly I think it serves to distract from the fact that bitcoin is not controlled by anyone and is not a system of Appeal-to-Authority. Identifying the creator only serves to feed the appeal-to-authority crowd, as if SN is some kind of infallible prophet, or has any say over bitcoin's future.

Identity and authority are distractions from a system of mathematical proof that does not require trust. This is not a telenovela. Bitcoin is a neutral framework of trust that can bring financial empowerment to billions of people. It works because it doesn't depend on any authority. Not even Satoshi's.

Back to work.

So, Gavin had no qualms with signing the NDA, eh?

[Gleb Gamow]

Hey Gleb, theymos shared your graphic on Reddit  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hg2oq/breaking_craig_wright_signs_genesis_block/

That's because we're close fishing buds. 

<thanks for the heads-up>

[PinkLlama]

Guess it really wasn't him haha 

[futureofbitcoin]

I don't know why people are assuming the worst of Gavin. Even if he's a smart guy, it isn't out of the question that he got tricked by a really smart con-man.

I think it's a lot less likely that Gavin would risk his reputation on something that obviously won't work like this.

[Quantus]

I'll never trust Gavin Andresen's judgement again.