belmonty
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:24:01 PM |
|
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.
The BBC published another story about the growing scepticism. Regarding the proof shown to Gavin, it quotes Gavin as saying: "It is impossible to prove something like that 100%." Even he admits there's a slight chance he got tricked. Bitcoin industry 'sceptical' of Satoshi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TalkImg was created especially for hosting images on bitcointalk.org: try it next time you want to post an image
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
iglasses
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:26:15 PM |
|
So simple....MOVE THE COINS. /discussion
|
I only have a signature because I'm allowed.
|
|
|
|
nikb
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:31:32 PM |
|
I am not Craig Wright.
Sure you aren't... can you prove it by not signing something with a key that's known to be Craig Wright's? Yeah... I thought so Craig!
|
|
|
|
DarkHyudrA
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000
English <-> Portuguese translations
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:39:02 PM |
|
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.
In the position Gavin has, he can't be simply be fooled like that. Losing his commit permission was a smart decision of the Bitcoin Team. Also, good to see that people already found proof enough to just show that Craig is just an attention whore wanting some money to pay his taxes problems.
|
English <-> Brazilian Portuguese translations
|
|
|
Bought
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:40:22 PM |
|
This thread has fairly exploded today. Final conclusion after page one is the craig wright is definitely not satoshi and bbc are a bunch of muppets. All in all pretty disappointing.
|
|
|
|
futureofbitcoin
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:40:39 PM |
|
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.
In the position Gavin has, he can't be simply be fooled like that. Losing his commit permission was a smart decision of the Bitcoin Team. Also, good to see that people already found proof enough to just show that Craig is just an attention whore wanting some money to pay his taxes problems. But he can make obvious lies that he obviously knows will be found out in a matter of hours? Come on.
|
|
|
|
TooDumbForBitcoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:40:50 PM |
|
Assuming CSW is trying to pull a hoax, he knows he is vulnerable to a fast, simple exposure anytime SN wants to expose him, unless CSW knows SN can't or won't do that. Can't, as in Dave Kleiman, can't.
Dave had the goods, and died with them, beyond CSW's reach. That's why no signature, no coin movement, no nutthin.
|
|
|
|
wikenpp
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:42:13 PM |
|
I really do not know what I have to believe but honestly I do believe that he is Satoshi but of course its not 100% that he is. On the other hand if he is we can finally close the chapter about SN.
|
|
|
|
nikb
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:50:49 PM |
|
I really do not know what I have to believe but honestly I do believe that he is Satoshi but of course its not 100% that he is. On the other hand if he is we can finally close the chapter about SN.
Satoshi already closed that chapter a while ago. Nothing left to close.
|
|
|
|
DimensionZ
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Shit, did I leave the stove on?
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:53:49 PM |
|
I think Craig Wright botched up his play big time. If he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto he wouldn't have needed the approval of any Bitcoin expert because he could have provided public proof accessible by the whole Bitcoin community and should not have tried to seek the authority of other people. If Bitcoin is decentralized by design Satoshi doesn't need to employ centralization to get verified in the first place.
|
|
|
|
bugsywugsy
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:56:04 PM |
|
Really big claims going on here without any solid evidence. What is the point of this, to distract from eth pump?
|
|
|
|
chek2fire
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3402
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
|
May 02, 2016, 07:58:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Tijl
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
May 02, 2016, 08:01:14 PM |
|
No way! This is the weirdest story ever.
|
|
|
|
Fuserleer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016
|
|
May 02, 2016, 08:06:45 PM |
|
Oh WOW....just....WOW! (I checked both posts, aside from some rewording here and there, its clear to see one is a rip off of the other)
|
|
|
|
|
ebliever
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1035
|
|
May 02, 2016, 08:13:32 PM |
|
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. I'm not familiar with Andreas, but I give him kudos for recognizing the inherently dishonest nature of this request. Satoshi can prove himself to every one of us directly. Andreas is right, this was an attempt to use the Appeal to Authority argument. If there was no other way to identify Satoshi this might make sense. For example, I accept that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain based on an appeal to authority, because I can't realistically go out and survey every mountain on the planet myself. We all rely on authorities heavily for our academic and everyday knowledge. But the authorities are only placeholders for better lines of evidence, and with Satoshi we all have access to those better arguments. So the failure of Wright to rely on the Appeal to Authority approach to his 'proof' is extremely telling - especially given how his blog post turns out to be a sham "proof."
|
Luke 12:15-21
Ephesians 2:8-9
|
|
|
sbogovac
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1192
I don't believe in denial.
|
|
May 02, 2016, 08:13:44 PM |
|
Oh WOW....just....WOW! (I checked both posts, aside from some rewording here and there, its clear to see one is a rip off of the other) Would be interesting to put a certain PhD paper to the same test...
|
0x7442A5c37E513D335F53843cD20c00F77eAC7867
|
|
|
popovicbit
|
|
May 02, 2016, 08:15:30 PM |
|
No way! This is the weirdest story ever. This is awesome. It's like a I'm living a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|