BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!

[aurigae]

For the records, Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Cant wallets/keys change hands? I miss a double proof, for example ISP records.

While writing i read laudas comment, interesting too. Pushing post anyways ...

[1713520931]

1713520931

[1713520931]

1713520931

[1713520931]

1713520931

[iv4n]

They are just making the big news for stupid masses. Smart people will not believe in this things and their reports. But I`m afraid that this will affect on people that doesn't know nothing about bitcoin.

I see one positive thing in all this and its a commercial for btc. Free one. People who wish to inform they will find a way to read smart and truthful things. And that is very important, now people will hear about btc. Like Merlin Monro said: " Its not important what they say, if they spell her name correctly ".
Here we have the same case. Just let them wrote BITCOIN everywhere, on their front pages and news reports. They are doing a favor to us.

[ebliever]

For the records, Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Cant wallets/keys change hands? I miss a double proof, for example ISP records.

While writing i read laudas comment, interesting too. Pushing post anyways ...

That takes things too far, there would be no way to verify anyone. Essentially I think the owner of the genesis block unless publically stating he has bought the private key should be regarded as satoshi.

This would be the biggest hurdle. But to overcome any residual doubts it would be reasonable to also ask a person who provided a Genesis block signature to provide other information that Satoshi would know. Gavin himself (!!!) gave a good rundown on what would constitute proof in his mind a month or two ago, and it included things like providing details from his private emails to Satoshi in 2009-2011. So it would be reasonable to ask for data like that, to be confirmed by the appropriate people, as supplemental proof. But the Genesis block signing would still be key.

[Gyrsur]

For the records, Does it proof that im the inventor of the dollar if i got the first dollar note?

Well if the Dollar was a cryptocurrency where it was very well known that the first dollar made was made by the inventor and hasn't moved hands as seen on a public ledger, then yes. It does.

Cant wallets/keys change hands? I miss a double proof, for example ISP records.

While writing i read laudas comment, interesting too. Pushing post anyways ...

That takes things too far, there would be no way to verify anyone. Essentially I think the owner of the genesis block unless publically stating he has bought the private key should be regarded as satoshi.

This would be the biggest hurdle. But to overcome any residual doubts it would be reasonable to also ask a person who provided a Genesis block signature to provide other information that Satoshi would know. Gavin himself (!!!) gave a good rundown on what would constitute proof in his mind a month or two ago, and it included things like providing details from his private emails to Satoshi in 2009-2011. So it would be reasonable to ask for data like that, to be confirmed by the appropriate people, as supplemental proof. But the Genesis block signing would still be key.

they issue here is: Gavin Andresen's reliability is gone completely forever!

[ibminer]

There is more coming in this story... I can just feel it!   

Out of curiosity, does anyone here know the relationship between Satoshi & theymos towards the end of Satoshi's time here?  From what I've seen, it seemed like a good relationship?... I get the feeling Satoshi wasn't happy with Gavin with relation to the government talks but I haven't seen any ill feelings towards theymos.

[Lauda]

they issue here is: Gavin Andresen's creditability is gone completely forever!

That's not the issue, that's the benefit of this. It is time for GA to depart.

But the Genesis block signing would still be key.

I do agree, it is 'almost impossible' to determine who mined the following blocks. It could be anybody.

But I`m afraid that this will affect on people that doesn't know nothing about bitcoin.

It always has an effect on sheep.

I am talking about block 0, the genesis block, last I checked there were 50 coins in it and they went to this address. 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

The 'genesis block' can't change hands as you've mentioned, therefore your analogy does not make sense (ergo, wrong). Those coins can not be spent.

[ibminer]

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

This is such BS... they've got more evidence they've been holding onto to try and discredit people but I'm pretty sure your never going to get a signed genesis block.

[Cuidler]

they issue here is: Gavin Andresen's creditability is gone completely forever!

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far. He did not even provided all the info why he thinks Crigh Wright might be Satoshi. And without signing genesis block address, nobody can prove it without any doubt anyway - which seems this cause, otherwise Crigh Wright would have no issue convincing everyone and anytime just by signing any new message with this address.

[CIYAM]

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

This is such BS...

Yup - considering that his first example of "extraordinary proof" was to simply copy and paste a signature from Satoshi (which anyone could do as that signature is in the blockchain) and then lie that he created that signature himself using the private key (as well as lying that the hash being signed was that of a Sartre document rather than simply the hash of the tx content of Satoshi's tx).

[xhomerx10]

All I can say is that it was a poor attempt to convince people...

Seriously who did he think he was fooling?

 This guy (Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Scientist and lead developer)
 

This guy (Jon Matonis - Bitcoin Foundation founding director)


This guy (Rory Cellan-Jones - Tech correspondent)


and This guy (me)



possibly others.

[CIYAM]

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far.

The fact that Gavin has said he believes this guy to be Satoshi when his false signature claim was debunked within hours shows that Gavin has lost all credibility (where is Gavin's response to the debunking?).

Someone who (still?) likes to call himself the Chief Bitcoin Scientist (although he should not be using such a title as he doesn't even have commit access to the repo now) should lose all credibility for simply being so easily fooled.

[xhomerx10]

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far.

The fact that Gavin has said he believes this guy to be Satoshi when his false signature claim was debunked within hours shows that Gavin has lost all credibility (where is Gavin's response to the debunking?).

Someone who (still?) likes to call himself the Chief Bitcoin Scientist (although he should not be using such a title as he doesn't even have commit access to the repo now) should lose all credibility for simply being so easily fooled.

 I'm hoping Gavin wasn't really there because he was out taking in the London scenery while the meeting took place and he was simply using second-hand info garnered from Jon.

[CIYAM]

The 'genesis block' can't change hands as you've mentioned, therefore your analogy does not make sense (ergo, wrong). Those coins can not be spent.

The 16 extra BTC there can though? I am sure the transaction wouldn't need to be over that amount.

Yes - the extra funds can be transacted (only the 50 BTC "coinbase" amount is not indexed and so can't be spent).

[ibminer]

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

This is such BS...

Yup - considering that his first example of "extraordinary proof" was to simply copy and paste a signature from Satoshi (which anyone could do as that signature is in the blockchain) and then lie that he created that signature himself using the private key (as well as lying that the hash being signed was that of a Sartre document rather than simply the hash of the tx content of Satoshi's tx).

Ontop of all that, why the hell do we have to sit here for the next several days while they trickle out this "proof"

For some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation. This is the nature of belief and swimming against this current would be futile.

You should be sceptical. You should question. I would.

I will present what I believe to be “extraordinary proof” and ask only that it be independently validated.

if it were extraordinary proof, it wouldn't be in quotes     AND it would be released already!

[AlexGR]

BUMP:

he should do this:

...now let's wait a few days while he releases ....documents (LOL) and "proofs" - within ""

[tmfp]

http://www.drcraigwright.net/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-proof/

Wow, will this guy's plagiarism never stop?
He's even stealing my signature now!
 

[Cuidler]

There are no facts I know of why Gavin Andresen's creditability should take any hit so far.

The fact that Gavin has said he believes this guy to be Satoshi when his false signature claim was debunked within hours shows that Gavin has lost all credibility (where is Gavin's response to the debunking?).

Someone who (still?) likes to call himself the Chief Bitcoin Scientist (although he should not be using such a title as he doesn't even have commit access to the repo now) should lose all credibility for simply being so easily fooled.

Everybody can be fooled by con artist especially in privacy and without given enought time to think about facts thoroughly, we are all humans no matter how smart in some area you are.

I dont remember Gavin to be Cryptographic specialist at all btw, but he obviously has great experience and proven skills to mantain Bitcoin core.

Credibility is not lost with one silly mistake if this was the case, we all would have zero credibility already and this is the reason any Bitcoin code is tested and reviewed by more people - nothing wrong to submit code for testing with bugs as long as these are not maliciously intended to by exploited later if not found - hopefully you see the difference why his credibility as Bitcoin developer is still the same

[CIYAM]

Everybody can be fooled by con artist especially in privacy and without given enought time to think about facts thoroughly, we are all humans no matter how smart in some area you are.

He has had enough time to respond to things and so far has elected not to (beyond a brief admission that "it is possible" he could have been tricked).

As for maintaining Bitcoin code he hasn't done that for years.

His agenda has been to try and wrest control back of the project (after he willingly had given up that anyway) for the last couple of years so it isn't surprising that a con-man who seems to be very pro huge blocks would be someone whose audacious claims he doesn't thoroughly verify himself.

Don't you think that it is strange that none of the core devs fell for this charade?

(my guess is that you're a Gavin supporter)

[Cuidler]

Don't you think that it is strange that none of the core devs fell for this charade?

(my guess is that you're a Gavin supporter)

Yes, Gavin likes to involve publictly much more than others, plus I guess he was too much curious to check if Craig Wreight is really Satoshi. Maybe his ego played a role as well, as he was one of the few who knew Satoshi from private correspondence.

I am Gavin supporter because his opinions and mine are similar in so high % of the time, so unless it become proven by facts Gavin acted maliciously (I can not imagine Gavin would do it knowing the signature given proves someone just attempting to impersonate Satoshi with publictly know info - it would be just suicide thinking no one would catch this fact) then he get no cut from his credibility from myselves.

[CIYAM]

You're entitled to your high opinion of Gavin as I am entitled to my much lower opinion of him.

It is his acts of attempted coups with constant changing of what he supports (initially blocks to grow exponentially and then when that isn't supported then to grow a little less and then when that isn't supported...) that really lost him credibility in my eyes (and his willingness to work with anyone who doesn't even understand Bitcoin so long as they will support him).

His continued involvement with the very much discredited Bitcoin Foundation was another nail in the coffin but this latest ridiculous thing (associating himself with a now proven liar - and we are talking a rather big lie in pretending to sign something with Satoshi's private key which clearly he did not do) simply is too much for him to really ever regain any credibility in my eyes.