Bitcoin Forum
April 03, 2020, 11:33:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi Nakamoto aka Craig Wright Can't Spell Signature. Craig's Career is #REKT  (Read 1778 times)
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 06:17:04 PM
 #1

I find it hard to believe that someone as careful and grammatically accurate as Satoshi Nakamoto can't spell 'signature' especially when trying to prove who he is in real life  Undecided

Using 'Signiture' is sloppy at best if you are an average Joe, but when your creation is based around cryptographic proofs and signatures, the correct spelling of something so fundamental becomes second nature.



http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/

Tell me, what am I missing?
Best ratesfor crypto
EXCHANGE
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
instacalm
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 06:20:13 PM
Last edit: May 02, 2016, 07:04:48 PM by instacash
 #2

...but when you're creation is based...

Hehe Cheesy Grin Tongue
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 06:21:29 PM
 #3

...but when you're creation is based...

Hehe Cheesy Grin Tongue

nice catch... Grin

But, I'm not claiming to be Satoshi....I'm the sloppy average Joe.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1653



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 06:23:22 PM
 #4

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
--Encrypted--
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1003

hee-ho.


View Profile
May 02, 2016, 06:23:50 PM
 #5

well, not saying that I believe wright's claims (or gavin) but everyone makes mistakes. a little spelling mistake won't be a problem if he gave the community a solid proof.

...though on keyboard the key "i" is quite far from "a".

"You cannot now believe that you will ever feel better. But this is not true. You are sure to be happy again. Knowing this, truly believing it will make you less miserable now."
- Abraham Lincoln #GettingOverIt
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 06:26:28 PM
Last edit: May 02, 2016, 11:10:56 PM by coins101
 #6

well, not saying that I believe wright's claims (or gavin) but everyone makes mistakes. a little spelling mistake won't be a problem if he gave the community a solid proof.

Not in this case....it's the little details that trip up the big liars.

But, let's see. He might be Satoshi. More proofs required.
5w00p
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 502



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 07:55:13 PM
 #7

Does this charlatan ever miss an opportunity to try and bolster his authenticity as a "computer nerd" by making unneccesary, juvenile, and unfunny declarations about esoteric computer software choices?

 Paraphrased Dipshit: "Insert it into vim, but not that I'm trying to start a holy war over editors, har dee harr harr so funny."

Who does that, except someone trying too hard to seem credible as "one of us nerdy geeky types." GTFO you fackin shitty actor.
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 02, 2016, 11:40:54 PM
 #8

Having listened to the interview with Craig Wright back in Oct '15, he does seem to be very convincing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZWVu6XsO4

So, all he needs to do is do better signing - pgp and genesis block.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
May 02, 2016, 11:47:41 PM
 #9

The entire fiasco was an elaborate hoax/scam from the start. Yes they really plan on the gulibbleness of the bitcoin audience, because not everyone is giving attention to small details like that.

However there wasnt any secret private key being used in the signing, therefore there is no proof yet whatsoever, and probably never will be about him being satoshi.

CryptoYeti
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 2


View Profile WWW
May 03, 2016, 04:39:55 AM
Merited by Foxpup (2)
 #10

well, not saying that I believe wright's claims (or gavin) but everyone makes mistakes. a little spelling mistake won't be a problem if he gave the community a solid proof.

...though on keyboard the key "i" is quite far from "a".

It is more than a simple spelling mistake. Since he also showed this same mistake in one of the scripts that is visible on his blog post, he could have easily used this "mistake" to trick someone by loading data from another file that the misspelled "signiture" variable was pointing to while the observer assumed that the data was from the variable "signature", which also appears in the same script correctly spelled. They would be two different variable to the computer, but would be something a casual glance through the code to an observer exciting he is meeting the real Satoshi might miss.
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 03, 2016, 11:55:56 AM
 #11

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

Looks like he signed a message that Gavin chose:



https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/

The main question here is whether the laptop they purchased had a backdoor running the 'signiture' script, vs the 'signature' script.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1653



View Profile
May 03, 2016, 12:19:30 PM
 #12

people in this topic are concentrating on the I and A spelling.. but thats just a spelling mistake of a variable/namespace/echo text that could be declared, and thus work.. because the word 'signature' or 'signiture' is not an important thing



but.. it appears there is other code grammatical errors..
here is a hint

& vs ; vs &&

ill leave some linux experts to explain the differences

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 03, 2016, 03:38:40 PM
 #13

people in this topic are concentrating on the I and A spelling.. but thats just a spelling mistake of a variable/namespace/echo text that could be declared, and thus work.. because the word 'signature' or 'signiture' is not an important thing



but.. it appears there is other code grammatical errors..
here is a hint

& vs ; vs &&

ill leave some linux experts to explain the differences

Oh, do tell our curious viewers and leave the cliff hangers for game of thrones  Grin
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 3408



View Profile
May 03, 2016, 06:16:21 PM
Merited by Foxpup (3)
 #14

& vs &&  means that the commands are running in parallel in his script, instead of sequentially.

This creates a race condition where the input is decoded to a file after the next step has already read it.

The misspelling of signature in the script also makes his script read from the wrong file (whatever file is referenced by the misspelled environment variable).

Most remarkable is that these scripts were not Wright's creation: https://gist.github.com/ezimuel/3cb601853db6ebc4ee49  They were plagiarized from the web but modified to insert these bugs.

The net effect of these modified scripts is that the modifications would allow you to use them to fake a signature.
intec
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 205
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2016, 06:25:13 PM
 #15

& vs &&  means that the commands are running in parallel in his script, instead of sequentially.

This creates a race condition where the input is decoded to a file after the next step has already read it.

The misspelling of signature in the script also makes his script read from the wrong file (whatever file is referenced by the misspelled environment variable).

Most remarkable is that these scripts were not Wright's creation: https://gist.github.com/ezimuel/3cb601853db6ebc4ee49  They were plagiarized from the web but modified to insert these bugs.

The net effect of these modified scripts is that the modifications would allow you to use them to fake a signature.

Can Bitcoin be copyrighted?
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 03, 2016, 06:33:22 PM
 #16

& vs &&  means that the commands are running in parallel in his script, instead of sequentially.

This creates a race condition where the input is decoded to a file after the next step has already read it.

The misspelling of signature in the script also makes his script read from the wrong file (whatever file is referenced by the misspelled environment variable).

Most remarkable is that these scripts were not Wright's creation: https://gist.github.com/ezimuel/3cb601853db6ebc4ee49  They were plagiarized from the web but modified to insert these bugs.

The net effect of these modified scripts is that the modifications would allow you to use them to fake a signature.

Can Bitcoin be copyrighted?

Dude, it's like open source.

But possibly not the data in the block chain. There is an open question about who has rights to the actual data, even if it's freely available to access.
intec
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 205
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
 #17

& vs &&  means that the commands are running in parallel in his script, instead of sequentially.

This creates a race condition where the input is decoded to a file after the next step has already read it.

The misspelling of signature in the script also makes his script read from the wrong file (whatever file is referenced by the misspelled environment variable).

Most remarkable is that these scripts were not Wright's creation: https://gist.github.com/ezimuel/3cb601853db6ebc4ee49  They were plagiarized from the web but modified to insert these bugs.

The net effect of these modified scripts is that the modifications would allow you to use them to fake a signature.

Can Bitcoin be copyrighted?

Dude, it's like open source.

You may read my question again...
coins101
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 03, 2016, 06:36:27 PM
 #18

Bitcoin the individual transactions, the name or the data?
intec
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 205
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2016, 06:41:22 PM
 #19

Bitcoin the individual transactions, the name or the data?

I don't know each one, if you could clarify i would appreciate.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1017


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
May 03, 2016, 06:52:32 PM
 #20

& vs &&  means that the commands are running in parallel in his script, instead of sequentially.

This creates a race condition where the input is decoded to a file after the next step has already read it.

The misspelling of signature in the script also makes his script read from the wrong file (whatever file is referenced by the misspelled environment variable).

Most remarkable is that these scripts were not Wright's creation: https://gist.github.com/ezimuel/3cb601853db6ebc4ee49  They were plagiarized from the web but modified to insert these bugs.

The net effect of these modified scripts is that the modifications would allow you to use them to fake a signature.

but all he's doing there is verifying a sig which appears on the blockchain from a TX back in 2009 right?

anyone can verify this sig without having to do any tricky. the sig is good.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!