Satoshi Nakamoto aka Craig Wright Can't Spell Signature. Craig's Career is #REKT

[coins101]

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  

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?

[1714843029]

1714843029

[1714843029]

1714843029

[1714843029]

1714843029

[instacalm]

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

Hehe

[coins101]

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

Hehe

nice catch...

But, I'm not claiming to be Satoshi....I'm the sloppy average Joe.

[franky1]

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

[--Encrypted--]

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".

[coins101]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[coins101]

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 

[gmaxwell]

& 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]

& 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]

& 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]

& 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]

Bitcoin the individual transactions, the name or the data?

[intec]

Bitcoin the individual transactions, the name or the data?

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

[adamstgBit]

& 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.