That is a jumbled analysis which doesn't explain well the situation.
I already explained it more clearly:
Remember that Craig Wright had obtained funding for and was running a the largest Supercomputer in Australia. So what Craig has ostensibly done is he is used supercomputer resources to find the inverse of a hash function and then used one of Satoshi old transactions to pretend he has the private key:
The implication is that either Craig Wright has stumbled upon an infinitesimally rare occurrence of an SHA256 collision, or that he had used the signature from block 258 to reverse engineer a hash (the first shown in his blog demonstration) and hoped that nobody would notice. ycombinator user JoukeH noticed.
And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain. Without that explanation, then he must have the private key! You seem to not understand the technology.
Let me unpack that more for n00bs. The point is that every Bitcoin signature signs the hash (of a hash) of the transaction. And so if someone can create two transactions that have the same hash, then one can use the same signature for both, i.e. no need to have the private key to generate a new signature.
What Craig did was reuse an existing signature from the block chain which is attributed to Satoshi, and supplied it as the signature for a new transactions. Specifically the new transaction is some text written by Sartre but the key point is that normally it should impossible to find a new set of data which can generate the same hash, because of
the preimage resistance security property of the SHA256 cryptographic hash function.
Craig Wright’s chosen source material (
an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.
The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so
infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.
That Craig didn't create a new signature is indicative that he does not hold Satoshi's private keys, if we can find some other explanation for how he broke the preimage security of SHA256. That is why I offered the supercomputer information, because I remember that Craig had used his claim he was close to Satoshi in order to garnish government funding which enabled him to assemble the most powerful supercomputer in Australia.
It is very unlikely that Craig is Satoshi, and instead it appears he was on the scene very early when Bitcoin was launched:
What I'm expecting to happen next is that Wright is going to move some early coins (or produce a signature from some early coins) some time soon, but this is only going to fuel the speculation even more because it won't be a definitive proof from a GPG key or a genesis block.
I'm guessing the reason why Wright will be able to do this is because he found out about Bitcoin from Kleiman from the cryptography mailing lists (which we know Kleiman was a member of.) We already know that he mined coins early on so it won't be that much of a surprise when he moves coins. But as has already been pointed out by other people -- this also doesn't prove anything -- since Bitcoin was released -publicly- anyone could have mined those coins (or he could have simply purchased access to the private keys of any early block.)
If I had to speculate: I'd say that in all likelihood neither of them are Satoshi. Kleiman's work was on digital forensics which means he was focused on doing things like scrubbing memory dumps for meta-data to find files pointers and then using them to find hidden files on disk. It would have required fairly low level programming to write the tools needed to do this (so its plausible Kleiman had the skills to code something like Bitcoin but still highly unlikely given how expertly the original source code was – so I'd be surprised if the person(s?) who created Bitcoin didn't have a background in software.)
Consider that Forensics is also quite a specialized field and that a person participating in it wouldn't necessarily have needed to know anything about digital signatures to do their work. Hashcash-style proof-of-work in that regard is even more esoteric and I'd expect to see a lot more interest in general cryptography (and economics) if Kleiman was actually Satoshi. But if you look at what he replies to -- he's only really interested in forensics and talking about his own work. I think it's far more likely that the two of them were early adopters / miners who were intimately associated with Satoshi in some way (possibly they corresponded at some point via email like a lot of people at the time) but weren't actually Satoshi themselves.
My profile for Satoshi is a lot closer to the group of people currently involved in the Bitcoin-space, to be honest: people who find cryptography interesting (but aren't necessarily cryptographers) and enjoy programming (but aren't necessarily "software engineers" by trade.) This would make a lot more sense since all the pieces needed to produce Bitcoin were in place for years before it was invented: digital signatures, hash functions, and proof of work – so at the least I'd expect some kind of evidence of an interest in those areas.
Tl; dr, I think Wright was just in the right place at the right time and that Kleiman was unlikely to have had the skills, knowledge, or time to have invented something as massive as Bitcoin even being an “expert” in digital forensics. Both Wright and Kleiman strike me as men who were more interested in building up their respective careers as “experts” through academic channels and the press, rather than people who are genuinely passionate enough about economics and crypto to have invented Bitcoin in their spare time.
However, what Craig is doing now is very peculiar. He appears to have the confidence to manipulate the entire Bitcoin community, including Gavin Andresen as I had explained my prior posts. Thus it appears to me he may have the support of some very powerful players in the Bitcoin ecosystem, even perhaps the government or the national security agencies.
Re-read my post, you didn't seem to understand it. Craig has not said he is Satoshi. Find a quote where he said that. You won't. He has always said it was his colleague.
Listen to the first few minutes of the BBC interview
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191165"You're going to show me that Satoshi is you?"
Craig - "yes"
Remember Craig is a lawyer. Remember how Bill Clinton explained in court what the meaning of 'is' is.
Craig has consistently claimed he was backing "the persona behind Satoshi" and was part of a group involved with Satoshi, so the above statement is consistent with that, without him actually being the man who developed the code of Bitcoin with his own fingers. The interviewer did not ask Craig "are you going to prove you are the man who wrote the code of Bitcoin?" which obviously can't be proved nor disproved by any signature since Satoshi did not sign the code of Bitcoin.
Hey dufus - why don't you look at the BBC article itself:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863It says: "Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto."
Where did they get the information from - they got it from Craig Wright - still going to say he hasn't identified himself as being Satoshi?
You are quoting what a reporter has said, not what Craig has said. I said find a quote where Craig has claimed his is the man who wrote the code for Bitcoin. You will never find that.
Butthurt idiot. Bye.
I see
you locked your thread again. You are an emotional basketcase.
I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.
It isn't relevant and it is just spamming (you could start your own topic of course).
And if he was saying that he just knew Satoshi and is not Satoshi then why does Gavin come out this "meeting" saying that he is Satoshi (surely he would have told Gavin it was his friend and not him).
You are just butthurt.
It is very relevant.
Craig has played Gavin. He knows Gavin needs support for his preferences for the block scaling debate.
Butthurt by what exactly?
(perhaps due to seeing your same post spammed in every topic?)
I don't have time for your melodrama. Bye.
It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.
You do not seem to understand the math.
Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.
Also by getting core Bitcoin devs and their tribe to claim that the proof Craig provided is not a proof, he has revealed them as being disingenuous. Very clever political game theory he has concocted.
Craig has astutely accomplished his goal, as
only 42% of Bitcoiners conclude he can't be Satoshi. And when and if Craig signs coins from an early block of Bitcoin, the level of confusion will increase. Craig is playing a political game theory.
I think bringing in a dead person into this is just a scapegoat by Craig Wright to confuse spectators. If this is true, why would he pretend being Satoshi by signing a fake message? Until Craig comes up with this
extraordinary proof he says, I refuse to believe anything that came from him.
Refusing to believe is not the same as proving he is not. Craig is winning the political game theory. He is a clever lawyer mofo.
One theory that is being floated on Reddit runs like this:
Kleiman is Satoshi, and had the keys to the ~1 million bitcoins. He dies, and his USB stick/computer/whatever went to a relative, who doesn't realize what he is holding. Wright knew Kleiman and knew he was Satoshi. So he invents this crazy story about being Satoshi, but that he can't spend the coins because they are all in a trust that was held by Kleiman.
So now Wright comes public claiming to be Satoshi - and sets himself up to launch a lawsuit against Kleiman's relative to get "his" bitcoins back. If Wright pulls this off, he gains the fabled treasure of 1 million bitcoins off Kleiman's estate.
Thoughts pro and con?
I just came up with another theory though...we might be missing the forest for the trees. Much of what CW has said has proven sketchy, or even downright lies (claiming multiple fake phd's for instance). We do know one thing that's incontrovertible: CW was very interested in high performance computing / supercomputing. Think about that for a minute.
Now what if Kleiman, being the typical computer geek, enjoyed the intellectual challenge of creating the code but had little interest in testing...and asked his friend CW to help test Bitcoin by mining. It's very possible that CW could own Block 1, and even if not, it's still possible that a significant part of Satoshi's stash...actually doesn't belong to Satoshi. What if most/all the coins we thought were Satoshi's were actually CW's?
It's also possible that Kleiman wrote the first version of the Bitcoin code, and that CW took over testing, bug fixing, and future development. Kleiman could have written the code, while CW could have been the "Satoshi" that communicated extensively with Gavin and others...
I think that CSW stumbled upon Bitcoin circa 2013 (late 2012 at the earliest) and started concocting a narrative to fit his long con. Stumbling upon the death of David Kleiman, a person who CSW co-wrote with, Craig saw that the pieces of Dave's life fit nicely in what's known about Satoshi. It was just a matter of creating docs to make it look like he and Dave were partners of sorts which I've demonstrated he's done.
