Will the real Satoshi please stand up?

[intec]

As a member of the Bitcoin community I don't want Bitcoin to be further developed by Gavin Andresen, it's obvious to me there is something hidden with the recent news, especially with the upcoming HALVING

[1715029057]

1715029057

[1715029057]

1715029057

[NyeFe]

Emmm.... What are you talking about... What coin exactly are you talking about?

[intec]

Wait...you know where bitcoin development funds come from?

[NyeFe]

Wait...you know where bitcoin development funds come from?

Nope I really don't. Could you tell me?

[intec]

Recent fund news:

https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/announcing-a-900-000-bitcoin-developer-fund-6e8b7e8b0861


"Does MIT own the copyright to Bitcoin code?
For existing projects contributed to by MIT employees, patches are made respecting the project’s license. Bitcoin uses the MIT License. Therefore, the developers’ work is under the MIT License held by the developers (this does not mean that MIT has any control over it, but rather that it is under a non-restrictive license). New projects started by MIT employees may also be released under permissive use licenses — such as GPLv2, MIT or BSD — at the discretion of the developer. MIT does not typically allow for projects to be started with certain open-source licenses — such as Apache or GPLv3 — but members of our group have been pushing to eliminate these restrictions."

I would stay on ALERT for the upcoming commits.

[NyeFe]

So what would be the alerting difference between these other licenses and an MIT issued one?

[achow101]

"Does MIT own the copyright to Bitcoin code?
For existing projects contributed to by MIT employees, patches are made respecting the project’s license. Bitcoin uses the MIT License. Therefore, the developers’ work is under the MIT License held by the developers (this does not mean that MIT has any control over it, but rather that it is under a non-restrictive license). New projects started by MIT employees may also be released under permissive use licenses — such as GPLv2, MIT or BSD — at the discretion of the developer. MIT does not typically allow for projects to be started with certain open-source licenses — such as Apache or GPLv3 — but members of our group have been pushing to eliminate these restrictions."

I would stay on ALERT for the upcoming commits.

The MIT license is just a license which allows anyone to copy whatever work without the need to reference the original work or credit the original authors. It is restrictionless, and it does not mean that MIT has any control over the code. Not only does Gavin work at MIT DCI, but so do Wladimir, Jonas Schnelli, and a few other guys working on Bitcoin Core RIGHT NOW (I could only think of those two off of the top of my head).

Gavin's commit access has also been revoked due to concerns that he may have been hacked.

So what would be the alerting difference between these other licenses and an MIT issued one?

It isn't an MIT issued license. It is simply called the MIT license because the wording for it came from some guys that worked at MIT.

[intec]

So what would be the alerting difference between these other licenses and an MIT issued one?

In a general way, they might want to copyright bitcoin. Which makes me think this could be at a HIGHER level that people are taking it.

[NyeFe]

"Does MIT own the copyright to Bitcoin code?
For existing projects contributed to by MIT employees, patches are made respecting the project’s license. Bitcoin uses the MIT License. Therefore, the developers’ work is under the MIT License held by the developers (this does not mean that MIT has any control over it, but rather that it is under a non-restrictive license). New projects started by MIT employees may also be released under permissive use licenses — such as GPLv2, MIT or BSD — at the discretion of the developer. MIT does not typically allow for projects to be started with certain open-source licenses — such as Apache or GPLv3 — but members of our group have been pushing to eliminate these restrictions."

I would stay on ALERT for the upcoming commits.

The MIT license is just a license which allows anyone to copy whatever work without the need to reference the original work or credit the original authors. It is restrictionless, and it does not mean that MIT has any control over the code. Not only does Gavin work at MIT DCI, but so do Wladimir, Jonas Schnelli, and a few other guys working on Bitcoin Core RIGHT NOW (I could only think of those two off of the top of my head).

Gavin's commit access has also been revoked due to concerns that he may have been hacked.

Ahh dang. It would have been better if he had done the research and came to the conclusion himself. I/We didn't need the help. Thanks for it anyways.

[gentlemand]

Gavin's commit access has also been revoked due to concerns that he may have been hacked.

I believe it's been handed back now.

[NyeFe]

So what would be the alerting difference between these other licenses and an MIT issued one?

In a general way, they might want to copyright bitcoin. Which makes me think this could be at a HIGHER level that people are taking it.

Bitcoin has always been open-source, MIT is also for open-source isn't that good for everyone?

[intec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJO5HU_7_1w

A bit of humor.

[achow101]

Gavin's commit access has also been revoked due to concerns that he may have been hacked.

I believe it's been handed back now.

Source? He is still listed as a member of the organization in github, but he just doesn't have commit access.

Edit: see https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2016-05-02/?msg=65319018&page=3

[enhu]

Whatever they are hiding still the price of bitcoin is uncertain this coming halving. I would like to think this is just to test its effect in an attempt to see which way the market goes if Satoshi is known to everyone. The last time he was in the news it somehow move the price up, didn't it?

[intec]

Whatever they are hiding still the price of bitcoin is uncertain this coming halving. I would like to think this is just to test its effect in an attempt to see which way the market goes if Satoshi is known to everyone. The last time he was in the news it somehow move the price up, didn't it?

This time seems different to me.

Latest news:
"
achow101
Is gavin's commit access still revoked?
12:40 am gmaxwell
Yes. I think it's unlikely to be restored. It hasn't been used in a year, and the situation with CSW is still very screwy.

"

[Doms]

Whatever they are hiding still the price of bitcoin is uncertain this coming halving. I would like to think this is just to test its effect in an attempt to see which way the market goes if Satoshi is known to everyone. The last time he was in the news it somehow move the price up, didn't it?

I'm fairly new to BTC so my question is, how many times have someone come out claiming to be Satoshi? What were the effects (if there were) of those news to the price action of BTC? Was there a similar news that came out prior to the last halving?

[botany]

Whatever they are hiding still the price of bitcoin is uncertain this coming halving. I would like to think this is just to test its effect in an attempt to see which way the market goes if Satoshi is known to everyone. The last time he was in the news it somehow move the price up, didn't it?

I'm fairly new to BTC so my question is, how many times have someone come out claiming to be Satoshi? What were the effects (if there were) of those news to the price action of BTC? Was there a similar news that came out prior to the last halving?

I think Craig is the only person who has come out claiming to be Satoshi. All the other outings were by overzealous media houses.

[intec]

Seems like Craig Wright liked the joke



EDIT - "Ok, nevermind...we gonna have a problem here " 

[TPTB_need_war]

Craig "Satoshi" Wright said he was going to move them

hahah this guy is so funny lol. He doesn't need to move any coin to prove it, just sign the fcking message if he has the prive keys

Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.

To understand what is really going on, you need to read carefully what Craig Wright has always said and continues to reiterate:

In his initial blog post, Wright noted that “Satoshi is dead... but this is only the beginning.” He also said that he would follow up with a more detailed mathematical explanation for the revelation. Now, the world will likely have to wait for “the coming days”—however long that may be—for more clues.

If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.

Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi,

Satoshi is dead.

But this is only the beginning.

You need to remember that Craig Wright has never claimed he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, he has claimed that his former colleague (who died) was Satoshi. He claims he was backing his colleague's the development of Bitcoin.

This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin

David Kleiman, Craig Wright's friend more likely Satoshi Nakamoto

OK so this might get a little meandering but I keep finding tidbits of David Kleiman's life that makes him a far more likely candidate for Satoshi than Wright. So here are some in no specific order.

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.

Realize that he has probably promised to endorse Andresen's block chain scaling preferences and thus probably why Gavin wants him to be Satoshi:

Andresen’s only attempt at an explanation for Wright’s bizarre behavior, he says, is an ambivalence about definitively revealing himself after so many years in hiding. “I think the most likely explanation is that … he really doesn’t want to take on the mantle of being the inventor of Bitcoin,” says Andresen, who notes that his own credibility is at stake, too. “Maybe he wants things to be really weird and unclear, which would be bad for me.”

That uncertainty, Andresen says, seemed to be evident in Wright’s manner at the time of their demonstration. Andresen describes Wright as seeming “sad” and “overwhelmed” by the decision to come forward. “His voice was breaking.

Remember that after his death, David Kleiman's family recovered his USB flash drive and gave it to Craig Wright. Thus likely Craig Wright may have an unpublished transaction but not the actual private key. So he may be about to fool the world into thinking he is Satoshi, or making some proof that he was the man behind the man who was the real Satoshi.

[TPTB_need_war]

No - what Craig did was grab an existing signature used by Satoshi and pretend he had created it to sign a document by Sartre (which is fraud and even Gavin is not sure what on earth to make of that).

And he *is* claiming to be Satoshi (which is why he asked Gavin to come and *verify* his claim).

Also - why are you posting the exact same thing in multiple topics?

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.

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. 

I am replying to every topic where my post is relevant. I am not the one who created so many duplicate topics.

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.