Craig Wright to move coins from an early (associated with the genesis?!) block?

[kik1977]

How many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

[CIYAM]

How many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

Again - those funds (sent to that address) *other than the coinbase* actually *can be moved*.

And owning the private key to the genesis block would be far more convincing than moving funds from say block 700.

Also - he doesn't need to move funds but simply provide a signature (the very thing he failed to do with his last stunt which simply was a copy and paste of Satoshi's signature taken from the public blockchain).

[enhu]

After watching how toxic this community has become... I wouldn't want to prove I was satoshi either.

If you actually listen to the man he says he had no choice in the matter, it was basically decided for him because of hackers revealing his information, issues with the Australian tax office, etc.

People want to think that satoshi was some perfect human being in every way. Not true, we're all imperfect humans. I think Craig fits the bill in some ways, but he could still be proven a fraud. The ball is firmly in his court. The problem is even if he does provide amazing proof most people here still won't believe it. Like I said, toxic community.

Indeed. moving even just a coin would sure make us amazed but that might not gain him the respect that he may hope to have from the users. users may prefer Satoshi to be dead and if Craig proved he is satoshi, he better be ready lol or people may start to believe this story lol https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458817.msg14741710

[kik1977]

I have one question  - I thought that bitcoin in genesis block are frozen permanently and cannot be moved from it, ever?
Can someone explain to me technicalities behind it, because I maybe mixed something up here.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10009/why-can-t-the-genesis-block-coinbase-be-spent

When a node starts up it initializes its copy of the block database alongside the genesis block and then begins the synchronization process. For some reason, Satoshi decided not to add the coinbase transaction from the genesis block to the global transaction database. Thus all the nodes in the network would reject the block.

I'm not sure if this was done on purpose or if it was simply an oversight. In any event, it is forever bound to 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa.

[kik1977]

How many "experts" here saying that they would believe only if coins are moved from the genesis block. You should know, since the level of expertise you have, that those coins, by default, cannot be moved. Try another one..

Again - those funds (sent to that address) *other than the coinbase* actually *can be moved*.

And owning the private key to the genesis block would be far more convincing than moving funds from say block 700.

Also - he doesn't need to move funds but simply provide a signature (the very thing he failed to do with his last stunt which simply was a copy and paste of Satoshi's signature taken from the public blockchain).

I agree he simply needs the signature, without the need to move coins (although that would be easier to understand to many - i.e. journalists). On the other hand, I know the first 50 bitcoins mined in block #0 cannot be moved, as any transaction referencing them as inputs would be rejected. Am I wrong?

[spartak_t]

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

[CIYAM]

I agree he simply needs the signature, without the need to move coins (although that would be easier to understand to many - i.e. journalists). On the other hand, I know the first 50 bitcoins mined in block #0 cannot be moved, as any transaction referencing them as inputs would be rejected. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong about the 50 BTC - but other coins have been sent to the same address - those could be moved (as those txs are indexed).

[Amph]

I thought the first 50BTC are unspendable? just move coins from the address 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa instead. coins from an early block wouldn't prove much because there's no guarantee that the address belongs to satoshi.

the title is misleading, he said from the early blocks, not genesis block, in fact they are unspendable exactly

if indeed he can do that he is probably satoshi

[CIYAM]

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

Then why lie and copy and paste Satoshi's signature pretending that he created it from the hash of a Sartre document?

For someone trying to prove they are Satoshi it would have been very simple just to provide a signed message rather than all the nonsense and plain lies that this guy has been publishing.

[fenican]

If he moves some coins from an early block and he's convinced Gavin he's Satoshi I think that is convincing enough proof.

The original Bitcoin code wasn't particularly clean C++, had lots of flaws, and borrowed huge amounts of existing technology so what we may find is that a fairly average technician, but certainly a visionary, was the father of Bitcoin. That would not be that surprising - look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc... they weren't really genius coders and were very flawed human beings but both built billion dollar empires.

[spartak_t]

the title is misleading, he said from the early blocks, not genesis block, in fact they are unspendable exactly

I just changed the title...

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

Then why lie and copy and paste Satoshi's signature pretending that he created it from the hash of a Sartre document?

For someone trying to prove they are Satoshi it would have been very simple just to provide a signed message rather than all the nonsense and plain lies that this guy has been publishing.

I really don't know... tbh, this is my only hope that he's lying, because otherwise, I will repeat, we will be in trouble.

[kik1977]

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

Ok, you mean he can move coins that were sent TO the address that received the first 50 bitcoins (   1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa - which would mean 16.1804909) but NOT the 50 bitcoin, do I get it right?

[kik1977]

I agree he simply needs the signature, without the need to move coins (although that would be easier to understand to many - i.e. journalists). On the other hand, I know the first 50 bitcoins mined in block #0 cannot be moved, as any transaction referencing them as inputs would be rejected. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong about the 50 BTC - but other coins have been sent to the same address - those could be moved (as those txs are indexed).

Ok CIYAM, got it now, I misunderstood your post. Thanks for the clarification 

[Kprawn]

Well, even if he can move some of the early coins... it still does not prove that he is Satoshi. Let's say {conspiracy theory incoming} that some agency got hold of him very early on in the game and they seized

his documents... and waited for the opportune time to use it. Nobody back then, thought Bitcoin would become this big. Satoshi might have left these experimental information on pieces of paper or saved it in

digital form, and they only NOW were able to retrieve it. Craig like the Bond look and might be working with these agencies and Gavin to slowly ease into this position, until everyone believes this and then start

slowly selling off this wealth...  

[spartak_t]

Well, even if he can move some of the early coins... it still does not prove that he is Satoshi. Let's say {conspiracy theory incoming} that some agency got hold of him very early on in the game and they seized

his documents... and waited for the opportune time to use it. Nobody back then, thought Bitcoin would become this big. Satoshi might have left these experimental information on pieces of paper or saved it in

digital form, and they only NOW were able to retrieve it. Craig like the Bond look and might be working with these agencies and Gavin to slowly ease into this position, until everyone believes this and then start

slowly selling off this wealth...  

I now intend to ask Snowden on Twitter about this.

[--Encrypted--]

Well, even if he can move some of the early coins... it still does not prove that he is Satoshi. Let's say {conspiracy theory incoming} that some agency got hold of him very early on in the game and they seized

his documents... and waited for the opportune time to use it. Nobody back then, thought Bitcoin would become this big. Satoshi might have left these experimental information on pieces of paper or saved it in

digital form, and they only NOW were able to retrieve it. Craig like the Bond look and might be working with these agencies and Gavin to slowly ease into this position, until everyone believes this and then start

slowly selling off this wealth...  

moving some coins from the early blocks wouldn't prove anything unless the address is known to be owned by satoshi. there's always conspiracy theories, but without a single proof they'll just remain as theories.

[ibminer]

However, if he is indeed Satoshi he can move coins associated with the genesis block. The question is: What if Wright provide a solid proof that he is Nakamoto? I see it as a problem...

Then why lie and copy and paste Satoshi's signature pretending that he created it from the hash of a Sartre document?

For someone trying to prove they are Satoshi it would have been very simple just to provide a signed message rather than all the nonsense and plain lies that this guy has been publishing.

In addition, Satoshi himself is going to know how to prove who he is. He is going to know that nobody is going to accept the first set of proof Wright provided.

I haven't heard this Wright guy mention a genesis block at all, just an "early block"... and I can almost feel some type of long, drawn out BS explanation of why its impossible for him to do anything with the genesis block or maybe some made up story about a hack a long time ago that happened on his personal Windows PC... Satoshi would also never pose for a picture like this jackass does on his blog site. His grin reminds me of a British version of the dos equis guy.

"I don't always provide real proof, but when I do, its BS. Stay thirsty my friends."

[Dabs]

I want him to move coins from 100 of the first 300 blocks. That's only 5000 BTC from the first 2 or 3 days of mining which was worth pennies or less at that time.

Alternatively, sign messages using 100 bitcoin addresses that appear within the first 300 blocks.

Any block but block zero is no good unless he has a lot of those blocks.

"I, Craig Wright, am Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of bitcoin." - just do it like the way Charlie Lee did it for Litecoin.

Now do it with the genesis block address, or if not, do it with 100 addresses within the first few days.

Anything that is NOT the genesis block address is not conclusive proof, but 100 out of the first 300 is very good and very likely that he is indeed Satoshi, because who else mined in the first few days of bitcoin?

[LiteCoinGuy]

[ebliever]

This could be the most interesting angle to this whole story. By himself Wright just looks like a fumbling fraud. But the Kleiman angle gets interesting and raises many questions, for any journalists out there that want to do some meaningful investigation. (*Grabs more popcorn*)