Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[death_wish]

@JJG  the command in Linux   wc  is short for "word count". It's a small free utility included with every version of Linux for decades.

Nit:  It is Unix, POSIX, not only Linux.  wc(1) far antedates Linux.  (And Plan 9 also has a wc(1) utility.)

IEEE standard wc:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/wc.html

* death_wish sees GNU/Linux as the Microsoft of the Unix/POSIX world:  Embrace and extend, take over everything.

[1715402349]

1715402349

[1715402349]

1715402349

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[death_wish]

I know that some big BTC HODLers are very good about this; they tend not to be the ones who sneer at little altcoins for having a “dev tax”, for they understand that developers need to be paid somehow.

Fuck shitcoins and your seemingly holier than thou attempts to inject their discussion in this thread as if the various compare and contrast cost/benefits are as very relevant at all to our discussion in these here parts as you are trying to make them out to be through your implicit denigration of our lil precious too..

You are lamentably mistaken about my intents.

I seek to shame cAPSLOCK for his apparently self-entitled attitude towards Bitcoin.  If he has never donated to support Core development, or otherwise Bitcoinland open-source development, then he is like a welfare bum demanding that others enrich him with freebies—even as he unconscionably sneers at a little altcoin project, which could never have existed without its self-funding mechanism (a.k.a. the “dev tax”).  [Edit: I was mistaken about cAPSLOCK; I could go only on what I had or hadn’t seen him post, and it seems that I significantly misunderstood him.  I retract and apologize for the statements at this paragraph, which were correct in principle but way off the mark when said about him.]

I have thus a purpose greater than petty argumentation:  To encourage WO regulars to support Bitcoin Core.  To support development financially, in the sense of “put your money where your money is”.

I am NOT addressing sat-stackers and shrimps; heaven knows, I know what it is like to be in a position where you are scrimping for every sat.  But when you get yourself up to at least a few BTC, then you should start seriously thinking about this; and if you have >= 10 BTC, a small-sized hodling for most people who have been in BTC at least 8–10 years as of 2022, then it is rational self-interest to support development.  Because Bitcoin ultimately stands on a foundation built by its world-class excellent developers!  If development were ever to stall out or degrade in quality, then Bitcoin would suck; and your number would go down in a competitive world, where BTC is not the only option.

That said, I pick on cAPSLOCK because he deserves it.  The way this line of discussion started:  cAPSLOCK defamed and cussed out Tyler Winklevoss, a big BTC HODLer who, with his ingeminate brother Cameron, were the twin Saylors of an era when Saylor himself dismissed Bitcoin.  By comparison to Saylor, the Winklevi didn’t have much for stacking sats—only a few measly millions, with which they had accumulated about 1% of the outstanding BTC supply as of 2012.  They bet on BTC big-time!  And they bet big on Bitcoin at a time when, according to one of my own recent posts:

Bitcoin was still riddled with Ponzis and High Yield Investment scams in 2012.  Only a visionary with extreme risk tolerance would have taken any significant financial risk on it then.

Thus in the 2017 bull run, they became on paper the world’s first “Bitcoin billionaires”.  I don’t know of any evidence that they turned against the source of their wealth, as some early Bitcoiners did.  And as centralized exchanges go, their Gemini exchange is reasonably pro-Bitcoin—definitely not anti-Bitcoin like cAPSLOCK’s preferred exchange, shitcoin central: Coinbase!

cAPSLOCK essentially accused Tyler Winklevoss of taking shill payola from Zcash’s “dev tax” to make a tweet supporting the right to privacy.  What the hell?

I don’t do “batslaps”, Jay.  I have my own way.  And I found in this a salutary way to campaign for HODLers, who benefit from Bitcoin, to give something back.  If you take care of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will take care of you.  Bitcoin cannot take care of itself, for it has no “dev tax”.

As I mentioned in some of my recent posts, some BTC whales, big businesses, and exchanges are very good about this.  That is why Bitcoin is what it is today:  Somebody pays for development.

I recently wrote some long posts praising Blockstream for being, insofar as I can see, a company that looks like it’s essentially run to advance Bitcoin development with developers on their payroll.  For another example, the BitMEX exchange is well-known for its development funding grants; that is why I tend to be sympathetic to BitMEX, and I have defended their reputation in controversies, even though I have never used BitMEX and I have no financial interest in them.  I have also had private discussions about this with Bitcoiners who have large BTC hodlings, who despise WO and all other speculation venues.  They are generous towards Core development.  All HODLers benefit.

If you have a not-insignificant HODLing—if you want Bitcoin to make you rich—then I suggest that you should think long-term about the foundation on which your riches are reposed.  Funding for Bitcoin Core development is an investment in Bitcoin’s long-term health and prosperity.

[nanobtc]

Hah, Plan 9 !

You must be pracketing richcraft... 

[cAPSLOCK]

2021: NFTs!  ICOs with even LESS utility!  (also possibly the worlds most complex troll)

NFTs are a good technology being abused for >99% trash, instead of the use cases where they would make sense.^*  Not unlike early Bitcoin.  Notice the refrain?

^* For one illustrative example, merely to establish the threshold credibility of the idea:  I think that NFTs will someday revolutionize the recording of real property deeds and chains of title.  Real-world real property, not low-grade cartoons of bored apes.  Anyone who has real-life experience with homeownership or other real estate will see the benefit of taking the public records out of the current inefficient systems, and cryptographically authenticating them on a blockchain.


By the way, cAPSLOCK:  When Richy_T civilly disagreed with me based on his outdated information about Blockstream Satellite, and I corrected him, he kinda-sorta acknowledged his mistake; and he continued with a constructive discussion.  Why do you dodge the factual correction of your very rude misinformation?

ZCASH is a fucking trusted setup

Your are ill-informed.  The trusted setup is dead.  Gone with Halo2.  Zcash’s Orchard shielded value pool, activated on mainnet in May 2022, has no trusted setup!

That is one of several major reasons why I declare the technology now “mature”:  No more trusted setup.  I put up with the trusted setup in Zcash myself, from its beginning until 2022; but I disliked it.  I would not want to bring it to Bitcoin.  The Zcash team also disliked it—actually, they hated it!  Therefore, they spent years working on improved cryptography to get rid of it forever.

You also have not answered my point about a “dev tax”.  cAPSLOCK, you hate the idea of a “dev tax”; and you insult altcoins that have a “dev tax”.  So, over all these years that you have enjoyed Bitcoin, have you donated any nontrivial amounts to support Bitcoin Core development?  Developers need to be paid somehow.  I know that some big BTC HODLers are very good about this; they tend not to be the ones who sneer at little altcoins for having a “dev tax”, for they understand that developers need to be paid somehow.

I agree NFT's might end up useful tech for just the thing you are mentioning (titles, other single certificate type uses) but I think the best implementation would be a federated sidechain.  I think cities, counties, states and the federal government, title companies etc. could be members of the sidechain, and others could subscribe.  It would be hash-anchored to bitcoin, but maintained by the federation.

A to my railing against ZCash, you are right, though I had heard about them moving to the non trusted new tech I have not followed closely to see that they had.  That's a plus.  But there are many minuses still for me.  And with life being how it currently is for me (one child in the hospital long term, another in a country halfway around the world, and a personal visit this weekend to the ER duraing a terrifying negative prescription drug reaction) I have not had time to respond to much here.

That said, I have several complaints about that project.  Do not agree with the Dev tax argument, though I am sympathetic.  Have anonymously donated to both Bitcoin Development as well as another project along the way.  Both my own money and my time in the form of community contributions and merged pull requests on both projects.  But along with my personal circumstances, as it has been mentioned here alts are taboo, which I try to respect 90% of the time..

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[death_wish]

A to my railing against ZCash, you are right, though I had heard about them moving to the non trusted new tech I have not followed closely to see that they had.  That's a plus.  But there are many minuses still for me.  And with life being how it currently is for me ([...personal details...]) I have not had time to respond to much here.

[...]

Have anonymously donated to both Bitcoin Development as well as another project along the way.  Both my own money and my time in the form of community contributions and merged pull requests on both projects.

My sympathies for your family situation.  (Snipped from the quote, just in case it’s too much information.)  I hope that your people will be ok.

Based on your statements in this post, I edited another recent post of mine with an apology for and retraction of some aspersions cast on your character.

I can guess that you refer to That Other Privacy Coin.  The one with a community fund.  I am familiar with both projects, I weigh pros and cons of each—you’re right, it is off-topic for WO in itself.  I only wanted to discuss technology I have been yearning to see in Bitcoin for about the past nine years.  It got into a tangent because, hey, it is salutary to remind people that Core development gets paid for somehow.

A to my railing against ZCash, you are right, though I had heard about them moving to the non trusted new tech I have not followed closely to see that they had.  That's a plus.  But there are many minuses still for me.
[...]
That said, I have several complaints about that project.  Do not agree with the Dev tax argument, though I am sympathetic.

Many pluses and minuses for me, too.  I insinuated somewhere, perhaps a bit too subtly, that they could have better manged the “dev tax” money; this type of issue has sometimes caused controversy and alienation in the Zcash community.  I was speaking only to the principle of the matter, by way of pointing out that Bitcoiners need to support Core.  Beyond that, the only part of my Zcash criticisms relevant to WO is that I am very worried by their announced plans to switch to POS, which seem to me a matter of smooth-talking VC-types putting the hard-sell on naïve crypto-nerds who are sad about their coin’s price performance.

POS is eating the world.  Old-school POW alts first:  It is strategic to isolate Bitcoin as a big consumer of energy and to set more POS-switch precedents, as anti-POW propaganda ramps up.  In addition to my fears as a longtime Zcasher, I see this ultimately as an attack on Bitcoin—the ultimate target.

I do try to keep on-topic here.  Anything that I’ve said about Zcash is ancillary to discussion of Bitcoin, and not reasonably avoidable for that.  If I wanted to praise or critique Zcash in itself, that would be a different post—and it would come off much differently.  By the way, if I wanted to discuss That Other Privacy Coin, I would discuss its decentralization and its community strengths (and RandomX) in addition to critiquing its privacy technology.  What I really want is to have it all in one place:  In Bitcoin.

I agree NFT's might end up useful tech for just the thing you are mentioning (titles, other single certificate type uses) but I think the best implementation would be a federated sidechain.  I think cities, counties, states and the federal government, title companies etc. could be members of the sidechain, and others could subscribe.  It would be hash-anchored to bitcoin, but maintained by the federation.

Ultimately, I think that a better trustless, or trust-minimized Bitcoin sidechain implementation is needed to support numerous use cases:  Scaling, zero-knowledge proof privacy (the original Zerocoin and Zerocash ideas were for BTC on Bitcoin sidechains!), smart contracts/on-chain programmability (wtf am I doing on POS chains? need the features), the non-scam parts of defi, non-idiotic NFTs, etc.

I am very strictly against spamming the Bitcoin mainnet (e.g., check post history re so-called “burner addresses”).  But I am cautious about discussing sidechains:  I know that many ideas have undesirable security risks.

I am aware of RSK, but an EthVM clone is not exactly my cup of tea.  I do like that it is merge-mined with Bitcoin.  I am very much in favour of merge-mining sidechains (or altcoins) with Bitcoin.


^^^ The discussion of sidechains incited a brainstorm.  Of something else that could be done with ZKP on mainnet; another non-privacy application thereof, in addition to the idea I had in the Development forum a few weeks ago.  Sat here a long time thinking about it...  Need to post this; to be continued somewhere/sometime.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[death_wish]

Shit, thought I had mentioned that, only recently have gotten the pain management under control enough o make coherent thoughts so I'll reiterate here.

I was leaving the Casino ~2am following 2 SUV's around a bend when we hit a fog bank and I'm not completely sure if the visor fogged up as well as it was so instant but I went to zero visibility in a corner and had nothing to gauge where I was heading besides the taillights of the vehicle directly in front of me. I pulled in the clutch and started to brake as quickly as possible while following the taillights in front of me only to have the SUV Brake hard and veer off to the left only to notice that there was grass under the SUV instead of pavement. As I tried to follow the bike slid out from under me on the wet grass and mud not unlike a hydroplaning effect and while the bike slid off to the side into a chain link fence I hit the ground and rolled into a telephone pole. We were doing about 45 Mph.

Damn, those shitcoiners have it in for you.

Glad to see you pulled through.

[JayJuanGee]

I know that some big BTC HODLers are very good about this; they tend not to be the ones who sneer at little altcoins for having a “dev tax”, for they understand that developers need to be paid somehow.

Fuck shitcoins and your seemingly holier than thou attempts to inject their discussion in this thread as if the various compare and contrast cost/benefits are as very relevant at all to our discussion in these here parts as you are trying to make them out to be through your implicit denigration of our lil precious too..

You are lamentably mistaken about my intents.

I seek to shame cAPSLOCK for his apparently self-entitled attitude towards Bitcoin.  If he has never donated to support Core development, or otherwise Bitcoinland open-source development, then he is like a welfare bum demanding that others enrich him with freebies—even as he unconscionably sneers at a little altcoin project, which could never have existed without its self-funding mechanism (a.k.a. the “dev tax”).  [Edit: I was mistaken about cAPSLOCK; I could go only on what I had or hadn’t seen him post, and it seems that I significantly misunderstood him.  I retract and apologize for the statements at this paragraph, which were correct in principle but way off the mark when said about him.]

I have thus a purpose greater than petty argumentation:  To encourage WO regulars to support Bitcoin Core.  To support development financially, in the sense of “put your money where your money is”.

I am NOT addressing sat-stackers and shrimps; heaven knows, I know what it is like to be in a position where you are scrimping for every sat.  But when you get yourself up to at least a few BTC, then you should start seriously thinking about this; and if you have >= 10 BTC, a small-sized hodling for most people who have been in BTC at least 8–10 years as of 2022, then it is rational self-interest to support development.  Because Bitcoin ultimately stands on a foundation built by its world-class excellent developers!  If development were ever to stall out or degrade in quality, then Bitcoin would suck; and your number would go down in a competitive world, where BTC is not the only option.

That said, I pick on cAPSLOCK because he deserves it.  The way this line of discussion started:  cAPSLOCK defamed and cussed out Tyler Winklevoss, a big BTC HODLer who, with his ingeminate brother Cameron, were the twin Saylors of an era when Saylor himself dismissed Bitcoin.  By comparison to Saylor, the Winklevi didn’t have much for stacking sats—only a few measly millions, with which they had accumulated about 1% of the outstanding BTC supply as of 2012.  They bet on BTC big-time!  And they bet big on Bitcoin at a time when, according to one of my own recent posts:

Bitcoin was still riddled with Ponzis and High Yield Investment scams in 2012.  Only a visionary with extreme risk tolerance would have taken any significant financial risk on it then.

Thus in the 2017 bull run, they became on paper the world’s first “Bitcoin billionaires”.  I don’t know of any evidence that they turned against the source of their wealth, as some early Bitcoiners did.  And as centralized exchanges go, their Gemini exchange is reasonably pro-Bitcoin—definitely not anti-Bitcoin like cAPSLOCK’s preferred exchange, shitcoin central: Coinbase!

cAPSLOCK essentially accused Tyler Winklevoss of taking shill payola from Zcash’s “dev tax” to make a tweet supporting the right to privacy.  What the hell?

I don’t do “batslaps”, Jay.  I have my own way.  And I found in this a salutary way to campaign for HODLers, who benefit from Bitcoin, to give something back.  If you take care of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will take care of you.  Bitcoin cannot take care of itself, for it has no “dev tax”.

As I mentioned in some of my recent posts, some BTC whales, big businesses, and exchanges are very good about this.  That is why Bitcoin is what it is today:  Somebody pays for development.

I recently wrote some long posts praising Blockstream for being, insofar as I can see, a company that looks like it’s essentially run to advance Bitcoin development with developers on their payroll.  For another example, the BitMEX exchange is well-known for its development funding grants; that is why I tend to be sympathetic to BitMEX, and I have defended their reputation in controversies, even though I have never used BitMEX and I have no financial interest in them.  I have also had private discussions about this with Bitcoiners who have large BTC hodlings, who despise WO and all other speculation venues.  They are generous towards Core development.  All HODLers benefit.

If you have a not-insignificant HODLing—if you want Bitcoin to make you rich—then I suggest that you should think long-term about the foundation on which your riches are reposed.  Funding for Bitcoin Core development is an investment in Bitcoin’s long-term health and prosperity.

I doubt that I need to defend cAPSLOCK because he can stand up for his lil selfie.  At the same time, you surely do like to come out swinging D_W, and I doubt there is any need to go on such an offensive, including that we are not going to know the varying ways that members are able to give, even beyond just batting around ideas in this thread or other parts of the forum.

I follow quite a few forum threads, but I cannot recall seeing one specifically aimed at various ways to fund devs.. or even funding lighting devs.  Of course, the topic comes up, but it does not seem to be one that I am specifically following, and I am not uninterested in the topic.    Even with my own management of funds, frequently there can be various competing interest, and even places to send money or to make various kinds of donations, and some people build tithing into their regular budgetary considerations, and sometimes maybe even giving to causes that should have received better due diligence.  I am tentatively thinking that I would not mind following a forum thread that might specifically be oriented towards ideas around giving/donating/funding to bitcoin core and/or lightning devs.  Square and Jack Dorsey has also been pretty good at funding Devs.. and even leaving such devs with a lot of latitude in regards to what they do.

By the way, I am addressing some of your points - and even if you might have made some decent points, it seem to me that I am likely not the ONLY one who is getting a little worn by some of your tone that seems to want to lecture (or go on the attack) about how certain kinds of behavior fit better in terms of what you believe is a true bitcoiner, and I doubt that trying to shame folks regarding what is a "good bitcoiner" and their supposed obligations to contribute/fund/donate in ways that you believe are proper (financially) is going to necessarily inspire folks with the means to feel compelled to start giving more in that giving/funding/contributing direction.  Shaming could cause the opposite.  

or even considering whether giving/contributing/funding might be in their budget 0.63 BTC, 0.05 BTC or whatever it might be, to get into giving/contributing in a monetary way, including possibly feeling comfortable enough in regards to how much due diligence that they feel that they need to engage in so that they might feel that they are giving their lil precious to a good cause rather than maybe getting involved in a shitcoin or some projects that are not so great for bitcoin.. or even if the developer(s) that they might start to fund is actually contributing to bitcoin in a way that actually makes bitcoin stronger and/or better.. rather than worse.  It is not always so obvious as you seem to be making it out to be... and if you know so much on the topic, then maybe you can start a thread or even start your own fund?  Wait you don't have hardly no BTC, so people might be skeptical of your motives, no?

I am not going to deny that sometimes I have come across some information about Developer funding efforts, but merely coming across such information (or efforts that are happening) does not necessarily inspire me to get involved or look into the matter further.. and I have already experienced some areas in my life where I end up getting involved more than I wished that I would have gotten involved.. has that ever happened to you, D_W?..

 so there are ONLY so many hours in a day... and even if you proclaim that some of us (including yours truly) should be spending our time (and money) differently than we have already chosen to do (and I surely am not even that receptive of people telling me these kinds of things, even people who actuallly know me pretty well.. and I have gotten pretty hostile, from time to time, even in real life when people make assumptions about my budget, my time or my readiness, willingness and ableness to give in ways that they presume that I should be...

It seems presumptuous also to conclude that cAPSLOCK has more coins (time or energies) than you or me, merely because he has been in bitcoin (this forum) longer.. that may well be a BIG mistake, including other balances that he has going on in his life in regards to demands on his coins (and he had mentioned some issues that he has had recently with budgets and even with draws on his time and finances.. which again I don't feel that I need to defend him (whether he is telling the truth or not.. I hardly give too many shits.. but I have no reason to doubt him in regards to those kinds of representations, either.. there are some other reprentations that he sometimes makes that I don't agree.. but whatever, he seems sufficiently fair enough.. and does not seem to attempt to drain the sympathies of others.. the vast majority of the time... or to attempt to play people.. so there is that), and in the end, we cannot assume the budgets and/or obligations and even free flow of cash of longer term bitcoiners. .even if they might have made representations of being richie as fuck and at fuck you status and even at triple super duper extra high fuck you status.... because even if some of us might be using $1 million or $2 million or some other number as a kind of fuck you status default reference point, it does not even presume other aspects of any person's actual budget or even that such same person might not be using $10k or some other personally chosen number as their own personal fuck you status level that may well deviate greatly from the default fuck you status (that I have been referring to as $2 million.. but I have never mentioned what my own fuck you status happens to be.. never ever ever.. not on the forum and not even in real life.... and yeah sometimes people want to presume that you are talking about your self when using certain numbers or percentages even if you may well have not have specified your own personal numbers in that kind of a way.

[Ludmilla_rose1995]

 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Hamza2424]

Plan B, Black Lions are the Fait Holders i think he is trying to trigger them.

Lions/ Whales/ Central Banks one these can Just Rock up market volume

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[death_wish]

Awesome shot.

To put things in perspective, the number of Bitcoin private keys that can ever exist is approximately 10⁵³ times the number of stars in the known universe. In other words, if each star in the universe corresponded to one Bitcoin private key, then the entire universe would only be able to contain...

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
of all possible Bitcoin private keys.

Put in another way, it would take...

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
universes to fit all possible Bitcoin private keys.

As you can see, OOM, your post is totally on-topic! 

Nit:  Although this is technically correct, and awe-inspiring in itself, I suggest always making sure to base such discussions on Bitcoin’s notional 128-bit security level.

This seems ridiculously pedantic to note in this context—until one experiences too many technical threads based on people thinking in terms of bruteforce.  Educating people in these terms tends to form that mindset.  The number of all possible Bitcoin private keys has no direct relevance to Bitcoin’s security:  Any real-world attacker will attack the public key with an ECDLP solver, which will crack the key on the order of 10³⁸ times faster than bruteforce.

What people need to understand is that Bitcoin has astronomically-huge security.  You are literally talking about astronomically-huge-squared.

[modrobert]

https://www.blockchain.com/it/btc/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

For a signature, or to “move his stash” as you said?  The Genesis coinbase itself can’t be moved; it is not sent to that address, but rather, in P2PK to a public key that people convert to that P2PKH address as an anachronism.

18.53375545 BTC (as of writing) from that address can be moved, if you have the wallet (private key) of Satoshi.

The correct (movable) amount is listed by Block Stream Explorer (note how the 50 BTC mining reward transaction is not listed here for the same address):
https://blockstream.info/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

I almost said as much, but then cut it as an unnecessary tangent.  I try to prevent my posts from being too long.

If I know that people are converting the Genesis coinbase P2PK key to a P2PKH address (an arcane detail that few realize), I obviously know that idiots have been sending money there, and how much of it, and that it can be moved.  Should I now embark on the long tangent I had in mind about why sending money there is a bad idea?

The point from which I do not want to distract with this irrelevant tangent:  Moving money around not the right way to ask Satoshi to prove his identity.  signmessage exists, and it works.  Satoshi has a PGP key; I linked to this forum’s copy of it, and I provided the fingerprint.  The threshold test for any Satoshi claimant is to sign an appropriate message with a known Satoshi key.

You avoided the first part of my original post...

If you were Satoshi, what would be the benefit of claiming that in public (think it through at least twice before replying)?

...assuming you didn't think twice about it yet.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[death_wish]

https://www.blockchain.com/it/btc/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

For a signature, or to “move his stash” as you said?  The Genesis coinbase itself can’t be moved; it is not sent to that address, but rather, in P2PK to a public key that people convert to that P2PKH address as an anachronism.

18.53375545 BTC (as of writing) from that address can be moved, if you have the wallet (private key) of Satoshi.

The correct (movable) amount is listed by Block Stream Explorer (note how the 50 BTC mining reward transaction is not listed here for the same address):
https://blockstream.info/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

I almost said as much, but then cut it as an unnecessary tangent.  I try to prevent my posts from being too long.

If I know that people are converting the Genesis coinbase P2PK key to a P2PKH address (an arcane detail that few realize), I obviously know that idiots have been sending money there, and how much of it, and that it can be moved.  Should I now embark on the long tangent I had in mind about why sending money there is a bad idea?

The point from which I do not want to distract with this irrelevant tangent:  Moving money around not the right way to ask Satoshi to prove his identity.  signmessage exists, and it works.  Satoshi has a PGP key; I linked to this forum’s copy of it, and I provided the fingerprint.  The threshold test for any Satoshi claimant is to sign an appropriate message with a known Satoshi key.

You avoided the first part of my original post...

If you were Satoshi, what would be the benefit of claiming that in public (think it through at least twice before replying)?

...assuming you didn't think twice about it yet.

No, I did not avoid it.  I dismissed it.  I immediately understood what you were saying, but it is unimportant.  You are not as clever as you believe, and you evidently do not read carefully.

By “authentication”, I mean signing a message with substance similar to this:

Code:

2022-06-26: I, [name of claimant], am Satoshi Nakamoto.

I don’t ask someone’s motives before demanding that.  If the claimant refuses (as Craig Wright has), then his motives are obvious:  He is an imposter.

The real Satoshi could potentially have various motives to step forward at some point—various benefits he may wish to attain.  (If he is still alive.)  The real Satoshi also would or could have many obvious motives never to appear publicly again—much less to dox himself.

Instead of attempting to exercise my psychic powers predicting the behaviour of an anonymous person, or projecting onto him what I think I would or wouldn’t want or do, I deem it wiser to put all Satoshi-claimants to a simple, objective test at the threshold.  If anyone ever passes that test, then I will evaluate the individual as he is, in the circumstance as it is.  Those who fail that test are immediately dismissed as imposters.

[empowering]

and if half the conversations are one mad man talking to himself (I am kinda kidding)

I recall that nullius said similarly.  I could look around and find it in his prolific wall-of-words post history.  Are you nullius?

https://web.archive.org/web/20120712200425/http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

You want this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120712200425/http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

Actually, everybody on the forum should read that (and a few like things).

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm



(Reminder)

I also found a nully quote substantively similar to empowering’s statement quoted at the top; but this string of quotes will get too long here.

By the standards of some leading DT members, that is 100% CONCLUSIVE PROOF that empowering is a nully alt.  Any contradiction of this proof shall only strengthen the proof to 1000% conclusiveness, with pretzel-logic that puts you in a classic Kafkatrap.^*  Denial of an allegation proves the allegation.  Refusal to answer equals denial, and therefore proves the allegation.  @empowering, you must confess, as if you are on trial for witchcraft...

(Hey, nully was infamous for his sympathies with witches.)

It is well-known that at trial for witchcraft, the witch will deny or even refuse to answer to witchcraft charges.

...and this is of critical importance because—um, I dunno.  You/nullius are not accused of any fraud based on scamming people with multiple identities, or of any other multi-account abuses.  There is no rational reason to make an issue of the possibility that you may or may not be nullius.  Frankly, it is nobody’s business if you are.  But for whatever reason, the most important issue in the world is to make you admit your nullianity right now, on the spot, on-demand.  If you don’t, that also proves that nullius is a deeply dishonest and untrustworthy person.

Now, empowering, since I have PROVED that you are nullius and you had better well damn confess, I must wonder:  “empowering” was created in 2013.  “nullius” was created in 2017.  Have I discovered nully’s “main account”?  Or is there an older one?

Nullius' knowledge about blockchain science and cryptography is a dead giveaway....  He could even be Satoshi.  

nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

nullius is cthulhu. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

^* “Kafkatrap” is a coin termed by ESR in 2010 for an informal fallacy, in which denial of an accusation is taken as evidence that the accusation is true.  It is a disturbingly common fallacy.  And once you are in a Kafkatrap, the harder you struggle to prove your denial, the worse you are lying to cover up and evade the truth.

 

Bastard.... you have done it again, you made me laugh.

Amusing post