Proof of identity vs authentication

[HmmMAA]

There is a huge misconception in the community that proof of identity is the same as authentication . Currently , most many members here consider that anyone can come forward as satoshi by posting a message in here , or sending an email from satoshi's old email , or by providing a signed message from an early bitcoin address .
Many have pointed in the past that Charlie Lee , the creator of litecoin , posted a signed message to prove his identity so satoshi should do the same . What Charlie and most people don't get is that he had a known identity as the creator of litecoin since 2013 (https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2013/07/23/litecoin-founder-charles-lee-on-the-origins-and-potential-of-the-worlds-second-largest-cryptocurrency/)  long before the signed message in 2016 (https://imgur.com/p5JL3pE ) which proved nothing more than that he was in the possession of that address keys at that point . As my english are not good to get into the details of this extremely complex topic i will borrow directly from this website  https://alicebiometrics.com/en/what-is-proof-of-identity/

Disclaimer : Some people will start saying that i'm a big blocker and i believe CSW is satoshi , and that's the reason i'm doing this so i have to make things clear .
I'm pro bigger blocks than btc's 1 MB ( i don't recognise segwit as bitcoin ) , i think that bch and bsv are closer to what bitcoin was meant to be . I'm not 100% certain that CSW is satoshi ( people in here have a problem understanding what 95% certainty means ) , he might be a good candidate but that doesn't mean that i take anything he says as granted . I seek truth and i want a bitcoin as imagined by satoshi and early devs to succeed .

What is the proof of identity and why does it matter

"Proof of identity is a crucial process in today’s digital world, where online transactions and interaction are becoming more common. In an environment where trust is vital, being able to verify people’s identities remotely has become essential. In this article, we’ll explain what proof of identity is, how it differs from authentication, and provide some relevant proof of identity examples.

The importance of proof of identity

Identity proof plays a fundamental role in the user and customer verification process. It is the first line of defense against fraud and illegal activities online. In addition, it helps ensure the security of online transactions, protecting both companies and users. Without proper proof of identity, the risks of phishing and fraudulent transactions would increase significantly.
What is proof of identity?

Proof of identity is the process by which the authenticity of a person’s identity is verified. In the digital context, this is achieved through the collection and verification of information and documents that support the identity of the user. This includes personal data, such as name, date of birth, address and other relevant details.

The proof of identity is based on the comparison between the information provided by the user and the information available from different reliable sources. This may include government databases, public records, and other verifiable data sources.

How is proof of identity different from authentication?

It is important to note that proof of identity and authentication are different concepts. While proof of identity focuses on verifying the authenticity of a person’s identity, authentication focuses on verifying that a user is who they say they are.

Authentication is generally carried out after proof of identity, as an additional step to guarantee the security of a transaction or access to certain services. There are different authentication factors, such as passwords, fingerprints, facial recognition or biometric codes.

Proof of identity, on the other hand, encompasses a broader process that includes information gathering and document verification, while authentication focuses more on establishing authorization to perform a specific action.

Examples of proofs of identity

There are different methods that are used to carry out proof of identity in the digital world. Some of the more common examples include:
1. Document verification
This method involves collecting and verifying legal identity documents, such as passports or driver’s licenses. These documents often contain personal information and photographs, which makes it easy to compare with the information provided by the user.
2. Biometric verification
Biometric verification uses a person’s unique characteristics, such as fingerprints, facial or iris recognition, to verify that person’s identity. This biometric data can be compared with previous records or trusted databases to confirm the identity of the user.
3. Verification of government databases
Many countries have government databases that contain the personal information of citizens. These databases can be used to verify a person’s identity by comparing the information provided with information on file with the government.
4. Verification of personal information
This method involves validating the personal information provided by the user through different data sources, such as public records, identity verification services and social networks. By comparing and verifying information, it is possible to confirm a person’s identity.

In summary, proof of identity is a fundamental process in the current digital context. Verifying the identity of users is essential to ensure the security of online transactions and protect companies and users from fraud and illegal activities. Through methods such as document verification, biometric verification, government database verification, and personal information verification, it is possible to carry out an efficient proof of identity."

Let the games begin .

[franky1]

firstly you need to know alot more about bitcoin

secondly
signing a bitcoin address is just proof of authority of that bitcoin address

thirdly
however when there is other proof that a certain bitcoin address was in control of a certain identity. then that proof of authority can also signify proof of identity

and so when there is proof that satoshi interacted with hal finney and satoshi sent funds to hal finney on a specific address then that address becomes relevantly linked to satoshi
when the patoshi extranonce data links certain sequences(computers) to certain block rewards that also becomes documentation linking satoshi to certain bitcoin addresses

..
however the idiot scammer of a scam coin that is in court right now trying to pretend he is satoshi, is not giving any evidence of factual unforged proof that links him to satoshi and ... he cant sign anything satoshi related

..
as for your "95% sure its him" says more about your lack of research then it does about anything else.

let me make one point to make it clear
the real satoshi knew about extranonce and stuff so knew how even if he lost list of addresses could find significant list of addresses associated with him..
however CSW scammer knew nothing of bitcoin and just went to a website like bitcoin richlist and grabbed some old addresses containing significant funds and pretended that was HIS stash and pretended that stash was the satoshi stash

even though the csw list of addresses did not even come close to being similar to known addresses that can be associated with satoshis extranonces sequences. plus the real owners(other people) listed on CSw list, then signed messages to say they are not satoshi and they are not csw.

yep by CSW claiming to own other peoples funds.. is fraud
by making them claims in a court, infront of a judge.. is even stupider

[Helena Yu]

To be honest, I think it's really stupid a Bitcoin enthusiast is promoting KYC when there are many bad thing with that, read Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless.

I guess you're fine to live without privacy where your government knows all of your password, know how much money you have, where you live etc and when the database got hacked, it means everyone also knows about everything you have.

[HmmMAA]

firstly you need to know alot more about bitcoin

I think that i know much about bitcoin to understand what's it's purpose and how it works , but i'm always open to learning new things . My interactions with blackhatcoiner made me to read a lot about LN of which i had mostly based an opinion from others . If i give the impression that i'm ignorant about bitcoin kindly point me on my mistakes or provide links that can help me .

secondly
signing a bitcoin address is just proof of authority of that bitcoin address

Totally agree

thirdly
however when there is other proof that a certain bitcoin address was in control of a certain identity. then that proof of authority can also signify proof of identity

You are starting to lose me here . What's the other proof that has to do with identity . Any examples ?
As you said above , signing is just a part of authority . Authority changes so authority can't be identity by itself . Having authority today doesn't mean you will have it tomorrow . So , something that is a way to prove something today doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow . If satoshi gave access of the address that interacted with finney to someone else after those transactions does that mean the new owner is satoshi ? I agree that proof of authority signifies only at that point of time a proof of idenity . Not later .
What's your definition of identity , so i can know that we can move on common ground ?

and so when there is proof that satoshi interacted with hal finney and satoshi sent funds to hal finney on a specific address then that address becomes relevantly linked to satoshi
when the patoshi extranonce data links certain sequences(computers) to certain block rewards that also becomes documentation linking satoshi to certain bitcoin addresses

I agree , but we have to understand that satoshi is a pseudonymous and not the identity of a certain person . Satoshi's identity is unknown . Do you think we can agree on that ?

however the idiot scammer of a scam coin that is in court right now trying to pretend he is satoshi, is not giving any evidence of factual unforged proof that links him to satoshi and ... he cant sign anything satoshi related

..
as for your "95% sure its him" says more about your lack of research then it does about anything else.

let me make one point to make it clear
the real satoshi knew about extranonce and stuff so knew how even if he lost list of addresses could find significant list of addresses associated with him..
however CSW scammer knew nothing of bitcoin and just went to a website like bitcoin richlist and grabbed some old addresses containing significant funds and pretended that was HIS stash and pretended that stash was the satoshi stash

even though the csw list of addresses did not even come close to being similar to known addresses that can be associated with satoshis extranonces sequences. plus the real owners(other people) listed on CSw list, then signed messages to say they are not satoshi and they are not csw.

yep by CSW claiming to own other peoples funds.. is fraud
by making them claims in a court, infront of a judge.. is even stupider

If you want i'd like to leave that part outside of conversation , it's not that i don't want to talk about it ( we can do it in another thread if you want ) , my main focus here is to provide some info about how i think identity is proven and if i'm mistaken to change my view on it .

To be honest, I think it's really stupid a Bitcoin enthusiast is promoting KYC when there are many bad thing with that, read Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless.

I guess you're fine to live without privacy where your government knows all of your password, know how much money you have, where you live etc and when the database got hacked, it means everyone also knows about everything you have.

I don't think a civilised society can work without knowing specific info about it's citizens . Hell , if that's not the case let's have no laws or anything and move to complete anarchy , as anything that has to do with proofs that someone is a criminal is against that's individual privacy . So , maybe we should find a sweet spot about how much privacy we can have and from whom we can be private ?
Crypto has become the heaven for every small or big scammer , huge ones still use mostly the traditional banking system . The good part here is there is the technology to have a fair KYC based on zero knowledge proofs which will strengthen our privacy , and tracking of stolen funds so we can make sure that they will never go the hands of criminals . Blockchain was created to have everything auditable . What we should do as citizens is to force banks and states to use blockchain so any of their actions can be auditable .
If you are seeking something else you might want to revive any of the old cypherpunks failed projects . Chaum has re entered the space with xx network , a new solution for his ecash based on blockchain , you might want to take a look .
 

[cryptosize]

To be honest, I think it's really stupid a Bitcoin enthusiast is promoting KYC when there are many bad thing with that, read Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless.

I guess you're fine to live without privacy where your government knows all of your password, know how much money you have, where you live etc and when the database got hacked, it means everyone also knows about everything you have.

"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/480xn/p05yfdh3.jpg.webp

HmmMAA is a huge NWO & WEF fanatic.

[cryptosize]

The good part here is there is the technology to have a fair KYC based on zero knowledge proofs which will strengthen our privacy , and tracking of stolen funds so we can make sure that they will never go the hands of criminals .

Too bad EU Digital ID/ID2020 have nothing to do with zkProofs (interesting tech, for sure).

If KYC was mandatory for everyone, Bitcoin wouldn't have been invented by Satoshi. Banks would have squashed it from the get-go (pretty easy to do a 51% attack back in 2009).

Unless you claim that Satoshi/Bitcoin is a covert NSA conspiracy to promote the NWO agenda and bring CBDC upon the masses. Is that what you think?

Blockchain was created to have everything auditable .

Says who? Satoshi or CSW?

What we should do as citizens is to force banks and states to use blockchain so any of their actions can be auditable .

Do you honestly believe that the elites will want their actions to be transparent to the masses? Would you want that if you were Bill Gates or Klaus Schwab? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't.

Do you think they're gonna buy drugs or hookers (I won't even mention Epstein Island "activities") with an auditable currency or CBDC?

You don't seem a gullible person to me. You seem more like a... trojan horse, I might say.

[NeuroticFish]

Currently , most members here consider that anyone can come forward as satoshi by posting a message in here , or sending an email from satoshi's old email , or by providing a signed message from an early bitcoin address .

No. That's just a first step before we get to "start talking".

Plus, while you have some valid points, you still mix up apples with oranges imho, since satoshi cannot really come forward with proof of identity, since he hid his identity very well. So the only choices remaining are indirect clues, like authentication.

However, since the CSW trial is "front page thing", I will add that although I am 99.99% sure CSW is not satoshi, even if satoshi would come forward with claims there is a fair chance many people will not be convinced he is satoshi. Just because authentication can be stolen, we know that. (Well, in 2024 also proof of identity can be created with AI, so.. meh..)

[HmmMAA]

No. That's just a first step before we get to "start talking".

I'm glad that there are people like you that think this way . Unfortunately so far i didn't find someone with that view , that's the reason i wrote it . I'd be delighted to have more people with your view , maybe i should add a poll .

Plus, while you have some valid points, you still mix up apples with oranges imho, since satoshi cannot really come forward with proof of identity, since he hid his identity very well. So the only choices remaining are indirect clues, like authentication.

That's something we assume , we are not he/she/they , so we can't know what's their intention . But , in case he/she/they decide to come forward proof of identity will have to follow a specific route , and that's through courts , at least that's my opinion . Twitter poll can't be a deciding factor .

However, since the CSW trial is "front page thing", I will add that although I am 99.99% sure CSW is not satoshi, even if satoshi would come forward with claims there is a fair chance many people will not be convinced he is satoshi. Just because authentication can be stolen, we know that. (Well, in 2024 also proof of identity can be created with AI, so.. meh..)

That's exactly the reason we have to understand that identity is a very complex issue that isn't provable just by one factor . Especially the case of satoshi is one of the hardest because lots of strong evidence should be presented . For example , a message that in the genesis or later block that if it's decoded shows the real identity . Let's not forget that bitcoin is a timestamping machine . I don't believe that satoshi didn't use it that way . Will he ever come forward ? Time will show .

[NeuroticFish]

But , in case he/she/they decide to come forward proof of identity will have to follow a specific route , and that's through courts , at least that's my opinion .

I hope that this was meant as a joke.
So satoshi has done his best to hide his identity and create something that helps humans no longer need to trust others if they don't want to... and then... you expect him try to prove his identity... in court?
No. The court is helpful for stopping you know who to harass honest people, but won't do much in proving identity imho.

[franky1]

thirdly
however when there is other proof that a certain bitcoin address was in control of a certain identity. then that proof of authority can also signify proof of identity

You are starting to lose me here . What's the other proof that has to do with identity . Any examples ?
As you said above , signing is just a part of authority . Authority changes so authority can't be identity by itself . Having authority today doesn't mean you will have it tomorrow . So , something that is a way to prove something today doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow . If satoshi gave access of the address that interacted with finney to someone else after those transactions does that mean the new owner is satoshi ? I agree that proof of authority signifies only at that point of time a proof of idenity . Not later .
What's your definition of identity , so i can know that we can move on common ground ?

other proof of which bitcoin addresses are satoshi related.. well the extranonce data is one,

heres where you need a bit of common sense
if satoshi gave the privkeys to someone else. that someone else would have spend the coins just to remove risk of satoshi spending them

in short by funds remaining on the address is a better proof no one else has the privkeys but the original person
(if someone found all your bank security questions, would you keep that bank account open, or change your security/account and close the old one)

.
anyways i still laugh how CSW just grabbed random addresses from bitcoin richlist and didnt even do the most basic "forensics" to even try to find satoshi stash addresses.. that comedy moment alone shows CSW doesnt know bitcoin nor knows satoshi, nor knows forensics, nor knows how to even sound genuine, nor prove anything

[HmmMAA]

I hope that this was meant as a joke.
So satoshi has done his best to hide his identity and create something that helps humans no longer need to trust others if they don't want to... and then... you expect him try to prove his identity... in court?
No. The court is helpful for stopping you know who to harass honest people, but won't do much in proving identity imho.

After your comment i agree that if an encrypted message that proves identity is hidden in a block then there's no need to have a court session .
In all the other cases how do you think that a pseudonymous user that has invented something can prove his real identity ? Because i think that i have shown above that you can't prove identity with some authentication info .
Satoshi didn't done his best to hide his identity as far as i know . If you could point me to anything that proves the opposite i'd like to see it .
He just used a pseudonymous to have privacy . As most of us here and on other forums . I disagree and to the part that humans do not need to trust each other . He created something that a transaction made on the network doesn't need to be trusted . Society is based on trust . Commerce is based on trust . If trusting was not an issue and bitcoin has solved that then we wouldn't have any need for escrow here , we wouldn't have trust ratings for each member .

heres where you need a bit of common sense
if satoshi gave the privkeys to someone else. that someone else would have spend the coins just to remove risk of satoshi spending them

in short by funds remaining on the address is a better proof no one else has the privkeys but the original person
(if someone found all your bank security questions, would you keep that bank account open, or change your security/account and close the old one)

 
That's very valid , thanks for pointing that out . I can think of a case ( knowledge of the new owner that satoshi is dead ) but it's a extreme one .

[davis196]

Disclaimer : Some people will start saying that i'm a big blocker and i believe CSW is satoshi , and that's the reason i'm doing this so i have to make things clear .
I'm pro bigger blocks than btc's 1 MB ( i don't recognise segwit as bitcoin ) , i think that bch and bsv are closer to what bitcoin was meant to be . I'm not 100% certain that CSW is satoshi ( people in here have a problem understanding what 95% certainty means ) , he might be a good candidate but that doesn't mean that i take anything he says as granted . I seek truth and i want a bitcoin as imagined by satoshi and early devs to succeed .

So you are 95% sure that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto? Is that what you are trying to say?
I agree that proof of identity is the first line of defense against fraud, but the problem is that this "first line of defense" can be easily bypassed. Faking KYC procedures isn't that hard. I get your point about the difference between authentication and proof of identity, but I don't get why are you posting this forum thread. Most people with a brain can differentiate authentication and proof of identity.
You support BSV and BCH. Everyone has his/her own opinion and personal preference. Saying that BSV and BCH are closer to Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin is pure speculation, because Satoshi can't (or doesn't want) to share his current vision of Bitcoin and we can't ask him.
Can you read Satoshi's mind or something?

[HmmMAA]

So you are 95% sure that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto? Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes , that's my opinion and it's not my intention to push it to anyone else .

I agree that proof of identity is the first line of defense against fraud, but the problem is that this "first line of defense" can be easily bypassed. Faking KYC procedures isn't that hard. I get your point about the difference between authentication and proof of identity, but I don't get why are you posting this forum thread. Most people with a brain can differentiate authentication and proof of identity.

My main reasoning for creating this thread are the replies on this thread , you will notice that many members don't share my or yours opinion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5483719.0

You support BSV and BCH. Everyone has his/her own opinion and personal preference. Saying that BSV and BCH are closer to Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin is pure speculation, because Satoshi can't (or doesn't want) to share his current vision of Bitcoin and we can't ask him.
Can you read Satoshi's mind or something?

No , i can't read satoshi's mind but i have read his whitepaper and posts so i think i understand what he wanted . That's not what btc is right now . But that's a discussion for another topic .

[Wind_FURY]

OP is probably playing 4D chess. Start debates, have frankandbeans debate against him, create confusion, use straw man schemes with the actual purpose of making people - especially newbies - question their own beliefs, THEN possibly influence them into believing that the forked shitcoin or the fork of the forked shitcoin is the "Real Bitcoin", AND if that was true, THEN probably people will start believing that Craig Wright is Satoshi.

[cryptosize]

OP is probably playing 4D chess. Start debates, have frankandbeans debate against him, create confusion, use straw man schemes with the actual purpose of making people - especially newbies - question their own beliefs, THEN possibly influence them into believing that the forked shitcoin or the fork of the forked shitcoin is the "Real Bitcoin", AND if that was true,  THEN probably people will start believing that Craig Wright is Satoshi.

You're onto something...

Did you know that he sends unsolicited PMs to various members on this forum to bribe/influence them with BSV?

He has confessed it himself.

ps: He never, ever addresses 51% attacks in the forked chains:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/04/bsv-suffers-51-attack-report/
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/

[yazher]

In our local exchange, we need to open our front camera to be able to log in for the first time on a new device since there are lots of incidents of hacking going on recently and they put tight rules regarding logging in for all users. As for me, this kind of authentication is way overboard since it requires you to show your face every time you want to open your account on a new device but we can't do anything about it because most of us rely on our local exchanges when we want to convert our cryptos and also we don't have much choice especially when we are in rush to convert it.

[HmmMAA]

OP is probably playing 4D chess. Start debates, have frankandbeans debate against him, create confusion, use straw man schemes with the actual purpose of making people - especially newbies - question their own beliefs, THEN possibly influence them into believing that the forked shitcoin or the fork of the forked shitcoin is the "Real Bitcoin", AND if that was true, THEN probably people will start believing that Craig Wright is Satoshi.

Oh , thanks for thinking about me like that , you make me blush . Kisses darling . I love you too . Anything productive to add to the discussion ?

[franky1]

OP is probably playing 4D chess.

HmmMAA is not playing chess at all.. even an idiot can play 2D checkers against HmmMAA..
(2D checkers= PC flatscreen researchers)

[Casdinyard]

To be honest, I think it's really stupid a Bitcoin enthusiast is promoting KYC when there are many bad thing with that, read Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless.

I guess you're fine to live without privacy where your government knows all of your password, know how much money you have, where you live etc and when the database got hacked, it means everyone also knows about everything you have.

There's a discussion to be had about the authenticity and honesty behind KYC, as while it is used by scammers and hackers and can then be discerned as "illegal" or "useless" even, corporations and legitimate companies need KYC to make sure that you are who you say you are, governments do this all the time, casinos and exchanges do these to validate a person's identity, there's nuances to KYC and it's not just outright useless just cause it's being used by scammers.

The same can't be said about promotion of KYC for bitcoin however, and not because bitcoin's against scammers or injustice, matter of fact for years it's one of the most sought-after currencies by scammers due to how anonymous it makes them, but the reason why KYC just doesn't fit the bitcoin narrative is because it was advertised from the get-go as a "secure, anonymous peer-to-peer electronic cash system" and taking the anonymous part of the statement defeats the whole purpose of what made bitcoin the cryptocurrency it is right now.

As for OP's propagandistic 95% claim of CSW's eligibility as the real Satoshi, let me just tell you that he's not. You would think that the real SN would know about the inner workings of his own brainchild but this clown you're 95% sure is Satoshi can't even remotely do something of the likes. So yeah as far as legitimacy goes he's not going to be Satoshi Nakamoto, nor do we need to debate about who he is or if he wipes his ass upwards or downwards.

Bitcoin is to remain anonymous until we don't want to deal with it anymore. Case closed. No one's gonna be Satoshi beside the main guy himself. Let him have his peace.

[HmmMAA]

OP is probably playing 4D chess.

HmmMAA is not playing chess at all.. even an idiot can play 2D checkers against HmmMAA..
(2D checkers= PC flatscreen researchers)

Challenge accepted , whenever you wanna play let me know