Jump to content
em

Australian Craig Wright claims to be Bitcoin creator

Recommended Posts

Update: Se pare că omul de fapt nu a semnat nimic. A făcut un replay attack. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/

 

Australian entrepreneur Craig Wright has publicly identified himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.
His admission follows years of speculation about who came up with the original ideas underlying the digital cash system.
Mr Wright has provided technical proof to back up his claim using coins known to be owned by Bitcoin's creator.
Prominent members of the Bitcoin community and its core development team say they have confirmed his claims.
But many others in the Bitcoin world are asking for more proof.


Signed blocks
Mr Wright has revealed his identity to three media organisations - the BBC, the Economist and GQ.
At the meeting with the BBC, Mr Wright digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of Bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto.

 

Sursa: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

? https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2plygg

https://rstforums.com/forum/topic/101687-craig-wright-revealed-as-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto/

I don't have a stake in whether he is or isn't Satoshi. But I have seen zero evidence of an advanced fee fraud.

This is what we know:

Multiple credible people have vouched for the fact that Craig is Satoshi, and have not backed down from that assertion. Some have said that Satoshi was a group (including Kleiman) protected / fenced off by a larger group. None of these witnesses have contradicted that.

Keep your eye on that, above, as the evidence. You can't point at the "lack of other evidence" as evidence. You can't point at CSW's failure to provide you a public proof as evidence.

Other potential evidence items such as CSW's past or financial difficulties or copies of letters and emails and trust documents, and blackmail / hack stories, and CSW hiring a PR firm, or Ian Grigg participating with R3, or Gavin visiting the CIA, or any number of other factors that people are throwing out, will lend weight to one side of the analysis or the other, but I suggest setting them aside when you evaluate what's going on here. Most of that stuff is noise when you come right down to it.

Play out the scenario of what is being told to you by the credible witnesses.

Is the story of the witnesses feasible? That someone had the idea in 2005 (sounds about right, considering all the design that went into the project), found some like minded individuals including someone to code and someone to help with the math in the paper, decided to keep a low profile out of fear (people were being jailed and harassed for potential attacks to the monetary system and for cryprographic use and software).

That seems totally feasible.

Let's continue: Picture this small group - many who fear for their life or freedom - publishing this software and paper. I know from personal experience that there was reason to be afraid and to remain anonymous. In fact, when Gavin publicly got involved in the project, I thought he was nuts to have his real name attached to it. So still nothing far-fetched about the scenario. If you lived it, you can appreciate it. If you read with passion how Phil Zimmermann was harassed, or the eGold team was harassed, or Von NotHaus, or any number of people. Hell, if you showed up at a conference with the wrong namebadge (indicating you might be Mitnick) you were harassed. The environment was crazy (and I think it still is, to some degree).

OK, so, with secrecy and privacy, the team releases the software. A totally believable scenario. Under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. And this group of people - many of whom only loosely know each other, nurture it along for two years, guarding their privacy out of fear. As it becomes more popular (jeoparding their safety even more), there are internal debates as to when to cut it off. Hell, this is being used for Silk Road and other illegal items - the team could be implicated in money laundering, etc.

So fear - yes. Absolutely. The desire for privacy, yup.

And then the first bubble occurs, and these "guys" can see they have a multi-multi-million dollar baby. So what happens: different people have different opinions. Some need the money - house in foreclosure, kids in college, whatever. Others argue that the team can use the money to smooth out the bubbles (buy low, sell high). Still others say that they agreed not to touch the BTC for a decade, and any sale of bitcoins would be a public display of lack of belief in the system.

Still very believable.

So an agreement is set up, that all the major stakeholders can agree upon. And the bitcoins are protected through a splitkey arrangements, kept on multiple continents in an m of n Shamir Secret Sharing setup.

And then one guy dies.

We still haven't left the realm of possibility yet. The dynamics of a group in fear with a lot of wealth - just imagine how crazy that would be.

Then Bitcoin starts to gain some level of legitimacy (2014-2015), and it becomes less scary to be part of the inventor team. CSW starts showing up in videos with a smirk and a wink. This definitely happened. Whether CSW was on the team, or perhaps the leader of the team, isn't being claimed here, but I am saying that we still haven't left the realm of "possible".

Then CSW gets hacked, and blackmailed. Definitely possible. Hell, if he IS Satoshi, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that somebody tried to extort him. And that's his claim.

So here we are. Multiple people saying it's him. A group dynamic that is totally believable. If you can cut through all the smoke and nonsense, there's a "possible" scenario just waiting to be told, and I think we'll hear much more on this - but it'll take months or years.

For now, I remain open-minded. Especially with no evidence of an "advanced fee fraud" (unless you have some).

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4i92l0/ian_grigg_on_twitter_csw_is_thinking_5yr_possibly/d2w7zkt

 

Edited by asswipe
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...