Gavin Andresen's commit access to Bitcoin revoked, hacking suspected

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/727078284345917441

by apsec112 • 10 years ago

297 164 10 years ago

jbmorgado7• 10 years ago

Bitcoin is just a soap opera that keeps on giving... it's fantastic how much credibility something can keep loosing and loosing.

spiderfarmer• 10 years ago

Nowadays it's hard to trust any monetary system with all the hacking, skimming and fraud that takes place.

jbmorgado7• 10 years ago

Well, you can be pretty well sure that unless western civilization fails and your money is worthless anyway, that you can trust having your money in USD/EUR in a bank up to a certain amount (100K in the EU, not sure how much in the USA), even if they get hacked, skim and commit fraud. Same can't be said for Bitcoin and we keep being reminded of it.

Lazare3• 10 years ago

Really? I don't find it particularly hard.

all the hacking, skimming and fraud

Sure, I was impacted by that. A while back, I noticed some movie tickets charged to my card in Australia. I called my bank, disputed the charges, they reversed them and sent me a new credit card. Took...maybe 20 minutes of my time? Max?

And from this I'm meant to learn I can't trust the current system? Honest question: Why?

VMG4• 10 years ago

The people who lose credibility here are

* The Economist

* BBC

* Gavin Andresen (unless he was hacked)

jbmorgado7• 10 years ago

Well, Gavin Andresen is a bitcoin core dev that according to this very news just got hacked.

It's logical to think that when a core dev of something as sensible as bitcoin get's hacked and you can't trust the code anymore, it takes a really big chunk of credibility from bitcoin.

Lxr• 10 years ago

BBC and Gavin yes, though the tone from the Economist was quite skeptical I think.

the_mitsuhiko2• 10 years ago

Why is this thing so popular? An our or two ago there were 7 stories about bitcoin on the frontpage :-/

skocznymroczny• 10 years ago

Lots of people who spent a lot of cash on bitcoins and now need to bring more people in to raise its value so that they can cash out.

ethanbond2• 10 years ago

Because a) it's a seriously fascinating system from a technical standpoint, b) it has immense potential to solve a lot of problems — especially for those in areas with underdeveloped financial systems, and c) a lot of people are heavily invested in its success.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's overhyped, it's a really really cool experiment in economics and cryptography.

wcummings• 10 years ago

They'd probably be more upset about losing credibility.

orblivion4• 10 years ago

Why laugh at someone's failure? They're trying to pull off a very different power structure. It has political issues they clearly haven't worked out, but how much time in the grand scheme have they had to do so compared to the standard ones?

danielweber6• 10 years ago

It's always harder to do something than to sit around watching the people doing it. So I give you that. This is hard.

However, every time someone has interacted with the Bitcoin community and dealt with the assholes telling them "you just don't get it! this is the new economy!", it makes that someone smile a little bit each time there's bad news.

Frondo4• 10 years ago

Well, because, frankly speaking, they're trying to pull off a very different power structure without getting buy-in from everyone involved.

Green U.S. money? At least, at the end of the election cycle, I can cast a vote for someone who will appoint a Fed chair I like. There's some tenuous link from the decision-makers back to me, an American voter.

The bitcoin people? They just said "here it is, oh and also we call all the shots, kthxbye". What if there's some feature of the new power structure I don't like? Where can I seek redress? Ask a bitcoin advocate, and what you get is crickets.

A new power structure should be more inclusive of people's voices, not less.

So, in this case, I welcome the failure.

st3v3r3• 10 years ago

Because the attitude of some of the more hardcore Bitcoin people is a holier than thou, "We're the only ones who REALLY know about money and currency and financial policy. You idiots with fiat money don't know anything!" persecution complex which is really annoying.

ok_craig• 10 years ago

Wouldn't you agree that a multi-billion dollar market cap, millions of daily tx volume, and a pretty decent price of $400, all of which keep growing in the face of so much "credibility losing", counter it rather nicely?

Humans are folly but the technology speaks for itself.

wyager• 10 years ago

How does the antics of some developers influence the credibility of a system they are one of many contributors to?

You can claim that Bitcoin is going down the toilet all you like, but by all metrics relevant to its purpose (namely value and popularity) it's doing extremely well.

Perhaps your mistake is that you only notice when something that could be construed as negative happens around Bitcoin. Such things are usually more entertaining than the relatively mundane improvements and victories that occur on a regular basis.

satysin2• 10 years ago

Sorry I have not been following what has been going on, can somebody catch me up with a TL;DR?

VMG4• 10 years ago

Australian dude publishes fake proof he's the famous inventor of bitcoin:

* http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-signif... * https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrigh...

High-profile Bitcoin dev Gavin Andresen inexplicably supports the fraudster: http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

lumberjack• 10 years ago

It looks unlikely but is there any actual evidence that he is not Satoshi?

satysin2• 10 years ago

Ah thank you :)

So Craig Wright isn't Satoshi then? Somebody should tell the BBC ;)

kingmanaz• 10 years ago

Maybe I missed something. What's the big deal if Wright is Satoshi?

tveita• 10 years ago

This looks like a political statement, not like a serious security measure. "No sane person would say the things this guy is saying, so he must have been hacked." Like the Soviet Union where political opponents would be declared to be insane to silence them.

What damage are they afraid he will do with commit access? Wouldn't it be better to wait for him to commit so they can see what the "hacker" is trying to accomplish?

petertodd2• 10 years ago

What damage are they afraid he will do with commit access?

A lot of people run Bitcoin Core directly from the github repo without checking the git commit signatures; someone who pushed a backdoored commit to that repo could easily steal funds.

speedmax• 10 years ago

Yeah right, from someone who has been waiting to attack Gavin.

forgotpwtomain• 10 years ago

A lot of people run Bitcoin Core directly from the github repo without checking the git commit signatures; someone who pushed a backdoored commit to that repo could easily steal funds.

No one should be running Bitcoin Core from the repo without checking git commit signatures; not everyone whose account gets hacked will post on a blog rather than pushing underhanded but otherwise normal looking commits to the repo - the 'we can prevent damage by revoking access because we saw a weird looking blog post' is just a laughbly bad excuse for a security practice.

kerkeslager• 10 years ago

A lot of people run Bitcoin Core directly from the github repo without checking the git commit signatures

What? Why?

tacos2• 10 years ago

Commit signatures do nothing to verify that his device wasn't hacked, it just verifies that someone got access to his key. Geeze this is just stupidity all the way down.

CyberDildonics4• 10 years ago

If you were actually concerned about someone being compromised why wouldn't you make a new account for Gavin and give him a new password?

This looks like an obvious attempt at furthering your agenda by using a a nonsense excuse to push Gavin out.

EDIT: I see downvotes but not a rebuttal.

jcoffland3• 10 years ago

Like someone wouldn't notice it in two second.

danielweber6• 10 years ago

When you posted your tweet, what were you talking about? Why did you say his repo access had been altered?

thescriptkiddie2• 10 years ago

Tinfoil hat time:

Maybe Peter Todd is the one that hacked into Gavin's blog. They've had an ongoing public disagreement for some time and Peter could benefit from making Gavin look bad.

thescriptkiddie2• 10 years ago

It's too late to edit this comment but new information leads to yet another alternative explanation: Gavin (and others) actually did witness Craig sign a message with one of Satoshi's private keys, and "verify" it on a computer controlled by Craig. Shenanigans were involved that made the phony signature appear to verify. Gavin (and others) were deceived.

coderdude• 10 years ago

I like how Satoshi is a kind of genius God in some people's eyes. Explaining what he would do in a situation, as though it is written in gospel somewhere.

ebbv• 10 years ago

That's because Bitcoin's value is entirely belief based (you can't do anything useful with a Bitcoin if nobody else believes it has value), so the whole thing is much closer to a religion than anything based on reason and logic.

cmurf2• 10 years ago

We're all working with fiat currencies you know.

1_player• 10 years ago

Honestly, that applies to any kind of currency.

hellbanner• 10 years ago

What kind of currency do you accept for your work? Is it reason and logic based or a fiat "belief based" currency?

blueflow• 10 years ago

This also applies to every other fiat currency like the euro or dollar.

CyberDildonics4• 10 years ago

Bitcoin's value is entirely belief based

Its value, like the value of any form of money, are based on the ideal properties of money.

Lazare3• 10 years ago

I'm as interested in the Satoshi/Wright drama as the next bored geek, but...

...come on, this is just getting silly. Nobody really thinks Gavin was hacked, do they?

nxzero2• 10 years ago

Allowing any single person be able to push a commit to something as important at Bitcoin sounds dangerous.

darkFunction• 10 years ago

The miners aren't forced to run the code that anyone commits.

ianpurton2• 10 years ago

There's more to it than that. Bitcoin has many eyes watching the commits so a commit from a bad actor wouldn't get very far.

Secondly the devs come to some form of consensus and Gitian build is created and signed. https://gitian.org/.

Thirdly, the miners decide whether to build the blockchain based on the newer version of the software.

nxzero2• 10 years ago

Do you know how Bitcoin insures the code reviews are done and there's not bias in the review process?

uptown2• 10 years ago

For those that do own or trade Bitcoin, how did you acquire them? Mining? Buy them out-right using a linked bank account on Coinbase (or some other marketplace)? Received them in-trade from someone?

esoteric_nonces• 10 years ago

A combination of the latter two.

I have bought and sold items from/to individuals using bitcoin, bought and sold bitcoin from exchanges, received them in donation for programs I have produced, and sent them in donation for programs/services others have produced/rendered.

empath752• 10 years ago

I have a regular scheduled buy on coinbase. I just use it as a second savings account that has waaaaay better returns than my actual savings account over the past year.

uptown2• 10 years ago

And do you trust them linking to your bank account to perform the withdrawal? I've never dealt with Coinbase before.

bennyg• 10 years ago

Same here. Seen about 40% returns on it, and I'm mostly just building a second retirement account instead of worrying about day-trading, etc.

cookiecaper2• 10 years ago

In the early days, back when you could mine ~1 bitcoin per day on any old GPU, I mined some. I've since sold all the ones I mined. I've used several exchanges over the years, but most of the btc I have now I've bought with dollars from my bank account, primarily via Circle. I've paid btc for some goods and services but never sold a good or service for btc.

Unfortunately I never really made a full-throated commitment to btc so I'm not a bitcoin millionaire. :(

tlrobinson2• 10 years ago

It's worth noting Gavin and Peter don't exactly see eye-to-eye on the future direction of Bitcoin. I sense a hint of glee in this tweet.

comboy• 10 years ago

FYI, turns out he was not hacked: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p...

rhema• 10 years ago

You would think that Satoshi, who has been in hiding for so long, would have a fully planned reveal. He/she has had a long time to plan. As long as Satoshi is not outed unintentionally, I would think he/she would have a long list of lawyers and accountants. Roughly 1 million btc could be 400 million in assets. That's a heck of a lot of capital to be dealing with reporters directly.

matt_wulfeck• 10 years ago

His interview with BBC suggests he was outed against his desires and before he had settled tax questions with the ATO.

at-fates-hands• 10 years ago

So many possibilities really. . .

- Satoshi died somewhere along the line and there will never be a reveal since he didn't pass the keys to someone else.

- Satoshi enlisted Wright to take over for him if/when he would pass away. He did and now Wright is bungling the whole affair

- Wright either knew Satoshi or was with him at the very beginning of BTC. This would explain his possession of very early block chain keys (#9 instead of #0.

- Wright had been working with Satoshi since the beginning, and now Wright (who many have commented is crazy) had a falling out of some sorts and is rushing to take credit as BTC's creator.

- Wright is simply a con man trying to flush Satoshi out by claiming he is BTC creator and then waiting for him to appear. Not sure what the end game would be in this scenario

- Wright is crazy AND a con man and is trying to claim credit as BTC creator for several reasons, many of which are probably motivated by money.

This could go several different ways, but for my money, it seems like Wright was probably around in the early days, and got in right away with a bunch of early keys to earlier block chains. From the outside it looks like his life as a fraud is starting to unravel and catch up with him. I feel like this is the last gasp to try and retain some respectability in the community. He already has a litany of legal problems his facing, and considering very few people believe he is Satoshi, this isn't going to end well for him.

tlrobinson2• 10 years ago

So either:

1. Craig actually is Satoshi but is withholding the only real proof anyone cares about for some unknown reason

2. Craig is a fraud and Gavin was tricked

3. There's some other strange situation going on (Gavin is in on it? Gavin is being coerced? Gavin's reddit account was also hacked?)

EDIT: I'm inclined to believe #2. If Craig were Satoshi he wouldn't need a coordinated "Official Announcement" with major publications and a long hand-wavy blog post describing how to verify a signature. He could just sign the message "Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin" using a known Satoshi Bitcoin address' private key and post it anywhere. The community will know what to do. This is literally the only proof any who knows more than a little about Bitcoin will accept.

HappyTypist• 10 years ago

It's possible that the "brand new laptop" Gavin received wasn't brand new at all and was opened, flashed, and resealed, or perhaps Craig has obtained a fake trusted certificate for electrum.org and MITM'd the connection on his home/work wifi.

jackgavigan• 10 years ago

Gavin also announced on stage on Consensus 2016 that he hadn't been hacked: https://twitter.com/BTCTN/status/727145824510058496

So, one would expect his commit access to be restored. Unless, of course, if "We think he was hacked" was actually an excuse rather than a reason.

danielweber6• 10 years ago

Where did the "hacking" claim ever start from? It looks like some guy linked to a YC comment.

wfn• 10 years ago

Apparently the "verification" shell script that Craig supplied had a deliberate typo which made signature check step worthless: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p...

jcoffland3• 10 years ago

What this means is still unclear but it's not looking good for Craig Wright being Satoshi.

plingamp• 10 years ago

There are so many theories on what is happening, let me propose yet another. Satoshi Nakamoto is akin to the Dread Pirate Roberts. Who knows how many Satoshi's there have been? Some may have died, some may have lost interest, but the torch continues to burn, and must be passed on.

typeforce• 10 years ago

Relevant: http://www.theonion.com/article/us-economy-grinds-to-halt-as...

jcoffland3• 10 years ago

The Core devs have been waiting for a chance to cut off Gavin's commit access. This was just an excuse. I'm not defending Gavin. At this point it looks like he was fooled but taking away his commit access was a political move. Commits are public and reversible so there is no security emergency. Of anything this is a strike against the credibility of the Core devs.

Gavin Andresen's commit access to Bitcoin revoked, hacking suspected

Related Stories