Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto/

by rdl • 10 years ago

584 246 10 years ago

spriggan3• 10 years ago

Hard to say. Gavin Andresen says he is, but Wright didn't publish an unquestionable proof. Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the confidence that he really is Satoshi ?

Buge• 10 years ago

Not just that he hasn't published good proof. It's that he published fake proof. I don't see any reason satoshi would publish fake proof besides trying to troll people or something like that.

webkike4• 10 years ago

he could have been paid an enormous sum of money

showoraskme• 10 years ago

Exactly this. Plenty of motivation.

dsp1234• 10 years ago

Why would Gavin risk his reputation on that without the confidence that he really is Satoshi?

People who are smart, even experts in their field, can be fooled by conmen. Remember that while the experts are experts in their field, the conman is also an expert in their field. Their field just happens to be exploiting human nature to fool people. Without more information, it's hard to know if that's what happened, but it's a reasonable answer to the question.

Aqueous2• 10 years ago

Theory: Andresen met with Wright on Wright's terms, in a hotel conference room prepared and controlled by Wright. Wright anticipated that Andresen would ask for a clean-room laptop to work with. One of two things happened: either (a) Wright had his "assistant" go out and "shop" for a "brand-new" laptop that was actually a pre-bought laptop with a modified copy of Electrum on it. This is the copy of Electrum that was running when Andresen thought that his freshly-downloaded copy was running. Or (b) Wright actually did have a clean laptop bought, but suggested that Andresen connect to a Wi-Fi Network set up and controlled by Wright with a password provided by Wright, by which he then provided the false copy of Electrum through a MITM attack.

Both scenarios require the ability to modify Electrum in a deceptive way (presuming Andresen is familiar with Electrum and uses it frequently). The complexity of either scenario would require considerable literacy both with networking and code, and perhaps months of practice to make sure everything went off without a hitch. Thus, they seem pretty implausible. But if anything out of this scenario is true, I give props to the guy for really committing, you know?

IkmoIkmo2• 10 years ago

I fully expect Gavin to come to his senses in the next 48 hours, acknowledge that there was a chance he was misled, acknowledge Wright is a shady character making a huge claim, realise a proper proof is necessary (which is trivially easy, without any excuses of 'leaks' left), and demand it.

I then expect Wright to come up with some bs, and then we'll all move on.

Gavin is only human, I can say I'm surprised to the extent he stated so adamantly 'without a reasonable doubt', but again, he's human.

danielweber3• 10 years ago

Gavin is only human, I can say I'm surprised to the extent he stated so adamantly 'without a reasonable doubt', but again, he's human.

He said "I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." That's still a very high standard, but he left room for some doubt.

6nf• 10 years ago

Gavin fell for a con job.

jgrahamc• 10 years ago

This all could have been so simple. Publish a single signature to a very recent news story signed using a key Satoshi controlled.

Instead we get this mess.

The mess makes me believe Satoshi is still out there.

rdl4• 10 years ago

Well, or could be dead or disbanded or in cryo. :( I still think Hal Finney was a reasonable candidate, despite the counter-evidence, at least as part of a group. He was one of the most remarkable people from the cypherpunks era.

bcoates• 10 years ago

The problem I have with Hal Finney == Satoshi is that by the early 2000s, Hal Finney knew more about the state of the art of proof of work functions than the author of Bitcoin. Lots of Bitcoin design decisions can be justified out of conservatism but ignoring post-hashcash developments looks more like lack of knowledge Hal Finney had.

jsmthrowaway3• 10 years ago

As a complete outside observer entirely disconnected from Bitcoin, I had a thought that the way in which it's being done is intentional. I like the possibility that this guy actually is Nakamoto, and he did it in a very suspicious way to draw all the people out of the woodwork who will yell about it on blogs and knee-jerk revoke commit access (lol) and accuse people of things and so on, then he'll offer the incontrovertible proof everybody is after.

The entire Bitcoin community practically shit itself when this news dropped and everybody tripped over themselves to deny it's the truth. People are, at length, ascribing more difficult computer science problems such as subverting cryptography itself to this guy in an aim to conclusively say that he could not possibly have invented Bitcoin. (So he didn't do something really cryptographically cool, and your theory is that he can compromise cryptography to prove that he did something cryptographically cool. Huh.) Some of the theories involve like three MITM attacks on services and extensive planning with million-to-one odds. Some of the theories describe things that are impossible. It is absolutely hilarious to watch people rail against this for something that, let's be honest, they can't possibly know. (Including OP, who is oddly authoritative without hedging in a quite-libelous world.)

Imagine if it's true. God, that'll be awesome. If I were coming out as Satoshi Nakamoto, that's how I'd do it. Let the frothers froth to lose credibility, then checkmate them a couple days later.

Again, no stock in this, don't care, just an amusing thought. I will say, watching the community tear itself apart over the block size and now this reinforces for me that I never want to run software with a community. Ever. Bitcoin's community is terrifying in a number of ways (no disrespect, just an outside observation). Another angle on that is that if this guy actually is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin community has done a pretty good job of kicking their beloved founder in the teeth. I really want it to be true to see the pieces of that picked up.

This'll be a good third act of the Bitcoin movie, by the way, and I look forward to the stinging Sorkin dialogue.

Aqueous2• 10 years ago

There's evidence of deliberate deception, alongside a suspicious lack of evidence about what transpired out of view of the public. So there are grounds to believe this guy is full of shit.

powera• 10 years ago

What's the point in putting out blatantly fraudulent evidence (and that's what he put out) if he's actually the creator? If he's the creator and wants to be recognized, he puts out real evidence. If he's the creator and doesn't want to be recognized, he says nothing and is never heard from. If he's not the creator, we get this flim-flammery.

tujv• 10 years ago

Charlie Lee of Litecoin shows how it should be done simply:

https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017

fao_• 10 years ago

I do not think that Wright is Nakamoto.

However, posting in the form of a screenshot could be a smart move generally, because of the possibility of the text being changed[0], or people cutting and pasting code that does not present as malicious, but is embedded in the website to be so.

[0]: Of course, this can still happen with an image!

_7sdg• 10 years ago

It is beyond me that anyone would actually try to fake such a significant identity. Does this man have any self-respect?

mizzao• 10 years ago

People don't have self respect in a lot of situations. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironma...

danielweber3• 10 years ago

"and that the only thing she did wrong, besides winning too often, was to lose her timing chip in a couple of races."

Geeze.

cpncrunch• 10 years ago

It sounds like he might be a scam artist, so I guess the answer is no. If you're going to con the tax man out of millions of dollars, creating a fake identity probably isn't going to worry him too much.

But I'm wondering: what if he is a scam artist and he actually is Satoshi?

EdHominem• 10 years ago

If I walk into the room and you see me, you'll (subconsciously) assign a zero-chance that I'm the queen on England. Why would that become non-zero when I present obviously faked proof (a paper crown, etc).

Why would CW's obviously faked evidence provide any support for his claims?

miander• 10 years ago

Theory: Wright made promises that he would use his weight as Satoshi to overcome current political conflict within the Bitcoin community in a way that would satisfy Gavin. Gavin sees him as an ally and has vouched for him. A distasteful ally, but for the greater good.

Given how swiftly people are attacking Wright, chances are this would fail before the political situation can be resolved.

TillE• 10 years ago

This seems extremely unlikely for several reasons, not least of which is that of course the bitcoin community would demand simple cryptographic proof of identity.

As others have pointed out in previous threads, citing James Randi, you don't have to be stupid to fall for a con. It's quite easy to be tricked even when you think you're being skeptical.

at-fates-hands2• 10 years ago

I feel like there should be some way for Gavin to conclusively demonstrate that Wright = Satoshi. Something in an email, a person preference for something, his favorite song. Some kind of unique information that was shared between the two that only they would know.

nostrademons• 10 years ago

Plot twist: Wright as Satoshi isn't the con. Bitcoin is the con.

After all, what better con is there to convince millions of people that you've invented a currency, and that they should hand over real money for bits and bytes on computers you don't even control. Wright had recurrent run-ins with Australian tax authorities, so he has a strong motive to shelter his wealth in a virtual currency. The article admits that all his business relationships say Wright is the best con-man they know. And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi over a billion dollars.

Double plot-twist: Bitcoin isn't the con. Money is the con. All the reasons why Bitcoin is a hoax apply to the U.S. dollar and other forms of currency as well.

jhh• 10 years ago

Money is not a con. It is a very valuable invention that makes exchange of goods way more efficient. Just because something unfairly advantages some people it doesn't follow that it's not useful.

PS: Yes I heard the sarcasm in your post. It's all good.

zanny• 10 years ago

And the Bitcoin con has netted Satoshi over a billion dollars.

A huge amount of faith in bitcoin will be lost if Satoshi ever starts moving his btc. Its like the founder or CEO of a company - if you try to sell your stake confidence in the business evaporates.

dguaraglia• 10 years ago

Dude, you better be careful. Don't diss the idea of Bitcoin on the internet or you'll get embroiled in a flamewar of epic proportions. The Bitcoin-acolytes are few but extremely vocal.

jsmthrowaway3• 10 years ago

I have never once commented upon Bitcoin without being immediately downvoted on any forum, this thread included. Not once.

Watching the community fight is kind of depressing, because that's a lot of energy that could be channeled into positive endeavors.

tpallarino• 10 years ago

Well considering the central bank can't just manufacture new bitcoin whenever they please I'd say bitcoin is a better con than money

IgorPartola3• 10 years ago

I see two dimensions to this situation: is Wright actually Satoshi or does Wright know who the real Satoshi is, and does Satoshi want to be found.

Condition A: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright's actions make no sense. Why publish an obviously fake proof? I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would make some sense, but is really unlikely.

Condition B: Wright is Satoshi and Satoshi does not want to be found. Here things actually make perfect sense. Wright/Satoshi is trying to discredit himself by publishing fake proofs. This is a sort of hiding in the open thing that might work.

Condition C: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi wants to be found. In this condition, Wright is trying to prevent Satoshi from being found for some reason, and he is doing this by trying to muddle the waters and throw doubt. If the real Satoshi shows up and provides a proof, non-technical people can now say "well Wright provided proof, but that turned out to be fake. Do we trust that this is real?".

Condition D: Wright is not Satoshi but knows who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to protect Satoshi from being found.

Condition E: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi wants to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi, or is trying to muddle the waters for the real Satoshi.

Condition F: Wright is not Satoshi and does not know who the real Satoshi is, and Satoshi does not want to be found. In this case Wright is trying to somehow capitalize on being considered the real Satoshi.

Thoughts?

joezydeco2• 10 years ago

Condition E/F seem most likely, but the most confounding.

Why would you want to publicly tell everyone you're worth $200MM in Bitcoin when you aren't? Aside from the bad actors that will try to wring the key out of you (politely or violently), you also have the Tax Office to deal with.

reddytowns6• 10 years ago

The article explained that it may have helped him with getting VC money.

Also, if he really is dodging taxes, the Tax Office would look like the bad guy going after what most people consider a brilliant scientist.

jupiter90000• 10 years ago

He may be a sociopath who wants attention and to feel like he got over on so many people. Maybe it feels powerful or exciting to get away with scams for him. Why would someone become a serial killer? To you or I it makes no sense perhaps, but certain people have a lust for getting away with things.

sopooneo• 10 years ago

"I'm known to have $200MM in BitCoin. If you can front me $10,000,000 cash to get the financial infrastructure in place to liquidate, I'll cut you in for 50%. I promise not to take your cash and disappear to an island."

Maybe? But I think you ask a very good question. Also, maybe the guy just likes attention.

astronautjones2• 10 years ago

he's bulletproof on the taxes for the coin - he'd never be taxed on it until he withdrew it, and if he actually owns that much, he could never withdraw that much without causing a massive selloff

at-fates-hands2• 10 years ago

>> I suppose if Wright/Satoshi lost the original private keys this would make some sense.

Holy Jesus this makes my head hurt just thinking about this possibility.

okket• 10 years ago

F, with Satoshi probably dead and his keys lost forever. Any sane or insane person would have used the keys by now.

MichaelGG• 10 years ago

He (or they, didn't some folks think it might be a multi-person persona?) might have intentionally destroyed the keys, to avoid this temptation for whatever reason.

CamperBob2• 10 years ago

My guess is that he just lost the keys in the usual hard-drive crash or forgot-the-password sense. This was a research project, remember. Did Satoshi have any reason to think the early coins he mined would become this valuable in real currency terms?

Having lost the keys, he now has zero incentive to reveal himself. Consider how many people would never believe him if he came forward and said his keys were lost. It would suck to have everyone think you're a billionaire when you're not. The only rational option for Satoshi may be to cry himself to sleep every night and take his secret to his grave.

aakilfernandes• 10 years ago

Condition B does not make sense. The proof provided to Andresen/Matonis is not known to be fake, and they both vouch for his identity.

joaorj• 10 years ago

I agree that condition B should be discarded. It doesn't seem likely that Satoshi would want to trash Andersen in the process.

nickpsecurity9• 10 years ago

It's even simpler. That he presented hearsay evidence instead of using obvious method plus forged the PGP evidence means he's a fraud. End of story.

acqq5• 10 years ago

When he mentions PGP Nick refers to the four month old fraud by Wright:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_st...

Which was also "good enough" to appear "technical" and "valid" initially to some.

So it's really time for the quote of one famous thinker:

"I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'"

The shortest summary of the current Wright's hoax is by Kaminsky:

"Yes, this is a scam. Not maybe. Not possibly.

Wright is pretending he has Satoshi’s signature on Sartre’s writing. That would mean he has the private key, and is likely to be Satoshi. What he actually has is Satoshi’s signature on parts of the public Blockchain, which of course means he doesn’t need the private key and he doesn’t need to be Satoshi. He just needs to make you think Satoshi signed something else besides the Blockchain — like Sartre. He doesn’t publish Sartre. He publishes 14% of one document. He then shows you a hash that’s supposed to summarize the entire document. This is a lie. It’s a hash extracted from the Blockchain itself. Ryan Castellucci (my engineer at White Ops and master of Bitcoin Fu) put an extractor here. Of course the Blockchain is totally public and of course has signatures from Satoshi, so Wright being able to lift a signature from here isn’t surprising at all.

He probably would have gotten away with it if the signature itself wasn’t googlable by Redditors.

I think Gavin et al are victims of another scam, and Wright’s done classic misdirection by generating different scams for different audiences."

https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not...

cantrevealname3• 10 years ago

That he presented hearsay evidence... End of story.

You're suggesting that geniuses are always upstanding, straight-forward, super honest people, and that anyone who isn't super honest can't be a genius.

So what if he's sly, padded his resume, and has tax trouble. So what. He might still be a genius and might be Satoshi. We need more direct proof, but I'm not drawing conclusions from personal defects.

rjeli• 10 years ago

Unless, of course, he predicted that we would conclude that someone with such poor evidence must be attempting to hide in plain sight, and is in fact a fraud. Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

woodman3• 10 years ago

Sounds to me like you're already familiar with ACH [0]. I was sure that there was a free online platform, but I'm not seeing one. But if there was, it would be easy to plug in what you've posted and enable a structured collaboration.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_competing_hypothes...

IgorPartola3• 10 years ago

Oh man. Nope, not familiar with ACH. Thanks for the link.

Lxr• 10 years ago

Interesting, what about prior probability and Occam's razor? The 'process' section mentions "less consistency implies a lower likelihood" but makes no mention of preferring simpler hypotheses which I find surprising. Edit: 'Bayesian analysis' is briefly mentioned further down the page.

webkike4• 10 years ago

Who knew 21st century internet mysteries would be so compelling.

Benjammer• 10 years ago

For condition D, Is it possible that the people involved (Wright, etc...) would purposely concoct this situation in order to "smoke out" the real Satoshi? Maybe they believe if they cause enough of a stir, the real Satoshi would come forward to settle the issue?

fullshark• 10 years ago

This is fun to think about but the most likely explanation is simple fraud.

heartbreak• 10 years ago

Isn't this actually three dimensions?

IgorPartola3• 10 years ago

No. If Weight is Satoshi, he knows who Satoshi is, so those are not orthogonal. Basically, the first dimension has four discrete states, while the second has two.

j1vms3• 10 years ago

What about:

Condition G: Wright is not Satoshi, does/does not know who the real Satoshi is, but is trying to motivate/encourage/force Satoshi (for reasons unknown) to come forward by Wright making the strongest claim (not at all bulletproof!) thus far to being Satoshi, and taking credit for Bitcoin.

maxander3• 10 years ago

If Satoshi were watching and cared, all he'd (she'd) have to do is send an appropriately-signed text via Tor or whatever saying Craig is a liar. Coming forward in any substantial sense would be unnecessary.

That Craig is proceeding with this big hoax regardless means either that A) he knows who Satoshi is, and knows that Satoshi is cooperating/dead/apathetic/etc, or B) he's looking for sufficiently short-term gain that there's low enough risk that Satoshi would intervene in time.

dllthomas3• 10 years ago

You left out cases where Wright is Satoshi and does not know who Satoshi is, but I suppose we are not living in a Philip K Dick story.

hrnnnnnn• 10 years ago

"How could a guy do that?" Arctor said. "Pose as a nark?"

"What?" both Barris and Luckman said together.

"Shit, I'm spaced," Arctor said, grinning. "'Pose as a nark' - wow." He shook his head, grimacing now.

Staring at him, Luckman said, "POSE AS A NARK? POSE AS A NARK?"

WorldMaker• 10 years ago

Makes as weird a sense as any in this whole thing. Suppose you support the theory that Satoshi is actually a collective rather than individual. In that case, the Satoshi keys could have been formed in such a way that none of the individual members of the cabal have direct access to the actual keys (as they were formed by parts split amongst the cabal and require collective effort to make use of) and with compartmentalization of efforts none of the members of the cabal necessarily know the full extent of the cabal's membership, either...

baby• 10 years ago

One theory is that Satoshi is dead.

Another is that Satoshi, or the group of people behind Satoshi, are finding all these Satoshi stories very funny. So they are encouraging them (and that might be why one of the bitcoin dev got fooled/is lying)

Another theory is that Wright is Satoshi, Wright truly demoed a signature to BBC/bitcoin devs, but Wright wants to cast a doubt and make people forget that he is Satoshi so he published a fake signature.

c3d2• 10 years ago

Wright is trying to force Satoshi to come out of the closet. No way I will fall for that.

-- Sotashi Nomokata

cookiecaper2• 10 years ago

I believe B is semi-reasonable considering that Wright asserts he's revealing himself due to an extortion/blackmail threat. This could be a way of getting a non-technical extortionist off his back while not taking credit in a way that gives him authority or respect in Bitcoin's technical community. This situation is plausible, if, for example, a government knows he is Satoshi (and government surveillance programs would probably make it easy to find the real Satoshi) and is trying to make him impact Bitcoin in a way that benefits them.

alcio2• 10 years ago

Electrum verifies signatures offline (https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/5ae2f30fa52ebcec37...). So the `fake server` theory is wrong.

mortehu• 10 years ago

Whence does it get the public key with which it verifies the signature? How is the public key verified?

alcio2• 10 years ago

I don't know how the public key has been obtained, but it's present in many places in the Internet (blockchain.info, blockr.io, etc..).

chjj• 10 years ago

That piece of code likely gathers all the key recovery candidates it can from the signature, hashes and tests each one against the hash in the address to find the correct key. Then it performs the verification. Obviously the verification would fail if none of the keys hash to the hash contained in the address.

nikcub• 10 years ago

OP here. After discussing this with a few people I updated the post to lay out some other possibilities.

It is true that Electrum verifies locally, and in this case it was simply used as a replacement for running openssl or an alternative.

You still need to verify the address and key, tho - and it isn't stated what the process was in this case.

therealmarv• 10 years ago

We are seeing the Apprentice/Padawan here which does a good but not excellent magic illusion show in proving he is the one. Meanwhile the Sith-Master himself is hiding in the shadows and has probably an evil grin on his face.

return0• 10 years ago

If this individual can pull these shenanigans, is it fair to conclude that the real satoshi does not exist (or is not alive), and mr Wright knows it?

jonny_eh• 10 years ago

Reminds me of the Howard Hughes hoax autobiography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving#Fake_autobiogr...

johnmoore• 10 years ago

plot twist - Satoshi Nakamoto is Keyser Söze

timmytokyo2• 10 years ago

This is getting old.

Given the frequency of these fraudulent or mistaken Satoshi identifications, it's probably time that someone puts together a simple, publicly visible procedure for verifying Satoshi's identity. Make a web-site, call it something like satoshi-test.com, and include a step-by-step procedure for journalists to follow. If they can't get their Satoshi claimant to complete the test, then they shouldn't write the story. If they ignore the test, then we should ignore their story.

throwaway_java• 10 years ago

Way you go then.

csomar• 10 years ago

Here it is: https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/satoshilite-1e2dad89a017#.1t...

Many journalists will jump on the opportunity even if they know that it is 100% fake.

ihuman• 10 years ago

Could you explain what is going on in that post?

ConbrastanJorji• 10 years ago

    Welcome to Satoshi-test.com!

Please enter the private key for the genesis block here: _____ [Submit]

huuu• 10 years ago

No. A private key must be kept private.

aerovistae4• 10 years ago

Just checking: by show of hands, how many people here really understand what bitcoins are or how the system works, beyond knowing they're a new form of currency, cryptography is involved, and anonymity comes into play somehow?

I am just now beginning to try to research it to really understand it, because despite being a developer and having a decent understanding of public-key cryptography, I am at a total loss to understand how this system works or achieves its apparent purposes.

My impression is that it's actually quite complex, and that the press (and developer community at large) is failing to really explain it in any meaningful way to people who don't already get it. Not that this is out of the norm with tech topics, but this is very flagrant.

arcticfox• 10 years ago

Plenty of people understand what's going on? I'm unsure where you're going with this.

aerovistae4• 10 years ago

"Where I'm going" is that bitcoin keeps coming up in the news in various forms like this thread, yet I don't think most people really understand what it is.

You understand the bitcoin software and how the system is built and functions, end to end? Cool, I'm jealous.

You think most other developers share that understanding? Given that in my experience most developers have only a so-so understanding of basic cryptography to begin with, I find that very, very dubious.

I just read the original whitepaper and it isn't exactly trivial. Statements of the form "Because we do X in the implementation, bitcoin has property Y" are where it takes a fairly strong knowledge to truly follow along with the logic. The implications of the methodologies are not obvious, or else this whitepaper (and by extension the identity of Nakamoto) wouldn't be quite so important.

Someone• 10 years ago

The paper introducing Bitcoin (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) is well-written and easy to read. Understanding _how_ it works should be simple.

On the other hand, understanding _why_ it works is difficult, as it requires understanding the hard math underlying the system. In fact, nobody knows _why_ it works, because, AFAIK, we do not know whether the hash functions used have the necessary properties (in fact, it is worse: we do not even know whether one-way functions exist, let alone that we can point to one)

aerovistae4• 10 years ago

While the paper is certainly well-written and reader-friendly, I politely disagree that understanding how it works is simple. Even understanding digital signatures is hardly simple, and that's merely a small subcomponent of the bitcoin system.

Moreover, there's not much point in saying things like that to people who are trying to learn, as it adds nothing except to suggest that if someone doesn't understand this easily just by reading that paper, they might be a bit less capable than some of the rest of us.

drcode• 10 years ago

The white paper doesn't explain a lot of the very complicated additional bits needed to build the Bitcoin system that were already well documented elsewhere- For instance, the node discovery algorithm.

nicpottier2• 10 years ago

I think you are overstating the complexity for someone who basically understands signing, or even just hashes. Yes, it is rather clever and takes some time to wrap you head around, but the core structure of Bitcoin is certainly not beyond reach for an average software engineer. Some of the more esoteric pieces like the runtime machine.. etc not withstanding.

I haven't seen the recent crop of materials, but I grocked it watching a 60 minute or so video presentation which I think was from someone at Mozilla. Oh, here it is: https://vimeo.com/27177893

aerovistae4• 10 years ago

I never said it was out of reach, I'm saying the community that already understands it isn't doing a very good job making it so that others can reach it without standing on a chair.

I'll check out the video when I have time tonight.

Raticide• 10 years ago

Interesting video, but the resolution is awful, is there a better version out there somewhere?

chirau• 10 years ago

I second you on that one. I attended the Consesus hackathon over the weekend, which is like the culmination of the blockchain community before the summit started today. I asked a whole bunch of the lot to explain bitcoin and blockchain in simple terms. All I got were more and more big words. It seems the language is very foreign, maybe it's just me.

I think that lack of simple explanation is what has slowed down innovation around blockchain. A lot of developers simply don't understand fully what they are dealing with. The presentations were mediocre at best and the recurrent question was "How is this better than what people currently use?" Unfortunately, the answer was mostly, "It uses blockchain." I doubt that suffices.

Or maybe I'm just the daft one, I doubt so.

kanzure• 10 years ago

Sorry to hear about your somewhat negative experience at the hackathon. I was there hoping to explain bitcoin things to folks, I co-hosted the bitcoin 101 session on Saturday but maybe you missed that? Catch me at the event and I can answer whatever questions.

maxander3• 10 years ago

I understood the important obvious parts of Bitcoin at one point, but haven't cared enough to retain that knowledge perfectly well. But I gather the key plot points of this fiasco revolve entirely around simple public-key cryptography- underneath all this mess about genesis blocks and transaction hashes, the issue is that Craig hasn't shown us he can encrypt messages with any of Satoshi's special private keys. (Correct me if I'm missing something there.) That, along with a two-sentence "public-key cryptography is magic that lets you..." primer, could be explained to any interested highschool graduate in a short blog post... by someone who cared more about being understood than generating ad revenue, at least.

feral• 10 years ago

Broadly disagree with you here.

How long have you spent looking into it?

I wrote an academic paper on Bitcoin; now, I don't understand e.g. the detailed cryptanalysis of SHA256, which it uses. But I've a pretty solid understanding of how, given the availability of such hashing functions, and assuming they live up to their promises, you build a distributed ledger from them, and what some of the properties of that ledger might be. Not every implementation detail, but the high level principles.

I reckon most folk with degree or grad level CS education (or equivalent) would get to around that point in a few weeks (full-time?) study, probably less. (Given we can read the Bitcoin paper, nice explanations of it etc - not if we had to invent it ourselves.) I even think I've explained the main principles successfully to technical friends over the course of a few hours.

Yes, you don't just read a blog and understand how the whole system works, but thats true of many systems. Compare understanding Paxos (I'd say this is harder?), or DynamoDB, etc.

IMO there's nothing especially mysterious about Bitcoin here. Its clever, and its too complicated to explain in a paragraph in a media article, but its not an order of magnitude more complex than comparable distributed systems.

retsibsi• 10 years ago

You have a better technical background than me, so take this recommendation with a grain of salt, but I've found this textbook very useful: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/the-princeto... I've only read the first few chapters, but it seems to avoid the obvious traps of inaccessibility and misleading simplification.

ikeboy• 10 years ago

The wiki page is surprisingly good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Design

You'll also need to know what Proof of work is, explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system

See also https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Introduction, or the rest of the wiki, or the StackExchange site.

Niksko• 10 years ago

I found this article to be really helpful in understanding how Bitcoin works.

http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-a...

When I finally came to the realisation about what mining is actually doing and why it's necessary to reward miners (it actually keeps the entire network secure): mind = blown.

nickysielicki• 10 years ago

Who cares?

Put the whole lore of bitcoin on the backburner for a moment and think about what this would really mean if he was Satoshi. Pretend that the proof was more than adequate, and pretend that Satoshi-signed messages started popping up on the Bitcoin mailing list again.

What should that matter? He's got millions of dollars of Bitcoin. He dropped out of the bitcoin world 5 years ago. If Satoshi came out on the mailing list with a signed message talking about the block size, would it matter at this point?

reddytowns6• 10 years ago

Of course it would matter. It would be like George Washington being somehow magically resurrected and chiming in on the 5th amendment and the controversy of the government coercing people into revealing their password.

rasz_pl• 10 years ago

"administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box."

suckers, every day

rbobby• 10 years ago

Really though.

I wouldn't even trust going to the nearest computer shop myself and picking out a computer.

Presumably the assistant was believable because they weren't dressed in spandex and sequins.

macinjosh• 10 years ago

As I see it, it is pretty clear to me. If I add together that Wright had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull a con like this and the fact he hasn't done the one simple thing that could absolutely prove it really is him it adds up to Wright clearly not being Satoshi.

Ileca• 10 years ago

The perfect proof: a guy whose blog is titled _Dr._ Craig Wright and has a huge picture of his ugly face as a banner (look at that "about" section > pretty hard to fix those pictures more than two seconds) can't be a guy who used a pseudo for years and created something that would give the fame he seeks.

Psychology > cryptography.

roywiggins• 10 years ago

The thing that convinced me of his insincerity is that his website has right-click "protection." And it alert()s if you press ctrl-C in another hamfisted attempt at "copy protection". What genuine computer expert does that, let alone in 2016? Especially one who has thought seriously about cryptography.

jay_kyburz• 10 years ago

This whole thing is like some 90's cyberpunk novel.

nolta• 10 years ago

More like The Grifters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFBajRQIpg

outworlder• 10 years ago

On his LinkedIn profile, Wright claimed to hold two Phd’s from Charles Sturt University. The University told Forbes that it never granted Wright those Phd’s.

My goodness. At which point does it become possible to press charges? Can one just go around faking that they have degrees?

eng_monkey• 10 years ago

He also claims to have about 8 master degrees, which is ridiculous by itself. Plus tens of certifications including the 'prestigious' Microsoft ones. Just red flags all over the place.

Cached Linkedin profile: https://archive.is/Q66Gl

cromulent• 10 years ago

According to that link, he is the CEO of a company called DeMorgan, which is listed on that page as "DeMorgan Ltd (Panama)".

I wonder if there is any connection to the Panama Papers leak. Time will tell, I guess.

cantrevealname3• 10 years ago

You have a priceless Stradivarius violin. For some unfathomable reason, you stamp your violin with the words "Made in China". Now, no one believes it's a Strad. You take it to an appraiser, and he immediately says it's a fraud. "Strads are not made in China and you're a con man," he says.

Why would you stamp "Made in China" on a treasure like that? Maybe you were trying to make it less tempting for thieves, maybe you were trying to hide its value from the tax authorities, maybe you forget to take your meds and were acting irrationally that day.

It is a defaced Stradivarius, but still a Stradivarius. It doesn't matter because no one believes you.

Craig Wright does some silly things. Now, no matter what he says, ...

RUBwkVjwLsDKgPw• 10 years ago

Now if only there were a way to mathematically prove it was a Stradivarius...

Sacho• 10 years ago

Your analogy doesn't really exemplify what actually happened. I think this is a better one:

Craig brings a set of high-resolution pictures of a Stradivarius violin to an appraiser. The appraiser(Gavin) goes over them - they all look exactly how a Stradivarius violin would look. However, his colleague(public commentators, in this case) says the only way to really appraise a Strad is to see it in person, and that going through all the trouble of getting high-res pictures when you could just bring it over was pointless. Further, the colleague notes one of the pictures shows a "Made in China" stamp on the Strad, and as such guesses that Craig is trying to con them.

If a "Made in China" stamp in itself made an appraiser instantly discard the violin, then they haven't done their job. Similarly, if Craig had provided a strong crypto proof that he was Satoshi(the physical violin, in this scenario), but people disregarded it just because it's him, then we would match your analogy.

The analogy still doesn't really match reality - the reason why Gavin was convinced is because he used tools that gave him a high confidence that he wasn't being conned. Still, the way Craig decided to demonstrate that he was Satoshi was long-winded and complicated, for no discernible reason.

bunkydoo• 10 years ago

People are still asking the question? The story is obvious. He didn't pay his taxes since '08, he needed an excuse, he can't move original coins. End of story. It ain't him

devishard6• 10 years ago

This is ridiculous.

If Craig Wright came to me and said he was Satoshi Nakamoto, I'd say, "Sign it with the genesis block's private key or GTFO." This is crypto, bitcoin is built on incontrovertible, mathematical proof. Why the hell would Satoshi do anything else?

If it ever comes to light that Craig Wright is trying to use this lie for some monetary advantage, he should be arrested for fraud, which is what this is.

state• 10 years ago

Right. And Wright and everyone involved must know that. So can anyone explain their motives? I truly can't figure that part out.

Edit: alain makes a good point. It's not the 'motives' I want to know. I want the whole story.

alain94040• 10 years ago

Megalomaniacs will keep lying and dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves. You start with a small lie, and just can't stop, you have to keep going.

What's surprising though is the lack of judgment from BBC and other major news media. That same person made the same bogus claim 6 months ago. How does that not trigger major red flags? The only story worth writing about here is how he pulled off such a trick.

This is like God's existence. There is a simple way for God to tell us He exists, and which religion is right. But He never does. Instead, we must rely on testimony from various people, contradicting each other, and none of it is reproducible. Sure, you can believe... </controversial statement>

CPLX• 10 years ago

Perhaps the motive is simple.

Ever watched an episode of the show COPS where someone is wanted on a bunch of warrants and is going to jail for sure and goes on a high speed chase because hey why not right?

Maybe this guy is destined for the same thanks to his tax frauds, and is on a PR joyride.

I mean what's the downside?

rakoo• 10 years ago

The best supposition I've seen in this story comes from [https://cp4space.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/is-craig-wright/]:

However, on this occasion there is the added caveat that two well-known Bitcoin developers, Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen, purport that Wright is indeed right
The little-blockians want the block sizes of Bitcoin to remain small, and thus for it to be a pure decentralised currency that can be used by anyone with a computer. This would maintain it as a peer-to-peer currency, but would limit its growth.
By comparison, the big-blockians believe Bitcoin should grow into a universal currency, expanding the block size to accommodate absolutely every transaction. The downside is that this is beyond the computational limits of domestic machines, thereby meaning that Bitcoin could only be regulated by banks, governments, and other large organisations: thereby moving it away from a libertarian idyll into something more akin to a regular currency.
Matonis, Andresen and Wright are all big-blockians. Having the esteemed creator Satoshi on their side would help their argument, and it is entirely plausible that there are several large organisations who would benefit from having more control over the regulation of Bitcoin.

aorth• 10 years ago

You can't be arrested for pretending to be an internet superhero.

api• 10 years ago

You might be able to be if you use it to snow investors.

asddddd• 10 years ago

Tbe reason he's in Britain is because he fled Australia due to the ATO investigating his probably-fraudulent $50m+ R&D tax credits.

iamgopal• 10 years ago

I don't know much about cryptography, but can his keys be recreated with all the computing power all Bitcoin miners have ?

xseven• 10 years ago

Bitcoin would be useless if that were possible.

gruez• 10 years ago

To answer the question directly, no.

maverick_iceman• 10 years ago

I searched for Craig Wright's Linkedin profile. It's not available any more. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine doesn't track Linkedin. Does anyone have a cached copy of his Linkedin profile?

ino• 10 years ago

It was linked above: https://archive.is/Q66Gl

atomical• 10 years ago

After Newsweek named Dorian Nakamoto as the bitcoin creator I remember reading a post on Hacker News where a coffee shop owner's wife remembered seeing the same man use bitcoin to pay for a coffee. Was there any truth to this story?

jonah• 10 years ago

Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. Confirmation Bias. Power of suggestion. etc.

riprowan• 10 years ago

Wouldn't surprise me: as I recall, there was a fund raised for him by some people in the community as a gesture for having been a victim of "Bitcoin blowback."

amluto3• 10 years ago

Something else that stinks about all this that I haven't seen commented on:

Supposedly, Chris Wright did his ridiculous laptop dance with Gavin Andresen because he didn't want Gavin to leak the signature early.

What a load of crap. These are supposedly real cryptographers we're talking about here. If you ask a cryptographer (including, presumably, Satoshi) how they would prove their identity to someone else such that the other person couldn't leak the proof, the answer doesn't involve airplanes and fishy laptops running dubiously authentic Windows programs. The answer is deniable authentication.

In the bitcoin case, it's trivial. Satoshi's public key is g^p for some p that only Satoshi knows (using multiplicative notation) on a well-known and hopefully secure elliptic curve. You can use this key for ECDSA, but you can also use it for, drumroll please, Diffie-Hellman. Gavin picks a random scalar b and tells Craig Wright g^b. Chris replies with (g^b)^p [1]. Gavin checks that the result is the same as (g^p)^b.

This is deniable: Gavin can trivially make up the transcript of the protocol, so Gavin can't use it to prematurely convince anyone of anything. No airplanes needed.

There are plenty of other ways to do this. Pretty much any zero-knowledge proof of knowledge would work.

[1] In practice, this should be blinded to avoid cross-protocol attacks and relay attacks. Craig could send something like H("Hi Gavin, I am Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto" || (g^b)^p). A real cryptographer could double-check me here.

vonklaus• 10 years ago

I am going to take your word for it that this makes sense. However, I think what you may be missing is that it doesn't matter if Wright convinces you or even "any" of the crypto/alt coin community. While mathematical proofs are hard/impossible to fake, you are a subset of people that understand them to the degree that you could employ them here.

I have no idea what Wright's end game is, as you are obviously correct: his assertions make no sense. However, if somehow he believed there was value in convincing non-technical members of the public he was Satoshi, I think that is quite possible. I find this truth to be self-evident:

A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X, much easier than even a charismatic person could convince a group how to understand and employ a non-trivial group of mathematical equations.

We see this every day. It is totally possible, likely even, that if I can't understand your math- even if it is correct, and even if it is corroborated by others who understand it, I am weighing(or the general idea of "I" as the population) which person is correct based on a standard that is subjective. Possibly:

* He said he was Satoshi

* He had a crypto key I read about in wired.

* Gavin Andreessen appeared to corroborate and I googled him and he is important.

So, you are totally correct. I agree with you as even if I don't understand your math, I am sure there is a mathematical way to prove he was Satoshi by using a different set of keys, a signature or other mathematical proof. Unfortunately, he will likely be able to exploit Satoshi's name.

ricksplat2• 10 years ago

A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X

Which, given my limited understanding of bitcoin, is what makes the blockchain exponentially incorruptable. An attacker must convince all, not just X that she is Satoshi. Even if she manages this once, on the second iteration it becomes nearly impossible unless she has some capabilities outside the set of known possibilities.

So, he convinced people the first time around, just like Leah McGrath Goodman (about two years ago?) but the remainder of the compute nodes raised an inchoate response which invalidates those in agreement.

Eventually the consensus that he is an impostor propagates through the system. Eventually after the "buzz of the story" has died down the insight of experts (such as here) will be sought.

His attack "could" work if the experts were not consulted in this way, which I think is only possible in a pervasive 1984 scenario, but even still would bitcoin even be relevant in such a world?

It's hard to believe a cryptographer could think such an attack could work so I can only imagine, given he is an academic he has some sort of surreptitious goal in mind, such as to demonstrate to students the difficulties in attacking this system?

Atheros• 10 years ago

Even easier: Gavin could ask Satoshi which public key he still has the private keys for and then encrypt a message like "Gavin dfHte48FswdeIgre35VGFqwOIhedds" using the public key and ask Satoshi to send him back the text. This proves to Gavin that Satoshi is Satoshi and Gavin can't turn and take that proof to anyone else.

oleganza• 10 years ago

Encrypting to a ECC public key will involve Diffie-Hellman process described above, plus extra data mixed in. So just D-H would be easier ;)

0x07c02• 10 years ago

That would be the rational thing to do, but you assumes Wright is sane. Witch he probably is not. Also has someone look into the claim that he has the 17. fastest Super Computer? This things draw a loot of power (4,499.87 kW he claims) and produces a loot of heat. You cant hide it in your mothers basement.., local authorities will know about it. So will the power company! So there should be a paper trail there? (also SGI denied selling him the system) Wright's alleged system, was 15. now 17. fastest in the world: http://www.top500.org/system/178468

kerkeslager• 10 years ago

Gavin can trivially make up the transcript of the protocol, so Gavin can't use it to prematurely convince anyone of anything.

To clarify how this works: Bob generates a random b, then calculates (g^p)^b, and claims it was sent to Bob by Alice.

xorcist• 10 years ago

Another thing is that Gavin is a trusted individual the Bitcoin community, and CW is someone who back dated PGP keys in Satoshi's name. A zero-knowledge proof would perhaps have been logical with a more anonymous member of the community. But Gavin's word is the only evidence to this whole story.

If Gavin had leaked the signature, that would probably have spawned more speculation that Gavin is Satoshi rather than that CW is.

And presumably the reason to control the signature release is to make a big public bang. Kept secret it is useless. The only reason for that would be to make a public fool out of Gavin. Not very nice any way you look at it.

amluto3• 10 years ago

Another thing is that Gavin is a trusted individual the Bitcoin community

Which is a big part of what stinks. Gavin of all people should have relied on real crypto, not ridiculous demos. Color me very unimpressed.

luchs• 10 years ago

Note that your protocol isn't actually a zero-knowledge proof. While transcripts can be made up, a third person observing everything Gavin does would absolutely be convinced by the exchange. For real interactive zero-knowledge proof, even a dishonest prover has a good chance to provide a correct answer at each step. This isn't the case with the DH exchange.

Natanael_L• 10 years ago

That's why Signal uses triple DH. That setup allows for full deniability.

amluto3• 10 years ago

Only sort of. Gavin would have a hard time convincing the eavesdropper that he didn't leak b to Wright.

A much bigger issue in my mind is that, if Wright doesn't hash the final derived key properly, then Gavin can steal money from Wright/Satoshi -- Gavin would never have proved that he generated the challenge the way he said he did, and Gavin could use Wright as an exponentiation oracle.

Also, I suspect that my protocol can be abused by Gavin to defeat the deniability property if he properly manipulates his challenge. I'm not sure and haven't looked carefully, though.

Much better ZK protocols exist.

teddyuk• 10 years ago

what if he is actually satoshi but used this as an obvious error to put people off the scent :)

afro88• 10 years ago

Another theory: he destroyed the genesis block signing key and everything else that could prove he's satoshi in the beginning. Because, well, he didn't want to be linked to Bitcoin in case of unsavory government or corporate interactions.

But now Bitcoin has more or less gone mainstream and it's safe for him to reveal his identity, his human is kicking in and he's trying everything he can to claim the fame

known• 10 years ago

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer is Satoshi :)

ekiara• 10 years ago

If this is a hoax, I really don't understand what a Craig Wright can materially gain from claiming he is Satoshi. Unless he's playing some sort of long con, where he claims he doesn't want publicity or to profit from it, but then accepts a deal from someone to trade his non-existent genesis block Bitcoins for real hard currency. It'd be like a grifter in Las Vegas claiming he was a Sheikh or a Saudi Prince and refusing all inquiries from public, but then allowing one person to reach him and then swindling that person in a deal.

Or maybe the 'real' Satoshi Nakamoto offered Craig Wright a big chunk of bitcoins if he would claim to be Satoshi, so that his true identity would never be revealed.

ageofwant• 10 years ago

Or maybe he is just taking the piss. As an Australian, I'd applaud that.

mfukar• 10 years ago

The con is plausible. If I could point to a BBC article claiming I was indeed the founder of Bitcoin, I'd be able to turn some heads that wouldn't otherwise turn..

dineshp2• 10 years ago

FYI, Electrum has stated that there was no download of a signature file of Electrum from a UK IP address on April 7 [1].

This in itself does not prove that there was no download of an Electrum signature file to the laptop that Gavin was given. He could have connected using Tor or other services through which the real IP address is hidden, but this could be another reason to suspect there was some kind of MITM hack that Wright used. Also worth mentioning that the laptop was supposedly a factory sealed unit [2].

[1] https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/727366861592076288

[2] http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

ajonit• 10 years ago

Forget any of the crypto stuff, just ask Mr Wright to open another thread here (http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto) or any of the other forums he used to interact or edit one of his own forum posts! This should be trivially easy for the real Satoshi.

keypusher• 10 years ago

Here's the thing. Craig Wright was probably there, he may have even had the original idea, but it was his coworker/friend David Kleiman that actually implemented it. Or perhaps contracted someone else to implement it, as he was involved in the security industry and may have known players heavy enough to develop such algorithms. Either way, it was Kleiman that had the keys. It has become painfully obvious that Wright does not possess the technical skills to have created Bitcoin, and it also should be very obvious that he does not have the coins. He may have even written or at least contributed to the original paper. He might even be as close to a living "Satoshi Nakamoto" as there is, because David Kleiman died of MRSA in 2013. At this point, I don't think anyone alive has those keys, and Craig is trying to parlay his former role into something that he can actually turn into cash.

dunkelheit• 10 years ago

I am starting to think that all this is a postmodernist spectacle designed to instill the thought that searching for Satoshi is a lost cause.

jernfrost• 10 years ago

Man this is turning into something like the Kennedy assassination or Jack the ripper. There will be endless speculations and theories. At some point we will be all so confused that even if the real Satoshi stepped forward we wouldn't be able to believe it.

lordnacho• 10 years ago

The whole thing seems to be handwaving that only a non technical person could believe.

Because when you're not a technical person, you won't have good priors for what constitutes proof. You'll be falling back on the same intuition you use when reading a detective story. Who has motive, who has skill, and so on. None of which take you out of the zone of doubt (say between 10 and 90 percent certain) which is why detective stories are fun.

If you're a technical person, you can see how big a deal being able to sign is.

For me, it's pretty easy. If someone says they're Satoshi, we ask him to move some BTC from one of his addresses to another. They'll still be in trust (crappy excuse). If you can do that, you're either him or he essentially gave you his identity by giving you the key.

mouzogu• 10 years ago

Why did he lie?

Is he a serial liar trying to take credit for someone else's work or is this an elaborate attempt to get the real SN to reveal himself?

damian2000• 10 years ago

A lot of Craig Wright's presence on the Internet - wikipedia, linkedin, etc. is full of ego-inflating hyperbole. To go to these lengths though, for the sake of publicity (or notoriety) is pretty incredible.

msowygqogd• 10 years ago

Warning: hate speech ahead.

Sad fact: a single impostor clown wasted millions of hours of experts' and other smart people's time that could have been spent productively otherwise.

Real question: has Gavin got insane or what game is he playing?

Speculation: I lost my faith in Gavin in 2014 in Amsterdam where I could observe him joining The Bitcoin Foundation while it was already clear that TBF was full of shit, pedophiles and nonentities focused on self-promotion and earning a quick buck (with few exceptions). So my bet is on Gavin's gullibility. He's got tricked by the con artist to the level that he is going to defend his position against the evidence.

redcalx• 10 years ago

Another option to consider: Craig is being pressured to make this claim to flush out the real Satoshi.

partycoder• 10 years ago

What if he presented a fake proof, so people can refute it, and in this way he can finally stop people from accusing him from being Satoshi?

What is the benefit of having people know you are Satoshi? probably none. Any money he can make from being recognized as the creator of Bitcoin is not comparable to the money he could have made from early bitcoins.

machinelearning• 10 years ago

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. From Gavin's reddit account,

"Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1. That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum. I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement). I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post." src:https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen

jbrambleDC• 10 years ago

What are the chances that Gavin is Satoshi, or knows who Satoshi is and wants to corroborate Wright in order to protect Satoshis identity.

Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto

Related Stories