4 ms·

Apparently Gizmodo has been investigating this for even longer (!) and has a lot of other evidence for Wright=Satoshi too: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-sa

by cba9 11y ago

Apparently Gizmodo has been investigating this for even longer (!) and has a lot of other evidence for Wright=Satoshi too: http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692 http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-frie...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- chroma 11y ago
  I think Gizmodo's is a much less rigorous article than the Wired one. It mostly consists of accusations and circumstantial evidence. Every early player in Bitcoin development has these in spades. In a world where Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi, we'd see the exact same tenuous evidence. In contrast, the Wired article stays close to the facts (GPG keys, email addresses, IPs, etc) and hedges its bets. Wright might be Satoshi. He might be a hoaxer. We don't know. It's not as satisfying to read as the Gizmodo pablum, but it's much more accurate.
  - mortehu 11y ago
    I have looked at the GPG keys, and based on the hash algorithm preference order, I believe they were created after [edit: July 2009], by a gnupg version following this[1] commit, on a computer with its clock set to 2008. 1. http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit;h=e50cac1d848d332c4dbf49d5f705d3cbbf074ba1 http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit... [edited]
    - qume 11y ago
      Which hash did he use? The change you link to has the same SHA-256 as the first option both before and after the change. Did he use something else? I'm curious to know your thoughts on the scenario whereby another hash would be chosen for him by the software, and whether or not he may have chosen a specific hash? This is potentially a good line of enquiry with more info
    - 4oh9do 11y ago
      If this is true, then it's pretty substantial evidence that this guy is a hoaxer. But can you really tell when a key-pair was generated? This would make for a fascinating write-up if you could please spend the time to explain.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
That's mostly evidence for my theory: he's an egomaniac trying to sell a story. Almost all of this goes back to him or the leaker as a matter of faith. It all appears way after Bitcoin appears. Everything about how he presents himself comes off as playing to a mystique to draw people in. I'd buy the leaks if the hacker posted a message as Satoshi using stolen credential and linked to this article. Meanwhile, the "hacker" is probably Wright with nothing to do with Satoshi other than make money on his name.
- alfiedotwtf 11y ago
  > he's an egomaniac trying to sell a story Awesome guerrilla marketing. Journalists want the scoop of the century - outing the real Satoshi. By back filling history, they gave exactly what they wanted, and they took it hook, line and sinker.
  - daveguy 11y ago
    Except is that really the scoop of the century? Do people really care that much? If the media would just leave the real guy alone we could have the added benefit of preventing false self-marketing too. How about we just ignore all these "the real satoshi!" articles?
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      It's already in Wired, has 212 points on Hacker News, and who knows what value to people assessing him in academia or business sectors. Altogether, enough people care for it to matter to a tech egomaniac. Not "scoop of the century" or anything, though.
      - alfiedotwtf 11y ago
        Sorry, when I said journalists, I meant tech journalists.
        11y ago

by cba9 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

chroma 11y ago
I think Gizmodo's is a much less rigorous article than the Wired one. It mostly consists of accusations and circumstantial evidence. Every early player in Bitcoin development has these in spades. In a world where Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi, we'd see the exact same tenuous evidence. In contrast, the Wired article stays close to the facts (GPG keys, email addresses, IPs, etc) and hedges its bets. Wright might be Satoshi. He might be a hoaxer. We don't know. It's not as satisfying to read as the Gizmodo pablum, but it's much more accurate.
- mortehu 11y ago
  I have looked at the GPG keys, and based on the hash algorithm preference order, I believe they were created after [edit: July 2009], by a gnupg version following this[1] commit, on a computer with its clock set to 2008. 1. http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit;h=e50cac1d848d332c4dbf49d5f705d3cbbf074ba1 http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit... [edited]
  - qume 11y ago
    Which hash did he use? The change you link to has the same SHA-256 as the first option both before and after the change. Did he use something else? I'm curious to know your thoughts on the scenario whereby another hash would be chosen for him by the software, and whether or not he may have chosen a specific hash? This is potentially a good line of enquiry with more info
  - 4oh9do 11y ago
    If this is true, then it's pretty substantial evidence that this guy is a hoaxer. But can you really tell when a key-pair was generated? This would make for a fascinating write-up if you could please spend the time to explain.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

That's mostly evidence for my theory: he's an egomaniac trying to sell a story. Almost all of this goes back to him or the leaker as a matter of faith. It all appears way after Bitcoin appears. Everything about how he presents himself comes off as playing to a mystique to draw people in. I'd buy the leaks if the hacker posted a message as Satoshi using stolen credential and linked to this article. Meanwhile, the "hacker" is probably Wright with nothing to do with Satoshi other than make money on his name.

alfiedotwtf 11y ago
> he's an egomaniac trying to sell a story Awesome guerrilla marketing. Journalists want the scoop of the century - outing the real Satoshi. By back filling history, they gave exactly what they wanted, and they took it hook, line and sinker.
- daveguy 11y ago
  Except is that really the scoop of the century? Do people really care that much? If the media would just leave the real guy alone we could have the added benefit of preventing false self-marketing too. How about we just ignore all these "the real satoshi!" articles?
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    It's already in Wired, has 212 points on Hacker News, and who knows what value to people assessing him in academia or business sectors. Altogether, enough people care for it to matter to a tech egomaniac. Not "scoop of the century" or anything, though.
    - alfiedotwtf 11y ago
      Sorry, when I said journalists, I meant tech journalists.
      - 11y ago