4 ms·

The non-experts did not ask to see things which would be hard for non-Satoshi to provide -- they were at the mercy of the charlatan (paging James Randi, James R

by zenon 10y ago

The non-experts did not ask to see things which would be hard for non-Satoshi to provide -- they were at the mercy of the charlatan (paging James Randi, James Randi to the courtesy phone please). I'm mystified as to how this got past Andresen, though. I think Randi would be the first to tell us that the skills required to detect a good conman are quite different from skills in technical fields. http://www.livescience.com/9066-magician-scientists-assume-infallibility.html http://www.livescience.com/9066-magician-scientists-assume-i... I bet Andresen simply got tricked, and I think he should not feel to ashamed about it (although he will) -- most of us would have fallen for it.

oneloop 10y ago
Nope. There is no way I would've bought into that "you can't keep the evidence" bullshit, I don't care if you're the Pope. I think Gavin maybe got a little starry eyed thinking he was talking to the bitcoin god himself and let his guard down. What a shame.
- seren 10y ago
  I read it as a successful social engineering by Wright. If you have been convinced by Wright before the "proof" took place(by whatever seemingly convincing arguments or trick), it is easier to be taken off guard.
  - oneloop 10y ago
    Indeed
- riprowan 10y ago
  If there's one thing you can fault Gavin for, it's maybe being too kind and trusting of others in a particularly hostile, dog-eat-dog tech space (Bitcoin).
rudolf0 10y ago
I agree, but look at what Andresen said: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2plygg https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p... >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). It's quite suspect he wouldn't be allowed to keep the message, and that no public message and signature has been produced. But assuming he's not lying, this doesn't really seem like a scenario where he could be easily tricked.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- isp 10y ago
  My best guess is that Gavin has been duped by a sleight of hand (like a magician would use) by Craig. My best guess, based on what I've read so far, is this: - Gavin supplied his own text for the message. - Craig faked running "sha256sum" on this message on his own laptop. The real "sha256sum" program could have been overwritten with a fake program that always output the same "hash". This is the "magic trick": the "hash" is attacker-controlled, and doesn't actually correspond to Gavin's message. Rather, the hash corresponds to an old message on the block chain - see, e.g., https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/893815f426f181d838c1b44aa187f05a https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/893815f426f181d838c1b44a... - Then from there, presto. The signature validates (and can be validated on Gavin's clean laptop) - because it's a real Satoshi signature, from the public blockchain years ago. But what it validates against is a "fake" hash - that Gavin thinks corresponds to his own message, but actually doesn't. Easy to see how that would be a very, very convincing demonstration, after some social engineering. But all sleight of hand. This is (I believe) why Craig has all this blurb up on https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/ https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not... - it's to hide the trick, which is that he doesn't give us the file "Spartre". He supplies only a (presumably faked) screenshot of sha256sum against this file. Making you type in the hash by hand is misdirection, so you don't realise that you don't have the original file.

by zenon 10y ago

oneloop 10y ago

Nope. There is no way I would've bought into that "you can't keep the evidence" bullshit, I don't care if you're the Pope. I think Gavin maybe got a little starry eyed thinking he was talking to the bitcoin god himself and let his guard down. What a shame.

seren 10y ago
I read it as a successful social engineering by Wright. If you have been convinced by Wright before the "proof" took place(by whatever seemingly convincing arguments or trick), it is easier to be taken off guard.
- oneloop 10y ago
  Indeed
riprowan 10y ago
If there's one thing you can fault Gavin for, it's maybe being too kind and trusting of others in a particularly hostile, dog-eat-dog tech space (Bitcoin).

rudolf0 10y ago

I agree, but look at what Andresen said: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2plygg https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p... >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). It's quite suspect he wouldn't be allowed to keep the message, and that no public message and signature has been produced. But assuming he's not lying, this doesn't really seem like a scenario where he could be easily tricked.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
isp 10y ago
My best guess is that Gavin has been duped by a sleight of hand (like a magician would use) by Craig. My best guess, based on what I've read so far, is this: - Gavin supplied his own text for the message. - Craig faked running "sha256sum" on this message on his own laptop. The real "sha256sum" program could have been overwritten with a fake program that always output the same "hash". This is the "magic trick": the "hash" is attacker-controlled, and doesn't actually correspond to Gavin's message. Rather, the hash corresponds to an old message on the block chain - see, e.g., https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/893815f426f181d838c1b44aa187f05a https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/893815f426f181d838c1b44a... - Then from there, presto. The signature validates (and can be validated on Gavin's clean laptop) - because it's a real Satoshi signature, from the public blockchain years ago. But what it validates against is a "fake" hash - that Gavin thinks corresponds to his own message, but actually doesn't. Easy to see how that would be a very, very convincing demonstration, after some social engineering. But all sleight of hand. This is (I believe) why Craig has all this blurb up on https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/ https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not... - it's to hide the trick, which is that he doesn't give us the file "Spartre". He supplies only a (presumably faked) screenshot of sha256sum against this file. Making you type in the hash by hand is misdirection, so you don't realise that you don't have the original file.