6 ms·

The cryptographically provable con man

160 points by rdl 11y ago

__abc 11y ago
Better than most shows on television at the moment!
- shirro 11y ago
  I don't know. I think The Good Wife had a more plausible take on the Bitcoin founder than this current story.
- aedron 11y ago
  Bitcoin's been entertainment gold for the entire ride thus far.
phasmantistes 11y ago
Good on Dan for being a voice of reason and collecting the findings of reddit/hn/#bitcoin into a central location. And as he says, good on Gavin for being equanimical despite the vitriol being thrown his direction from some quarters. The only thing to do now is to watch this play out... and I hope it does continue to play out, rather than Craig just going silent again. That would be much less exciting.
Animats 11y ago
Maybe whomever started Bitcoin lost any record of their early mining efforts. It's either that, or they're walking away from several hundred million dollars. Or they're dead.
- eru 11y ago
  Might have never stored the private key they mined to in the beginning. (I can see why someone with a specific ethic might start the currency that way---especially if they were still optimizing for bitcoin to take off at all, similar to avoiding pre-mining.)
  - rdl 11y ago
    It would be better to transfer the money publicly later to destroy the key. I think accidentally or non-provably losing the key to this is the worst possible thing -- no one can believe you, so they have to act as if you have the money, but you don't have control of it to do anything with it (including verifiably destroy it.)
    - eru 11y ago
      Yes. Though hindsight is 20:20, of course.
      - rdl 11y ago
        Except everyone involved in Bitcoin's creation was aware of about 20 years of precedent and discussion about these kinds of issues -- http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ -- so it wasn't really hindsight
        dakami 11y ago
        Everything before Bitcoin was really obsessed with anonymity, whereas Bitcoin was actually scared of centralization.
        rdl 11y ago
        Not everything (hashcash, some of Wei Dai's stuff, etc.) -- but I was more referring to how to do tests/proofs in mutually-distrustful environments, not the protocols themselves. Bitcoin was exceptional in a lot of ways -- most importantly, getting traction! -- decentralization, the ramping up, etc.
        dakami 11y ago
        I'm interested in more of your perspective here. I was around back in the Mojo Nation era as something of an observer, but there's lots maybe I didn't see.
- 09983292 11y ago
  Maybe they don't care about the money since they get whatever they need from the taxpayer.
- curiousgal 11y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone_rule_out_kleiman_wrights_dead_friend/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone...
apeace 11y ago
The post linked to in the OP is an excellent explainer for those who aren't familiar with the process of signing a message using a Bitcoin address' private key: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-deception.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-...
yongjik 11y ago
<pedantry> Well, but he's not really "cryptographically provable" con man. It's just that, if he were not a con man, his innocence would have been cryptographically provable. Right? </pedantry>
- spacehome 11y ago
  Maybe not just pedantry ... there were serious discussions on a previous thread that he's really Satoshi but is intentionally deflecting so that a close inspection makes it seem as if he's not. Doesn't seem likely to me, though.
  - nurettin 11y ago
    Serious discussions with priors that could lead to anyone claiming to be anyone and ending up being someone else on closer inspection? May I have a link for that?
    - spacehome 11y ago
      Sure there's a prior for that, as 0 and 1 are not probabilities.
- dakami 11y ago
  He said something was X, we have cryptographic proof it's Y.
  - sdevlin 11y ago
    I'm not familiar with all the details, but don't you just have an absence of proof that it's X?
    - dakami 11y ago
      That's exactly what makes this cool! Since we know the signed hash is a chunk from the Blockchain that is most assuredly not Sartre, we also know with cryptographic certainty that Wright does not possess a copy of Sartre with that hash. That would be what's known as a preimage attack -- given the hash from the Blockchain, find another SHA256 file with that hash. Wright could not even generate a malicious Sartre document with that property, without having executed a much larger crypto hack than Bitcoin itself.
eric_arrr 11y ago
What's puzzling here is that Wright proceeds with his charades as though he somehow knows the real Satoshi will not emerge to call him out on it. (There is some precedent for this: a long-dormant account controlled by the real Satoshi stirred to disclaim the identity of Dorian Nakamoto in 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-creator-returns-to-internet-to-say-i-am-not-dorian-nakamoto/#14954ae07f43 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-c...) If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today? I do not believe, for an instant, that Wright is Satoshi. But given the history, it seems plausible that Wright might have once been in the know as to Satoshi's true identity. Should he know the real Satoshi(s) to now be absent, it would likely embolden him to undertake this scam...
- dasil003 11y ago
  Given that he has the balls to attempt to pull off this kind of con which is transparent to anyone with half a clue, I doubt that the knowledge the real Satoshi could discredit him would weigh that heavily.
- koolba 11y ago
  > If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today? What if he knows the real Satoshi and that the real Satoshi wouldn't out him? For example he knows that the real Satoshi is deceased and/or won't come forward.
- jere 11y ago
  >If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today? One reason he might disclaim Dorian is that he simply wanted the poor man left alone. The claim that Dorian was the creator of Bitcoin was not only completely ridiculous on its face, but also a huge intrusion in the life of a clueless old man. Wright has brought a bunch of ridicule upon himself, but it's his own fault.
  - mod 11y ago
    Maybe it's just because nobody believes Wright. Not much to discredit.
dzdt 11y ago
The one theory I've seen that makes it make sense is that Dave Kleiman was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Kleiman died in 2013. Wright is trying to set up a claim on hundreds of millions of dollars of bitcoins, if they can ever be recovered from Kleiman's effects.
- MertsA 11y ago
  Someone posted on his P2P Foundation account back in March 2014 during the Dorian Nakamoto fiasco. I'd think it's very unlikely at best that Kleiman is Satoshi based on that alone.
  - dzdt 11y ago
    That account was later found to be compromised. It wasn't clear when the compromise took place, but quite possibly was before the email you mention was sent. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/16/satoshi-nakamoto-email-hack/#2b5bcd735fec http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/16/satoshi-n....
- x3sphere 11y ago
  I agree that Kleiman fits the profile of Satoshi more. There is a good write up here on it: https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/ https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-dav...
- vintermann 11y ago
  That would be Wright's second choice for what to get you to believe. But as I see it, Kleiman doesn't have nearly the credentials to be Sakamoto. He was well-informed on cryptography - for a policeman, which is what he was. There are only a handful of people in the world who can reliably design crypto protocols and have them not fail disastrously in practice. It's not something you do correctly at first try, so you can limit your search to academics who have published research on digital cash systems. You can count those people on one hand (and rule out most). Dave Kleiman isn't one of them, he only wrote stuff on forensics (hard drive wiping and stuff).
tempodox 11y ago
Would the real Satoshi Nakamoto please stand. Thank you.
sametmax 11y ago
Another theory: Craig is Satoshi, and people were on the verge of discovering that. So, smart as he is, he decides to reveal he is Satoshi, but in the worst way possible, so people thinks he is a fraud, and hence making sure he is off the radar for good and ever.
- kjs3 11y ago
  There's some pretty serious downsides to being known as a fraud. Whether being known as Satoshi is that much worse that the ding is worth it is a matter of debate.

160 points by rdl 11y ago

__abc 11y ago

Better than most shows on television at the moment!

shirro 11y ago
I don't know. I think The Good Wife had a more plausible take on the Bitcoin founder than this current story.
aedron 11y ago
Bitcoin's been entertainment gold for the entire ride thus far.

phasmantistes 11y ago

Good on Dan for being a voice of reason and collecting the findings of reddit/hn/#bitcoin into a central location. And as he says, good on Gavin for being equanimical despite the vitriol being thrown his direction from some quarters. The only thing to do now is to watch this play out... and I hope it does continue to play out, rather than Craig just going silent again. That would be much less exciting.

Animats 11y ago

Maybe whomever started Bitcoin lost any record of their early mining efforts. It's either that, or they're walking away from several hundred million dollars. Or they're dead.

eru 11y ago
Might have never stored the private key they mined to in the beginning. (I can see why someone with a specific ethic might start the currency that way---especially if they were still optimizing for bitcoin to take off at all, similar to avoiding pre-mining.)
- rdl 11y ago
  It would be better to transfer the money publicly later to destroy the key. I think accidentally or non-provably losing the key to this is the worst possible thing -- no one can believe you, so they have to act as if you have the money, but you don't have control of it to do anything with it (including verifiably destroy it.)
  - eru 11y ago
    Yes. Though hindsight is 20:20, of course.
    - rdl 11y ago
      Except everyone involved in Bitcoin's creation was aware of about 20 years of precedent and discussion about these kinds of issues -- http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ -- so it wasn't really hindsight
      - dakami 11y ago
        Everything before Bitcoin was really obsessed with anonymity, whereas Bitcoin was actually scared of centralization.
        rdl 11y ago
        Not everything (hashcash, some of Wei Dai's stuff, etc.) -- but I was more referring to how to do tests/proofs in mutually-distrustful environments, not the protocols themselves. Bitcoin was exceptional in a lot of ways -- most importantly, getting traction! -- decentralization, the ramping up, etc.
        dakami 11y ago
        I'm interested in more of your perspective here. I was around back in the Mojo Nation era as something of an observer, but there's lots maybe I didn't see.
09983292 11y ago
Maybe they don't care about the money since they get whatever they need from the taxpayer.
curiousgal 11y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone_rule_out_kleiman_wrights_dead_friend/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone...

apeace 11y ago

The post linked to in the OP is an excellent explainer for those who aren't familiar with the process of signing a message using a Bitcoin address' private key: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-deception.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/05/satoshi-how-craig-wrights-...

yongjik 11y ago

<pedantry> Well, but he's not really "cryptographically provable" con man. It's just that, if he were not a con man, his innocence would have been cryptographically provable. Right? </pedantry>

spacehome 11y ago
Maybe not just pedantry ... there were serious discussions on a previous thread that he's really Satoshi but is intentionally deflecting so that a close inspection makes it seem as if he's not. Doesn't seem likely to me, though.
- nurettin 11y ago
  Serious discussions with priors that could lead to anyone claiming to be anyone and ending up being someone else on closer inspection? May I have a link for that?
  - spacehome 11y ago
    Sure there's a prior for that, as 0 and 1 are not probabilities.
dakami 11y ago
He said something was X, we have cryptographic proof it's Y.
- sdevlin 11y ago
  I'm not familiar with all the details, but don't you just have an absence of proof that it's X?
  - dakami 11y ago
    That's exactly what makes this cool! Since we know the signed hash is a chunk from the Blockchain that is most assuredly not Sartre, we also know with cryptographic certainty that Wright does not possess a copy of Sartre with that hash. That would be what's known as a preimage attack -- given the hash from the Blockchain, find another SHA256 file with that hash. Wright could not even generate a malicious Sartre document with that property, without having executed a much larger crypto hack than Bitcoin itself.

eric_arrr 11y ago

What's puzzling here is that Wright proceeds with his charades as though he somehow knows the real Satoshi will not emerge to call him out on it. (There is some precedent for this: a long-dormant account controlled by the real Satoshi stirred to disclaim the identity of Dorian Nakamoto in 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-creator-returns-to-internet-to-say-i-am-not-dorian-nakamoto/#14954ae07f43 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-c...) If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today? I do not believe, for an instant, that Wright is Satoshi. But given the history, it seems plausible that Wright might have once been in the know as to Satoshi's true identity. Should he know the real Satoshi(s) to now be absent, it would likely embolden him to undertake this scam...

dasil003 11y ago
Given that he has the balls to attempt to pull off this kind of con which is transparent to anyone with half a clue, I doubt that the knowledge the real Satoshi could discredit him would weigh that heavily.
koolba 11y ago
> If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today? What if he knows the real Satoshi and that the real Satoshi wouldn't out him? For example he knows that the real Satoshi is deceased and/or won't come forward.
jere 11y ago
>If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today? One reason he might disclaim Dorian is that he simply wanted the poor man left alone. The claim that Dorian was the creator of Bitcoin was not only completely ridiculous on its face, but also a huge intrusion in the life of a clueless old man. Wright has brought a bunch of ridicule upon himself, but it's his own fault.
- mod 11y ago
  Maybe it's just because nobody believes Wright. Not much to discredit.

dzdt 11y ago

The one theory I've seen that makes it make sense is that Dave Kleiman was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Kleiman died in 2013. Wright is trying to set up a claim on hundreds of millions of dollars of bitcoins, if they can ever be recovered from Kleiman's effects.

MertsA 11y ago
Someone posted on his P2P Foundation account back in March 2014 during the Dorian Nakamoto fiasco. I'd think it's very unlikely at best that Kleiman is Satoshi based on that alone.
- dzdt 11y ago
  That account was later found to be compromised. It wasn't clear when the compromise took place, but quite possibly was before the email you mention was sent. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/16/satoshi-nakamoto-email-hack/#2b5bcd735fec http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/16/satoshi-n....
x3sphere 11y ago
I agree that Kleiman fits the profile of Satoshi more. There is a good write up here on it: https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-david-kleiman-was-satoshi-nakamoto-heres-why/ https://seebitcoin.com/2016/05/everything-makes-sense-if-dav...
vintermann 11y ago
That would be Wright's second choice for what to get you to believe. But as I see it, Kleiman doesn't have nearly the credentials to be Sakamoto. He was well-informed on cryptography - for a policeman, which is what he was. There are only a handful of people in the world who can reliably design crypto protocols and have them not fail disastrously in practice. It's not something you do correctly at first try, so you can limit your search to academics who have published research on digital cash systems. You can count those people on one hand (and rule out most). Dave Kleiman isn't one of them, he only wrote stuff on forensics (hard drive wiping and stuff).

tempodox 11y ago

Would the real Satoshi Nakamoto please stand. Thank you.

sametmax 11y ago

Another theory: Craig is Satoshi, and people were on the verge of discovering that. So, smart as he is, he decides to reveal he is Satoshi, but in the worst way possible, so people thinks he is a fraud, and hence making sure he is off the radar for good and ever.

kjs3 11y ago
There's some pretty serious downsides to being known as a fraud. Whether being known as Satoshi is that much worse that the ding is worth it is a matter of debate.