3 ms·

<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 cryptographi

• 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.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    • yaur 11y ago
      here[1] is the text that he claims he signed. I wasn't able to tweak it in any reasonable way to make it match the supposed hash. You can give it a go if you want. [1]http://pastebin.com/zFxq6eiw http://pastebin.com/zFxq6eiw
      • dakami 11y ago
        Where does he claim this?