5 ms·
He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam
by dzdt 10y ago
He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this.
One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assume their problem was an incorrect source text. And there was proof that the given hash value was signed by the key. But that did not survive internet scrutiny; it was noticed that the signature came from an old bitcoin transaction. Instead of signing the hashed Sartre text as claimed, it signed the old transaction.
The other scam proof was presented in private to reporters and bitcoin developers Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. Here Wright supposedly demonstrated the ability to sign arbitrary messages using keys from bitcoin blocks 1 and 9. This scam succeeded: both Andresen and Matonis were convinced. But they were not allowed to keep copies of the evidence, to prevent the trick from being exposed. One speculation is that Wright was able to substitute a doctored version of the Electrum software used for the verification. But without evidence to examine outside of Wright's control, the exact details of the scam are still hidden.
But now Wright is out of ideas. His public-consumption scam failed, and his private controlled-scenario scam can't be more widely replicated.
So this message is his way of backing out, trying as much as possible to save face and keep open the possibility of claiming the Satoshi Nakamoto identity again later.
- ryao 10y agoI had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way that you are acting, you are acting exactly like he intended for you to act. There is simply insufficient public evidence to say whether he is or is not. He is in that pesky excluded middle that gives rise to pseudo-Boolean logic. That being said, people should realize that the creator of Bitcoin does not want to be found and honor that.
- dzdt 10y agoSo you expected the real Satoshi to keep his anonymity by announcing his identity to the world and then backing up the announcement with "proof" that is clearly false?
- sandstrom 10y agoThis. And the way he did it. Why would he run to GQ and BBC instead of simply posting online, as with previous communication.
- tim333 10y agoIf you read the first comment there's a lot of stuff you would not expect of the real Satoshi: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611
- scott_s 10y agoIf Wright was indeed Satoshi, but now wanted people to think he is not Satoshi, he would simply say "I lied, I'm not Satoshi."
- it_learnses 10y agoThis is how religions start. Congrats, you are the first of the "believers".
- stupidcar 10y agoWat? People who "simply do not want to be found" don't make any sorts of claims whatsoever. People who make fraudulent claims are scammers, plain and simple. The fraudulent evidence that Wright has presented doesn't make it more likely that he's Satoshi, they make it much, much less likely. At this point, it's more reasonable to assume Donald Trump invented BitCoin than Wright.
- LoSboccacc 10y agoIf we want to follow the conspiracy theory path, then this is sort of a last resort trick that may work when you're building up suspicion and need a way out, instead he started the whole charade without actually being ever closed to be linked to Satoshi
- vph 10y ago>One speculation is that Wright was able to ... Apparently, he was able to prove, but did not allow others to keep copies of the evidence. At best, you can suspect. But how can you conclude so strongly that this was a "scam"?
- chrisfosterelli 10y agoThe argument is that there is no legitimate reason for Wright to not allow them to keep copies of the proof, aside from the reason that the hardware/software he provided was a tampered version and the proof would not actually work on any machine not provided by him.
- hackuser 10y agoThat raises serious questions, but is not at all conclusive.
- chrisfosterelli 10y agoSure, but then you consider the undeniably faked proof published on his blog, and now this inability to meet his recent promise to provide real proof today. For someone who actually had Satoshi's keys, all of this is probably more work than just publishing real proof in the first place. If he was actually the creator of Bitcoin, this is the worst possible way he could convince people of it. That's were the extreme doubt comes from.
- hackuser 10y agoI think you greatly underestimate the real harm done to people who are victimized by online (and offline) mobs; people become objects of the sport of public vitriol. Just look at the remarks in this discussion; it's not a rational discussion, it's people acting out in anger - because it's become acceptable to hurt this person. I can completely understand someone not wanting to deal with it any longer. Also, it doesn't matter what he does or says at this point; nobody will look at the evidence (even now, likley few in this discussion know more than what others in the mob have told them) and he will be lynched. Anything he does only will fuel the fire.
- dandrick 10y agoAs someone mostly in the dark about bitcoin and the community around it, why does this matter at all? Why do people care who created it at this stage, and if that person should come forth, what would the impact be? What could such a person realistically do?
- pavedwalden 10y agoSatoshi is believed to control the first million or so Bitcoin that were created, so they would wield quite a lot of power over the Bitcoin market.
- dandrick 10y agoThat part I do understand, but this is already the case isn't it? Whether Satoshi comes forward or remains hidden. I wondered if it were more of a worry in the community that Satoshi would, perhaps, attempt to exert some form of central control, which I'm relatively certain is considered a bad thing in that community.
- shmapf 10y agoDon't underestimate curiosity. Whoever satoshi really is, he / they managed to release some truly ground breaking software, anonymously, and that software has never been broken, and millions if not billions of dollars rests upon that work. It all came from nowhere. I for one have a lot of respect for this satoshi, and if they ever reveal themselves I would like to find out more about them, purely because they sound quite interesting. Earlier this week Craig wright came out with a wild claim with "proof" that actually worked against his favour if anything. Most people see this as a selfish act to try to claim fame and respect, while having the audacity to claim that he doesn't want that. This naturally puts him in a very dislikeable position, and I imagine many people wanted to see how he would attempt to worm his way out of this mess he has got himself in, knowing full well he couldn't produce the goods. You're right that it "doesn't matter" but then at some level perhaps nothing does... It all comes down to subjective interest at the end of the day.
- dandrick 10y ago