5 ms·

It is my understanding that signed messages are generally frowned upon in the Bitcoin community, Satoshi never signed his messages. This is because it is more

It is my understanding that signed messages are generally frowned upon in the Bitcoin community, Satoshi never signed his messages. This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it.

VMG 9y ago
> This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it. not in this instance
- gtrubetskoy 9y ago
  > not in this instance not really. why does it matter that this message is authentic? that 2x _really_ isn't going to happen? it can still happen, and it doesn't matter who posts what online.
  - TD-Linux 9y ago
    Jeff Garzik was the only author of btc1, the primary 2x implementation. For it to survive for any length of time, someone needs to step up and take over code maintainership.
  - s17n 9y ago
    "Who posts what online" is exactly what determines whether or not 2x happens.
black_puppydog 9y ago
I am torn between "This is somewhat tautological" and "This (the second sentence) is plain wrong, and the current situation is a perfect example why."
IncRnd 9y ago
Satoshi was in favor of digitally signing Bitcoin transactions to provide non-repudiation as an underpinning of Bitcoin ownership. > it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it. That statement actually favors the signing of this textual message, since digital signatures provide integrity control in addition to non-repudiation of origin.
- gtrubetskoy 9y ago
  Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case. Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. You can agree or post a response to argue a point. If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? And if it is from "Satoshi Nakomoto", how naive would you be to actually trust that? Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures. Even a signed message can be fake, it could be a lie or it could be written under duress. The only solution is to not trust signatures.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    > Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case. That doesn't matter, because people can independently look at the design of the crypto. Your point about authentic in this context is meaningless. > Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. That's exactly why you sign a message, to judge the veracity of the contents according to a trust anchor. > If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of signing messages. You don't sign to check stupidity, but to assert that important yet unsigned messages can be repudiated from the party believed to be the origin. Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures. That's WHY you sign messages. It isn't a reason not to sign messages. You are confusing authentication of origin with identity of sender.
    - gtrubetskoy 9y ago
      > You don't sign to check stupidity Right, you use your brain to check for stupidity, and once that check is complete, identity, authenticity and consistency of the message does not matter. Bitcoin is a trust-less protocol, you cannot and should not trust any node, miner, developer, any online or offline post. Trust is not a thing in the Bitcoin world, and the tradition of not signing communications is generally rooted in this concept.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TD-Linux 9y ago
This is effectively the announcement of discontinuation of software, and anything relating to that is usually signed. For example, Bitcoin Core release notes are signed when sent out via email, the binaries are reproducibly built and signed many times, and most git commits are signed by their author (and all merge commits are): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
asciimo 9y ago
Do you have a citation for your understanding? Seems plausible but this is the first time I've ever heard this part of the mythology. I'm especially interested because Craig S. Wright went on and on about how uncomfortable it made him to sign a message with an alleged Satoshi key. I wonder if he created this story.
rrhd 9y ago
So if I send a faked message from this guy saying "we changed out minds, fork now" it's not going to be an issue at all? Ridiculous.

VMG 9y ago

> This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it. not in this instance

gtrubetskoy 9y ago
> not in this instance not really. why does it matter that this message is authentic? that 2x _really_ isn't going to happen? it can still happen, and it doesn't matter who posts what online.
- TD-Linux 9y ago
  Jeff Garzik was the only author of btc1, the primary 2x implementation. For it to survive for any length of time, someone needs to step up and take over code maintainership.
- s17n 9y ago
  "Who posts what online" is exactly what determines whether or not 2x happens.

black_puppydog 9y ago

I am torn between "This is somewhat tautological" and "This (the second sentence) is plain wrong, and the current situation is a perfect example why."

IncRnd 9y ago

Satoshi was in favor of digitally signing Bitcoin transactions to provide non-repudiation as an underpinning of Bitcoin ownership. > it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it. That statement actually favors the signing of this textual message, since digital signatures provide integrity control in addition to non-repudiation of origin.

gtrubetskoy 9y ago
Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case. Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. You can agree or post a response to argue a point. If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? And if it is from "Satoshi Nakomoto", how naive would you be to actually trust that? Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures. Even a signed message can be fake, it could be a lie or it could be written under duress. The only solution is to not trust signatures.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  > Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case. That doesn't matter, because people can independently look at the design of the crypto. Your point about authentic in this context is meaningless. > Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. That's exactly why you sign a message, to judge the veracity of the contents according to a trust anchor. > If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of signing messages. You don't sign to check stupidity, but to assert that important yet unsigned messages can be repudiated from the party believed to be the origin. Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures. That's WHY you sign messages. It isn't a reason not to sign messages. You are confusing authentication of origin with identity of sender.
  - gtrubetskoy 9y ago
    > You don't sign to check stupidity Right, you use your brain to check for stupidity, and once that check is complete, identity, authenticity and consistency of the message does not matter. Bitcoin is a trust-less protocol, you cannot and should not trust any node, miner, developer, any online or offline post. Trust is not a thing in the Bitcoin world, and the tradition of not signing communications is generally rooted in this concept.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TD-Linux 9y ago

This is effectively the announcement of discontinuation of software, and anything relating to that is usually signed. For example, Bitcoin Core release notes are signed when sent out via email, the binaries are reproducibly built and signed many times, and most git commits are signed by their author (and all merge commits are): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master

asciimo 9y ago

Do you have a citation for your understanding? Seems plausible but this is the first time I've ever heard this part of the mythology. I'm especially interested because Craig S. Wright went on and on about how uncomfortable it made him to sign a message with an alleged Satoshi key. I wonder if he created this story.

rrhd 9y ago

So if I send a faked message from this guy saying "we changed out minds, fork now" it's not going to be an issue at all? Ridiculous.