4 ms·

Aside from the obvious, can someone at least tell me how these claims are rationalized because they make no sense: 1) If the hackers copied and deleted the pri

Aside from the obvious, can someone at least tell me how these claims are rationalized because they make no sense: 1) If the hackers copied and deleted the private keys from his computer 2) Why does Bitcoin SV need to be modified in order for the funds to be accessed Do people on HN even know why those statements are not reconcilable? Does TheRegister, does the judge? I don't care what Craig Wright knows or thinks, he is a troll regardless, but I'm not even sure if his incoherent claims are something slightly more coherent that everyone else messed up. Wait, is he saying that because he doesn't have the private keys, he wants the whole Bitcoin SV network modified to give him access to funds in a specific address? lol. okay. I feel like he could just rent some hashpower to force a confidence breaking change on the network but I guess he wants court approval.

tylersmith 5y ago
What you said at the end is correct. He is aiming to have the courts somehow force through a Bitcoin hard fork that moves Satoshi's coins to an address controlled by himself, and he is including his Bitcoin fork, BSV, so that his team can implement the fork and show the courts it's a viable remedy. Then he'll say to the courts "look the developers and miners for BSV made the change so it's possible; You need to go after the Bitcoin people and make them do the same."
- vmception 5y ago
  So far I get the impression that judges are mildly amused by him, at least the one in Florida, otherwise they would commit him to an asylum or dismiss his cases outright
drexlspivey 5y ago
> I feel like he could just rent some hashpower to force a confidence breaking change on the network but I guess he wants court approval. Even with 100% hashpower you can’t steal coins from an address without the key
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  With 51% hashpower, you can make illegal (by consensus) transactions on the longest chain. This will fork off the validating nodes, but most light clients won’t see an issue and will follow the malicious chain.
  - nullc 5y ago
    In practice it doesn't actually work that way. Lite clients use a semi-trusted validator, and the semi-trusted validator won't be tricked. I say practice rather than theory because it's not just theory: There are many different forks of Bitcoin, including one created by Wright (BSV, "bitcoin satoshi vision" lol) which exist and are used and have lite clients. For many users, the brief exposure to the wrong chain if their validator starts giving them the wrong one isn't an actual problem-- they will notice and switch eventually and only get robbed if someone pays them on the malicious chain before they notice. Though this is the reason why the Bitcoin whitepaper recommends that users that accept frequent payments should prefer to run their own node.
    - jimmydorry 5y ago
      Thanks for your clarification nullc. I don’t quite follow: * How will the light clients notice if they are on the malicious chain if it has the most work (for simplicity they see 1 malicious node and 1 non-malicious)? The light wallet surely goes with the malicious validator with the longest chain, when it sees it. It’s obvious (to me) that the non-malicious validators won’t accept invalid blocks, but not so obvious to me why light wallets would follow the smaller chain. This is at the crux of what appears to be my misunderstanding of light clients. If you have a link, I would like to read more and it would probably save you time from repeating something you’ve likely said before. As a context reminder: GP claimed that it wasn’t possible to spend someone else’s money, even with 100% of the mining rate.
nullc 5y ago
> Wait, is he saying that because he doesn't have the private keys, he wants the whole Bitcoin SV network modified to give him access to funds in a specific address? lol. okay. Not just Bitcoin SV-- SV is pretty much only included because almost no one cares about it and he essentially controls it (the software for it has a proprietary license that gives him substantial control, at least when you factor in that he's threatened in public to sue anyone who makes a cleanroom version that doesn't accept his changes). He's also demanding the _bitcoin_ which is worth a lot more. > I feel like he could just rent some hashpower to force a confidence breaking change on the network but I guess he wants court approval. Hashpower wouldn't help him: he and his sponsor already control essentially 100% of the BSV hashpower and have for a long time. He doesn't want to change the order of transactions-- the coins in question haven't moved since 2011 (and weren't ever owned by him in any case, weren't previously owned by him even if you believe his story). What he wants is to bypass the authentication to let coins get spent without the required signatures. No amount of hashpower can do that. So what he wants is for everyone to adopt an alternative version of the Bitcoin protocol that contains a backdoor to allow bypassing that authentication. As to why he's suing the particular people he's suing, his arguments aren't coherent. --- but he's been going on about ruining them for years, long before the supposed theft happens, so it doesn't seem that hard to figure out. :)

tylersmith 5y ago

What you said at the end is correct. He is aiming to have the courts somehow force through a Bitcoin hard fork that moves Satoshi's coins to an address controlled by himself, and he is including his Bitcoin fork, BSV, so that his team can implement the fork and show the courts it's a viable remedy. Then he'll say to the courts "look the developers and miners for BSV made the change so it's possible; You need to go after the Bitcoin people and make them do the same."

vmception 5y ago
So far I get the impression that judges are mildly amused by him, at least the one in Florida, otherwise they would commit him to an asylum or dismiss his cases outright

drexlspivey 5y ago

> I feel like he could just rent some hashpower to force a confidence breaking change on the network but I guess he wants court approval. Even with 100% hashpower you can’t steal coins from an address without the key

jimmydorry 5y ago
With 51% hashpower, you can make illegal (by consensus) transactions on the longest chain. This will fork off the validating nodes, but most light clients won’t see an issue and will follow the malicious chain.
- nullc 5y ago
  In practice it doesn't actually work that way. Lite clients use a semi-trusted validator, and the semi-trusted validator won't be tricked. I say practice rather than theory because it's not just theory: There are many different forks of Bitcoin, including one created by Wright (BSV, "bitcoin satoshi vision" lol) which exist and are used and have lite clients. For many users, the brief exposure to the wrong chain if their validator starts giving them the wrong one isn't an actual problem-- they will notice and switch eventually and only get robbed if someone pays them on the malicious chain before they notice. Though this is the reason why the Bitcoin whitepaper recommends that users that accept frequent payments should prefer to run their own node.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    Thanks for your clarification nullc. I don’t quite follow: * How will the light clients notice if they are on the malicious chain if it has the most work (for simplicity they see 1 malicious node and 1 non-malicious)? The light wallet surely goes with the malicious validator with the longest chain, when it sees it. It’s obvious (to me) that the non-malicious validators won’t accept invalid blocks, but not so obvious to me why light wallets would follow the smaller chain. This is at the crux of what appears to be my misunderstanding of light clients. If you have a link, I would like to read more and it would probably save you time from repeating something you’ve likely said before. As a context reminder: GP claimed that it wasn’t possible to spend someone else’s money, even with 100% of the mining rate.

nullc 5y ago

> Wait, is he saying that because he doesn't have the private keys, he wants the whole Bitcoin SV network modified to give him access to funds in a specific address? lol. okay. Not just Bitcoin SV-- SV is pretty much only included because almost no one cares about it and he essentially controls it (the software for it has a proprietary license that gives him substantial control, at least when you factor in that he's threatened in public to sue anyone who makes a cleanroom version that doesn't accept his changes). He's also demanding the _bitcoin_ which is worth a lot more. > I feel like he could just rent some hashpower to force a confidence breaking change on the network but I guess he wants court approval. Hashpower wouldn't help him: he and his sponsor already control essentially 100% of the BSV hashpower and have for a long time. He doesn't want to change the order of transactions-- the coins in question haven't moved since 2011 (and weren't ever owned by him in any case, weren't previously owned by him even if you believe his story). What he wants is to bypass the authentication to let coins get spent without the required signatures. No amount of hashpower can do that. So what he wants is for everyone to adopt an alternative version of the Bitcoin protocol that contains a backdoor to allow bypassing that authentication. As to why he's suing the particular people he's suing, his arguments aren't coherent. --- but he's been going on about ruining them for years, long before the supposed theft happens, so it doesn't seem that hard to figure out. :)