Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto
May 2, 2016 3:12 AM Subscribe
Mr Wright has provided technical proof to back up his claim using coins known to be owned by Bitcoin's creator. Prominent members of the Bitcoin community and its core development team have also confirmed Mr Wright's claim.Previously.
My first thought was, "why is he revealing himself now, and what does he expect to gain by it." The article answers this, in a way, and the answer is both prosaic and kind of predictable in hindsight.
posted by ardgedee at 3:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ardgedee at 3:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Economist article has quite a bit more content, including this observation:
And he rejected the idea of having The Economist send him another text to sign as proof that he actually possesses these private keys, rather than simply being the first to publish a proof which was generated at some point in the past by somebody else. Either people believe him now—or they don’t, he says. “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”posted by effbot at 3:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's a lot of skepticism and outright dismissal of this. See for example
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/
I'm no expert, but it looks like the preponderance of evidence is that this is a scam.
posted by ffmike at 3:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrights_signature_is_worthless/
I'm no expert, but it looks like the preponderance of evidence is that this is a scam.
posted by ffmike at 3:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
/r/bitcoin is all over this and the consensus is that he's a fraud.
He copy pasted publicly available information relating to one of Satoshi's transactions back in 2009, and gullible journalists accepted that as sufficient proof. He might be Satoshi, but this isn't proof of it.
posted by Mons Veneris at 3:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
He copy pasted publicly available information relating to one of Satoshi's transactions back in 2009, and gullible journalists accepted that as sufficient proof. He might be Satoshi, but this isn't proof of it.
posted by Mons Veneris at 3:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
Dan Kaminsky's analysis
"So Craig Wright is claiming to be Satoshi, and importantly, Gavin Andreson believes him. I say importantly because normally I wouldn’t even give this document a second thought, it’s obviously scam style. But Gavin. Yet, the procedure that’s supposed to prove Dr. Wright is Satoshi is aggressively, almost-but-not-quite maliciously resistant to actual validation. OK, anyone can take screenshots of their terminal, but sha256sums of everything but the one file you actually would like a hash of?"
posted by mystyk at 3:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
"So Craig Wright is claiming to be Satoshi, and importantly, Gavin Andreson believes him. I say importantly because normally I wouldn’t even give this document a second thought, it’s obviously scam style. But Gavin. Yet, the procedure that’s supposed to prove Dr. Wright is Satoshi is aggressively, almost-but-not-quite maliciously resistant to actual validation. OK, anyone can take screenshots of their terminal, but sha256sums of everything but the one file you actually would like a hash of?"
posted by mystyk at 3:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Didn't we all decide that Wright was a bloviating scam artist, like, 6 months ago?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:05 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:05 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wright? Wrong.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:12 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:12 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Didn't we all decide that Wright was a bloviating scam artist, like, 6 months ago?
Yes, but he's provided new evidence, apparently enough to trick some bitcoin developers and keep the bitcoin crowd distracted for a couple of hours before people started punching holes in the story.
posted by effbot at 4:12 AM on May 2, 2016
Yes, but he's provided new evidence, apparently enough to trick some bitcoin developers and keep the bitcoin crowd distracted for a couple of hours before people started punching holes in the story.
posted by effbot at 4:12 AM on May 2, 2016
...it’s obviously scam style. But Gavin.
An opinion that I stole from HN is perhaps Gavin needs to use something like this to get the upperhand in the current struggle between classic and the new fork; a stolen opinion, but, Occam's razor and all that.
posted by eclectist at 4:13 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
An opinion that I stole from HN is perhaps Gavin needs to use something like this to get the upperhand in the current struggle between classic and the new fork; a stolen opinion, but, Occam's razor and all that.
posted by eclectist at 4:13 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really hope he turns out to be legitimate, because the fury of /r/bitcoin over his revelation is utterly delightful.
posted by rorgy at 4:22 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rorgy at 4:22 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hmmm Hitler Diaries - Hugh Trevor-Roper anyone?
posted by numberstation at 4:33 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by numberstation at 4:33 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mr Wright has revealed his identity to three media organisations - the BBC, the Economist and GQ.
What, no Newsweek????
posted by indubitable at 4:34 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
What, no Newsweek????
posted by indubitable at 4:34 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Central Banks don't provide drama nearly this fun. Just one more way in which Bitcoin is superior.
posted by Alluring Mouthbreather at 4:47 AM on May 2, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Alluring Mouthbreather at 4:47 AM on May 2, 2016 [16 favorites]
Maybe it's Stephen Wright who invented Bitcoin...
The other day I... uh, no, that wasn't me.
posted by chavenet at 4:56 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
The other day I... uh, no, that wasn't me.
posted by chavenet at 4:56 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
What a mess. I'm sad to see otherwise reputable news organizations sucked into this, which seems to just be more bitcoin drama TM.
posted by smackfu at 4:58 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by smackfu at 4:58 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can't wait for the overly complicated and really boring movie starring this guy!
posted by valkane at 5:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by valkane at 5:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
/r/bitcoin is all over this and the consensus is that he's a fraud.
Dunno that I would use that as evidence of anything considering that the consensus on /r/bitcoin is that Bitcoin is worth caring about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:22 AM on May 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
Dunno that I would use that as evidence of anything considering that the consensus on /r/bitcoin is that Bitcoin is worth caring about.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:22 AM on May 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
vreenak.gif
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:22 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:22 AM on May 2, 2016
I invented bitcoin. And so did my wife!
posted by Naberius at 6:40 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 6:40 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Dunno that I would use that as evidence of anything considering that the consensus on /r/bitcoin is that Bitcoin is worth caring about.
At least we can be certain of one thing: this is good for Bitcoin.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
At least we can be certain of one thing: this is good for Bitcoin.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
> the consensus on /r/bitcoin is that Bitcoin is worth caring about.
Generally, comments that amount to "who cares about this whole topic" are considered gauche on Metafilter - because if you really didn't care, you wouldn't be commenting in the first place.
Anyone who's interested in the future of money has to care about bitcoin, even if like me you're very dubious about its long-term prospects.
Count me in, by the way, in the "this whole announcement is a lie" camp. If Wright were Satoshi, he could prove it in seconds by emitting a signed message. He hasn't done it; everything he has provided is voluminously bogus; he's a fake.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
Generally, comments that amount to "who cares about this whole topic" are considered gauche on Metafilter - because if you really didn't care, you wouldn't be commenting in the first place.
Anyone who's interested in the future of money has to care about bitcoin, even if like me you're very dubious about its long-term prospects.
Count me in, by the way, in the "this whole announcement is a lie" camp. If Wright were Satoshi, he could prove it in seconds by emitting a signed message. He hasn't done it; everything he has provided is voluminously bogus; he's a fake.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
Tiber Septim was believed to have invented Bitcoin in 3E 4, though it was initially produced as a proof of concept. This is why that denomination bears his likeness twice, though most merchants and officials in Tamriel regard "That Lucky Old Coin" as little more than a myth.
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's a fraud. The Economist article linked above is a good layman's explanation of some of the reasons to be skeptical. This Reddit comment has technical detail; according to that, the signature he presented was generated years ago and is in the public record and doesn't even match the Sartre text he claims it signs.
If it's somehow not a fraud it's very, very simple for Craig Wright to prove he does have the Satoshi private keys. All he has to do is sign a message someone gives him. When The Economist challenged him to sign something he refused saying “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.” Uh huh. And if he is Satoshi he is sitting on $200M+ worth of Bitcoin. Maybe if he starts spending it we should believe him.
The shame here is why so many press outlets ran Wright's story. He orchestrated his fraud with a careful media campaign and it worked, at least for a few hours. The Economist did some actual reporting, BBC mostly just reported Wright's fraudulent claim without appropriate skepticism.
The real story may be how Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen got duped. The technical fraud here is not hard to spot, how did he get conned? As of a few hours ago the other Bitcoin developers removed Andresen's commit access. Folks are gossiping this is all somehow about the politics of the big Bitcoin fork / debate, but who knows.
(As with all Bitcoin stories I lament that I can't read Chinese. A huge amount of Bitcoin activity, including the majority of mining, is happening in China. Their opinions are possibly more informed and relevant than much of the English-speaking Internet.)
posted by Nelson at 6:55 AM on May 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
If it's somehow not a fraud it's very, very simple for Craig Wright to prove he does have the Satoshi private keys. All he has to do is sign a message someone gives him. When The Economist challenged him to sign something he refused saying “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.” Uh huh. And if he is Satoshi he is sitting on $200M+ worth of Bitcoin. Maybe if he starts spending it we should believe him.
The shame here is why so many press outlets ran Wright's story. He orchestrated his fraud with a careful media campaign and it worked, at least for a few hours. The Economist did some actual reporting, BBC mostly just reported Wright's fraudulent claim without appropriate skepticism.
The real story may be how Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen got duped. The technical fraud here is not hard to spot, how did he get conned? As of a few hours ago the other Bitcoin developers removed Andresen's commit access. Folks are gossiping this is all somehow about the politics of the big Bitcoin fork / debate, but who knows.
(As with all Bitcoin stories I lament that I can't read Chinese. A huge amount of Bitcoin activity, including the majority of mining, is happening in China. Their opinions are possibly more informed and relevant than much of the English-speaking Internet.)
posted by Nelson at 6:55 AM on May 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think that, at this stage, and unless considerable new information comes out, Satoshi's identity is unprovable. Wright is not behaving as if he really does have access to stuff known to 'Satoshi' at the time Bitcoin was created - there is nothing he has done which unambiguously proves his assumption of the name - and even if he did, then what? What if he was a periphery player on a team, who had access to some information? What if some of Satoshi's private key info was passed to him subsequently, or he obtained it through fair means or foul?
I haven't read all of the stuff about Wright this time around, but I don't think he's provided any new information about the actual creation of Bitcoin, at least that can be checked. No email transcripts, nothing about the development process or testing... nothing that adds anything. It doesn't smell right.
As for Bitcoin - it's a sideshow anyway. The real meat is in the distributed ledger, which is a real breakthrough in assigning authenticity and proof of ownership to digital goods without a central authority. Inasmuch as authenticity and proof of ownership is central to our society and economy, and digital is central to our society and economy, the ledger technology cannot help but be a significant development.
posted by Devonian at 7:10 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I haven't read all of the stuff about Wright this time around, but I don't think he's provided any new information about the actual creation of Bitcoin, at least that can be checked. No email transcripts, nothing about the development process or testing... nothing that adds anything. It doesn't smell right.
As for Bitcoin - it's a sideshow anyway. The real meat is in the distributed ledger, which is a real breakthrough in assigning authenticity and proof of ownership to digital goods without a central authority. Inasmuch as authenticity and proof of ownership is central to our society and economy, and digital is central to our society and economy, the ledger technology cannot help but be a significant development.
posted by Devonian at 7:10 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I guess it's time to come clean. I created bitcoin. (Well, my cat, Catoshi Nakatmoto did.) It's kind of embarrassing, but the whole thing was a mistake. I was fooling around one night trying to learn Ruby on Rails (I know, I know...) and typed in some stuff wrong, and got up to get another beer, and my cat sat on the keyboard, and, well, bitcoin. Ta-dah. I posted the whole thing on Fark with the cat's name switched up a little bit because it was so obviously a cat's name, and, well, things kind of took off. Anyway, I'm sorry about any confusion. It just got where at first it was just a funny thing, like a little joke between me and my cat, but now it's this whole big thing and I've had to change my cat's actual name, which she did not take well, and I really didn't mean any harm. I know I should provide some kind of, like, hash numbers or something to prove it, but, like I said, the cat accidentally put some stuff in there, and the hard-drive crashed on that laptop back a couple of years ago and the Geek Squad wanted, like 200 dollars to fix it and, I mean, I was never great at commenting my code anyway. So, once again, I apologise.
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Satoshi's identity is unprovable.
Oh it's easily provable. There's at least two private keys known only to Satoshi; his signing PGP key, and the Bitcoin keys used to mine the first Bitcoins. It would be very easy for someone to demonstrate they have those keys. Which I suppose is not entirely unambiguous that the person with the keys is the person who wrote the code and papers 6+ years ago, but is a strong hint.
I think most of us keep expecting some eccentric greybeard cypherpunk is going to step forward, demonstrate he has the keys, and will otherwise be credible as the person with the skills to have invented Bitcoin. Hal Finney fit that description perfectly but went to his grave denying his Satoshi and no one had reason to doubt him.
The astonishing thing to me is that Satoshi Bitcoin key is worth $200M. And none of that original money has ever been spent. That's a lot of money to sit on for a very long time. One theory is that the key got lost, which I suppose is possible but wow, really? My favorite crackpot theory is that Satoshi is actually a government agency experiment, maybe an NSA side project. It's 3/4 plausible.
(While I'm here; the other Bitcoin insider who got duped this time by Craig Wright is Jon Matonis. He used to be the executive director of the Bitcoin Foundation, itself a highly compromised organization. Seriously, the Bitcoin leadership is a clown fiesta of the first order. Gavin Andresen being duped is a bigger deal because he had commit privileges to the Bitcoin Core code.
Also here's Gavin Andresen explaining why he was convinced Wright is Satoshi. Wright signed a message Andresen provided him. But all done in unverifiable circumstances.)
posted by Nelson at 7:37 AM on May 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh it's easily provable. There's at least two private keys known only to Satoshi; his signing PGP key, and the Bitcoin keys used to mine the first Bitcoins. It would be very easy for someone to demonstrate they have those keys. Which I suppose is not entirely unambiguous that the person with the keys is the person who wrote the code and papers 6+ years ago, but is a strong hint.
I think most of us keep expecting some eccentric greybeard cypherpunk is going to step forward, demonstrate he has the keys, and will otherwise be credible as the person with the skills to have invented Bitcoin. Hal Finney fit that description perfectly but went to his grave denying his Satoshi and no one had reason to doubt him.
The astonishing thing to me is that Satoshi Bitcoin key is worth $200M. And none of that original money has ever been spent. That's a lot of money to sit on for a very long time. One theory is that the key got lost, which I suppose is possible but wow, really? My favorite crackpot theory is that Satoshi is actually a government agency experiment, maybe an NSA side project. It's 3/4 plausible.
(While I'm here; the other Bitcoin insider who got duped this time by Craig Wright is Jon Matonis. He used to be the executive director of the Bitcoin Foundation, itself a highly compromised organization. Seriously, the Bitcoin leadership is a clown fiesta of the first order. Gavin Andresen being duped is a bigger deal because he had commit privileges to the Bitcoin Core code.
Also here's Gavin Andresen explaining why he was convinced Wright is Satoshi. Wright signed a message Andresen provided him. But all done in unverifiable circumstances.)
posted by Nelson at 7:37 AM on May 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's 3/4 plausible. It's 100% plausible. But maybe less than 3/4 likely. And, maybe not.
posted by meinvt at 7:55 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by meinvt at 7:55 AM on May 2, 2016
The astonishing thing to me is that Satoshi Bitcoin key is worth $200M. And none of that original money has ever been spent.
Is there any reason to believe the dude isn't dead?
posted by deludingmyself at 8:06 AM on May 2, 2016
Is there any reason to believe the dude isn't dead?
posted by deludingmyself at 8:06 AM on May 2, 2016
I posted the whole thing on Fark with the cat's name switched up a little bit because it was so obviously a cat's name
Catoshi Nekomoto, surely.
posted by cortex at 8:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Catoshi Nekomoto, surely.
posted by cortex at 8:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
That pun's a little hana nose, don't you think?
posted by comealongpole at 8:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by comealongpole at 8:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is difficult for an outsider to find definitive info about this stuff. What a weird situation when such a basic question of identity is still unclear. It feels like something Gibson wrote. In ten minutes nanotech begins reconstructing Golden Gate Bridge.
posted by One Hand Slowclapping at 8:28 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by One Hand Slowclapping at 8:28 AM on May 2, 2016
Gavin Andresen's latest comment describing how he was convinced by Craig Wright – assuming his reddit account hasn't been compromised, anyway:
posted by koeselitz at 8:31 AM on May 2, 2016
Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.That was apparently from an hour ago.
That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.
I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).
I don't have an explanation for the funky OpenSSL procedure in his blog post.
posted by koeselitz at 8:31 AM on May 2, 2016
Dorian seems more likely to be Satoshi than Wright. Everything Dorian did was calculated to make him seem unlikely to be Satoshi and downplay his technical background. Giving an interview to get a free lunch was a genius move.
posted by joeyh at 8:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by joeyh at 8:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What I like so much about Bitcoin (not the underlying ideas embodied in algorithms, but the overlaying circus embodied in people) is that it's a kind of Voight-Kampff test for susceptibility to and propensity for making authoritative statements. Something about Bitcoin leads people to making definitive statements, and they range from provably true-or-false to educated guesses to unbelievable lies. And yet they all tend to be couched in similar language.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:55 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 8:55 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I skimmed this analysis. Debunking seems plausible except there was some hand-transcription involved?
https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md
posted by simra at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2016
https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification/blob/master/README.md
posted by simra at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2016
One more detail from the Reddit detectives: the verify script Craig Wright posted (mirror) has a bug, a discrepancy between $signature and $signiture. Charitably it's just a typo and for some unknown reason Wright posted a script that he never actually tested. Uncharitably, the effect of that bug is that this script looks like it's verifying one signature (the one passed on the command line) but actually is verifying a different signature (one set in the $signiture environment variable). That kind of bug would be sufficient to dupe someone like Gavin Andresen in the circumstances he was allowed to talk to Wright. (Why Wright would then post the evidence on his own blog is harder to understand.)
But being charitable is unnecessary. There's a very simple way for Craig Wright to clear all this up. Publish the signature. Publish any other cryptographic proof he has access to what he says.
I agree with benito.strauss' observation about the Bitcoin culture and authoritative statements. It's a classic engineer's fallacy. What's so stupid about this current confusion is that Bitcoin is based on crypto technology that is all about verification of identity. The entire point of signatures is to enable mathematically verifiable statements like "I am Satoshi". No one has published a verifiable statement like that in years, since Satoshi disappeared.
posted by Nelson at 9:14 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
But being charitable is unnecessary. There's a very simple way for Craig Wright to clear all this up. Publish the signature. Publish any other cryptographic proof he has access to what he says.
I agree with benito.strauss' observation about the Bitcoin culture and authoritative statements. It's a classic engineer's fallacy. What's so stupid about this current confusion is that Bitcoin is based on crypto technology that is all about verification of identity. The entire point of signatures is to enable mathematically verifiable statements like "I am Satoshi". No one has published a verifiable statement like that in years, since Satoshi disappeared.
posted by Nelson at 9:14 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Whenever someone says $amazingthing and offers only circumstantial evidence when there's $simplething they could do to prove it but won't, then $amazingthing is not true.
It's not 100 percent guaranteed, but it's close enough.
posted by Devonian at 9:23 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's not 100 percent guaranteed, but it's close enough.
posted by Devonian at 9:23 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not to make a gratuitous Buttcoin citation, but there is some thought that he might be involved in a tax scam to grift money from the Austrailian government.
lol buttcoins
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:27 AM on May 2, 2016
lol buttcoins
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:27 AM on May 2, 2016
> Whenever someone says $amazingthing and offers only circumstantial evidence when there's $simplething they could do to prove it but won't, then $amazingthing is not true.
But $amazignthing is!
(I love that deception-as-typo script so much I want to beat the idea to death. Hey, I think it proves that Craige Wreight is Satoshi!)
posted by benito.strauss at 9:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
But $amazignthing is!
(I love that deception-as-typo script so much I want to beat the idea to death. Hey, I think it proves that Craige Wreight is Satoshi!)
posted by benito.strauss at 9:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ha - Gavin Andresen is doubling down:
posted by koeselitz at 10:01 AM on May 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
I’ll first say, I was not hacked. The blog post that I posted this morning...is indeed my words. I still believe that Craig Wright is, beyond a reasonable doubt in my head, Satoshi Nakamoto...Andresen has a point. It's really insensitive the way people are disturbing Craig Wright's privacy by asking to see his personal details, like his public PGP key. Can't they see that a pubkey is one of those very intimate things a person prefers only to share with their own family and close friends, like a strange birthmark or an addiction to painkillers? All this callous prying! – can't a man announce to multiple news outlets in a coordinated media blitz that he is secretly one of the wealthiest humans on the planet in peace?
He signed, in my presence, using the private key from block one—block number one, the very first mined Bitcoin block, on a computer I’m convinced had not been tampered with, on software that I’m convinced had not been tampered with, a message of my choosing. And so that kind of sealed the deal for me, convincing me that he does have that private key. My interactions with him feel like this is the inventor of Bitcoin...
I remind everyone, he is human. I’m sure he makes mistakes like we all do. He’s made some mistakes in the past. And he wants his privacy. So I’m going to draw a line. If you ask me questions about this, I draw the line at: I will explain why I’m convinced. I will not go into personal details of the discussion that I had with him.
posted by koeselitz at 10:01 AM on May 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
The astonishing thing to me is that Satoshi Bitcoin key is worth $200M. And none of that original money has ever been spent.
I don't really follow this stuff, but that is the amazing thing to me as well. And the part that always seems glossed over. It would seem to be key to the whole question. Who the hell would sit on that kind of money that could potentially be lost in an instant?
posted by bongo_x at 10:04 AM on May 2, 2016
I don't really follow this stuff, but that is the amazing thing to me as well. And the part that always seems glossed over. It would seem to be key to the whole question. Who the hell would sit on that kind of money that could potentially be lost in an instant?
posted by bongo_x at 10:04 AM on May 2, 2016
Update from The Economist: Craig Wright’s claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto come under fire. "The onus is now squarely on Mr Wright to provide better evidence for his claim." (I'm impressed with Ludwig Siegele's reporting for The Economist; the original story had a lot of responsible skepticism. Still a bit baffled why he wasted his time on the story.)
posted by Nelson at 10:08 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Nelson at 10:08 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gavin's had his commit privs revoked. There is widespread suspicion that one or more of his accounts have been hacked.
posted by butterstick at 10:18 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by butterstick at 10:18 AM on May 2, 2016
There is no more suspicion that Gavin's account has been hacked. As the comment 3 above you says, Gavin said in person at a conference today "I was not hacked".
posted by Nelson at 10:21 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by Nelson at 10:21 AM on May 2, 2016
I am incredibly confused that the London Review of Books of all places claimed to have the exclusive.
posted by corvine at 10:21 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by corvine at 10:21 AM on May 2, 2016
I don't really follow this stuff, but that is the amazing thing to me as well. And the part that always seems glossed over. It would seem to be key to the whole question. Who the hell would sit on that kind of money that could potentially be lost in an instant?
I could be wrong, but who's to say that Satoshi doesn't/didn't have lots and lots and lots of other bitcoin which have been sold.
posted by cell divide at 10:26 AM on May 2, 2016
I could be wrong, but who's to say that Satoshi doesn't/didn't have lots and lots and lots of other bitcoin which have been sold.
posted by cell divide at 10:26 AM on May 2, 2016
Gavin Andresen says that he was already "reasonably certain" that Craig Wright was Satoshi before he saw any cryptographic evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that Craig Wright was able to give details from the emails Satoshi sent to Andresen in 2010 and 2011 that Andresen hadn't told anyone else.
posted by koeselitz at 10:39 AM on May 2, 2016
posted by koeselitz at 10:39 AM on May 2, 2016
Generally, comments that amount to "who cares about this whole topic" are considered gauche on Metafilter - because if you really didn't care, you wouldn't be commenting in the first place.
I love Bitcoin! What other topic short of water flouridation or marginal tax rates offers such frequent tickets to Dunning-Kruger theater?
Anyone who's interested in the future of money has to care about bitcoin, even if like me you're very dubious about its long-term prospects.
This, on the other hand, I think is ridiculous. Bitcoin is riddled with flaws that make it unsuitable for use, and some of them (necessity of connectivity, ever-increasing processing needs, and deflationary design) make its core concepts unfit for purpose going forward.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I love Bitcoin! What other topic short of water flouridation or marginal tax rates offers such frequent tickets to Dunning-Kruger theater?
Anyone who's interested in the future of money has to care about bitcoin, even if like me you're very dubious about its long-term prospects.
This, on the other hand, I think is ridiculous. Bitcoin is riddled with flaws that make it unsuitable for use, and some of them (necessity of connectivity, ever-increasing processing needs, and deflationary design) make its core concepts unfit for purpose going forward.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I am incredibly confused that the London Review of Books of all places claimed to have the exclusive.
More specifically Andrew O'Hagan was apparently contacted by Wright and then went on to write a long form piece. This is not altogether surprising given that he did something similar with Julian Assange.
posted by tallus at 11:14 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
More specifically Andrew O'Hagan was apparently contacted by Wright and then went on to write a long form piece. This is not altogether surprising given that he did something similar with Julian Assange.
posted by tallus at 11:14 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only reasonable conclusion is that Craig Wright was able to give details from the emails Satoshi sent to Andresen in 2010 and 2011 that Andresen hadn't told anyone else.
Or that Gavin is Satoshi and wants the smokescreen.
posted by thetruthisjustalie at 11:33 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or that Gavin is Satoshi and wants the smokescreen.
posted by thetruthisjustalie at 11:33 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I typed in two jokes, one about nekomoto and another one about $amazignthing (literally with this typo) before continuing to read the thread.
The positive of that is that I'm great at obviousness I guess...
Also, I don't understand any of it, but I do love these Eve Online threads!
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:16 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The positive of that is that I'm great at obviousness I guess...
Also, I don't understand any of it, but I do love these Eve Online threads!
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:16 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pope Guilty: "I love Bitcoin! What other topic short of water flouridation or marginal tax rates offers such frequent tickets to Dunning-Kruger theater?"
The Hugo nominees?
posted by Chrysostom at 12:39 PM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Hugo nominees?
posted by Chrysostom at 12:39 PM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
I would just like to say that I am fairly convinced by CookieBastard's story, and if the LRB would like to option my long form article about how cats are responsible for Bitcoin, they should get an offer to me before Cat Fancier gets in on the action.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 12:57 PM on May 2, 2016
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 12:57 PM on May 2, 2016
Does the story more properly belong in Cat Financier magazine?
posted by benito.strauss at 1:08 PM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 1:08 PM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Who the hell would sit on that kind of money that could potentially be lost in an instant?
Maybe he is Satoshi but just forgot the password.
posted by chavenet at 1:10 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe he is Satoshi but just forgot the password.
posted by chavenet at 1:10 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also when you hear "$200M in Bitcoin" bear in mind that a) that much Bitcoin would massively devalue Bitcoin if dumped on the market and b) actually taking a Bitcoin and turning it into real money is harder than you might think given how incredibly shady literally everything about Bitcoin is.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:12 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:12 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or that Gavin is Satoshi and wants the smokescreen.
My favourite theory this far (via reddit) is the one where Wright is Satoshi, but is trying to get others to prove that he cannot possibly be the same guy, so he can get the tax authorities off his back.
posted by effbot at 1:35 PM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
My favourite theory this far (via reddit) is the one where Wright is Satoshi, but is trying to get others to prove that he cannot possibly be the same guy, so he can get the tax authorities off his back.
posted by effbot at 1:35 PM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, I don't understand any of it, but I do love these Eve Online threads!
I came in here only to post this joke. Dammit.
The entertainment value of Bitcoin is high enough to justify its existence purely on its own. Here's a good one: Wright's personal blog has a right-click protection script on it. Only complete numbskulls put right-click "protection" on their OWN BLOG. No way in hell does the writer of a radically decentralized cryptographic currency protocol do that. Just, no.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:38 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I came in here only to post this joke. Dammit.
The entertainment value of Bitcoin is high enough to justify its existence purely on its own. Here's a good one: Wright's personal blog has a right-click protection script on it. Only complete numbskulls put right-click "protection" on their OWN BLOG. No way in hell does the writer of a radically decentralized cryptographic currency protocol do that. Just, no.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:38 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah I had to view source like a savage to be able to link to an image on his blog post. I h4xx0red Satoshi, Ph34r ME!
posted by Nelson at 1:41 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 1:41 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
And he attempts to prevent copy-paste by detecting ctrl/alt/shift. Who does that? "Sorry, not sharing images!" it says, when you right click.
Sorry, not believing you're Satoshi Nakamoto. No way.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:42 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry, not believing you're Satoshi Nakamoto. No way.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:42 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
A few more details on Gavin's verification, from wired:
posted by joeyh at 2:43 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Andresen says an administrative assistant working with Wright left to buy a computer from a nearby store, and returned with what Andresen describes as a Windows laptop in a “factory-sealed” box.
Andresen says. “I could spin stories of how they hacked the hotel Wi-fi so that the insecure connection gave us a bad version of the software. But that just seems incredibly unlikely."That's magic folks. Use assistants and props and psychology to convince us to fool ourselves.
posted by joeyh at 2:43 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
My guess is that whether Wright is Satoshi or not, Satoshi's Bitcoin key was lost long ago. There really wouldn't be a lot of reason not to cash in bit by bit.
posted by tavella at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tavella at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The prevention scripting is a smokescreen; there's a deadly mind-virus hidden steganographically in those images, and he wants you to steal them and spread them around.
posted by cortex at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
There really wouldn't be a lot of reason not to cash in bit by bit
Bitcoin isn't as anonymous as they like to present, at least insofar as converting to actual dollars is concerned. They know a lot of the blocks directly mined by Satoshi, which (IIUC) is the start of an unimpeachable trail to some BTC->USD exit point, which creates a great risk of exposing Satoshi. And this is in the context of a digital ledger that's, by definition, cryptographically secure and authentic, and particularly amenable to digital analysis in a way that bank slips and corporate transactions aren't.
posted by fatbird at 3:02 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bitcoin isn't as anonymous as they like to present, at least insofar as converting to actual dollars is concerned. They know a lot of the blocks directly mined by Satoshi, which (IIUC) is the start of an unimpeachable trail to some BTC->USD exit point, which creates a great risk of exposing Satoshi. And this is in the context of a digital ledger that's, by definition, cryptographically secure and authentic, and particularly amenable to digital analysis in a way that bank slips and corporate transactions aren't.
posted by fatbird at 3:02 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can't they see that a pubkey is one of those very intimate things a person prefers only to share with their own family and close friends, like a strange birthmark or an addiction to painkillers?
I'll clarify for folks who might not know, even at the risk of spoiling koeselitz's joke: a PGP public key is something that needs to be distributed as widely as possible to be effective. Keeping a pubkey secret is stupid and counterproductive in every aspect of public key encryption. Anyone who would not share their public key does not understand even the basic outlines of modern encryption, is lying, or both. Proving that you own the private key associated with a given public key -- the secret key that "owns" that public key -- is trivial and requires a few seconds of one-time effort and can then be verified by anyone in the world.
posted by fader at 3:03 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll clarify for folks who might not know, even at the risk of spoiling koeselitz's joke: a PGP public key is something that needs to be distributed as widely as possible to be effective. Keeping a pubkey secret is stupid and counterproductive in every aspect of public key encryption. Anyone who would not share their public key does not understand even the basic outlines of modern encryption, is lying, or both. Proving that you own the private key associated with a given public key -- the secret key that "owns" that public key -- is trivial and requires a few seconds of one-time effort and can then be verified by anyone in the world.
posted by fader at 3:03 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Charlie Lee, creator of Litecoin, demonstrates the simplicity of the proper proof.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:17 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:17 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
If he is the true Satoshi he can spend the early coins and prove it. Otherwise it is BS.
posted by humanfont at 3:27 PM on May 2, 2016
posted by humanfont at 3:27 PM on May 2, 2016
Here's a Craig Wright pitch deck from a 2014 fundraising attempt for his company Hotwire PE, which is now defunct.
He's a total fantasist.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:30 PM on May 2, 2016
He's a total fantasist.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:30 PM on May 2, 2016
How bitcoins work?, indeed.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:32 PM on May 2, 2016
posted by BungaDunga at 8:32 PM on May 2, 2016
Given that he's an obvious fraud - again - would it be possible to amend the post title to "Craig Wright is (not) Satoshi Nakamoto"?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:53 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:53 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, Satoshi and the Bitcoin community deserve continued association with frauds like Wright. Scammers who get caught scamming serve as a good reminder of what Bitcoin is ultimately about.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:48 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:48 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm more interested to know what kind of guy would falsely claim to be Satoshi when (apparently, I am trusting the experts here) it would be easy for the real Satoshi to give convincing proof. Dunning-Kruger? Or would he gain enough to offset the inevitable embarrassment/fraud charges? Are there any good articles about Wright from before this?
posted by harriet vane at 6:03 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by harriet vane at 6:03 AM on May 3, 2016
Well, it's unlikely to be any fraud charges. Satoshi won't come out of the cold to slap down Wright, or he would have done so six months ago.
The previous thread has plenty on Wright. He's a self aggrandising blowhard.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:28 AM on May 3, 2016
The previous thread has plenty on Wright. He's a self aggrandising blowhard.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:28 AM on May 3, 2016
The BBC doubles down on their story, with the reporter unwisely personalizing his belief in Wright's claim. The substantive thing is
posted by Nelson at 7:25 AM on May 3, 2016
Craig Wright's spokesman told the BBC that he would "move a coin from an early block" belonging to the crypto-currency's inventor "in the coming days".(Why it's "the coming days" and not already done is an exercise for the reader.)
posted by Nelson at 7:25 AM on May 3, 2016
Well, you do have to feel a little bad for Craig Wright. It was awful of the real Satoshi Nakamoto to die of complications of an MRSA infection before giving him the keys to the castle.
posted by koeselitz at 8:11 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by koeselitz at 8:11 AM on May 3, 2016
An update to this saga. Wright has replaced every page on his site with the following text:
I’m Sorryposted by fatbird at 8:03 AM on May 5, 2016
I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot.
When the rumors began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false, new allegations have already begun. I know now that I am not strong enough for this.
I know that this weakness will cause great damage to those that have supported me, and particularly to Jon Matonis and Gavin Andresen. I can only hope that their honour and credibility is not irreparably tainted by my actions. They were not deceived, but I know that the world will never believe that now. I can only say I’m sorry.
And goodbye.
He makes himself sound like a victim. Christ, what an asshole. Let's hope folks remember this the next time he comes calling 'round the press saying "I just want to be left alone but btw I'm actually Satoshi."
The Economist already has an article up on Wright's withdrawal. This one's labelled "print edition"; the previous articles were online only. Given that it was published online within two hours of Wright's public blog post I'm guessing the journalist had an inside track. BBC also had a very quickly published new article.
posted by Nelson at 8:13 AM on May 5, 2016
The Economist already has an article up on Wright's withdrawal. This one's labelled "print edition"; the previous articles were online only. Given that it was published online within two hours of Wright's public blog post I'm guessing the journalist had an inside track. BBC also had a very quickly published new article.
posted by Nelson at 8:13 AM on May 5, 2016
“Satoshi Nakamoto” hired David Bowie’s PR agency for his big reveal. Wright hired Outside Organisation, a London agency, that explains how the fraud wrangled such high quality press coverage.
posted by Nelson at 8:20 AM on May 5, 2016
posted by Nelson at 8:20 AM on May 5, 2016
Two interesting observations from HN on this:
1. This is how abusive partners act when caught: put on such a good show of being sorry that you actually feel bad for them, and don't DTMFA. It buys them runway to continue their abuse.
2. Narcissists have high suicide rates because in moments like this, their "100% committed" mode of being leaves them little leeway for backing down. If you suspect this ("and goodbye"), see point 1.
A few HNers have also observed that their curiosity makes them susceptible to this. It's easy to imagine Gavin Andresen being so enthralled with the possibility of a real proof of Satoshi's identity, that he didn't notice a dime-store magician's trick being pulled on him.
After all this, I kind of want to punch that PR firm in the face, though. And the one the represented Ghomeshi. And the one that helped the first Bush administration construct the lie of the Kuwaiti baby incubators as a Gulf-of-Tonkin style provocation to sell the Persian Gulf War. I feel like they're bad actors that aren't nearly recognized enough for enabling crap shit like this.
posted by fatbird at 8:36 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
1. This is how abusive partners act when caught: put on such a good show of being sorry that you actually feel bad for them, and don't DTMFA. It buys them runway to continue their abuse.
2. Narcissists have high suicide rates because in moments like this, their "100% committed" mode of being leaves them little leeway for backing down. If you suspect this ("and goodbye"), see point 1.
A few HNers have also observed that their curiosity makes them susceptible to this. It's easy to imagine Gavin Andresen being so enthralled with the possibility of a real proof of Satoshi's identity, that he didn't notice a dime-store magician's trick being pulled on him.
After all this, I kind of want to punch that PR firm in the face, though. And the one the represented Ghomeshi. And the one that helped the first Bush administration construct the lie of the Kuwaiti baby incubators as a Gulf-of-Tonkin style provocation to sell the Persian Gulf War. I feel like they're bad actors that aren't nearly recognized enough for enabling crap shit like this.
posted by fatbird at 8:36 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, after stridently claiming that he was going to incontrovertibly prove everything, Wright is now backtracking:
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:24 PM on May 5, 2016
"I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me," a statement posted on his website read.What a fucking punk.
"But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage".
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:24 PM on May 5, 2016
"Oh woe is me, you all think I'm lying, so I just don't have the will to prove it to you, you don't deserve it anyway."
The keys aren't in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” It's like, dude, you "proved" you had access to the earliest keys already, privately. Just do what you did then, except sign "Gavin Wright is Satoshi, also Prince is dead and Trump is the GOP nominee" and publish it. Done. Suddenly, all the loud noises around this will take on a completely different character.
The only possible way he's Satoshi is if he's decided this is the only way he can convince everyone he isn't Satoshi. I don't know if there would be a more effective method other than being in a coma at the time Satoshi was active on the internet.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:36 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The keys aren't in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” It's like, dude, you "proved" you had access to the earliest keys already, privately. Just do what you did then, except sign "Gavin Wright is Satoshi, also Prince is dead and Trump is the GOP nominee" and publish it. Done. Suddenly, all the loud noises around this will take on a completely different character.
The only possible way he's Satoshi is if he's decided this is the only way he can convince everyone he isn't Satoshi. I don't know if there would be a more effective method other than being in a coma at the time Satoshi was active on the internet.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:36 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you meet the true Satoshi on the road wait for at least 6 block chain confirmations.
posted by humanfont at 5:07 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:07 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you seek revenge to be Satoshi, you must first dig two graves one deep hole and then jump in it and then never come out because you are a garbage self-aggrandising mockery of person.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Click TANE to continue | “The Cowboy Hávamál” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Joseph Gurl at 3:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]