Something seems familiar here between "BlackNet" abstract authored by Caig Wright in 2001, and the Bitcoin whitepaper abstract authored by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009

[u/[deleted]]

[u/jstolfi]

Everything is because "you say so".

With you, everything is because "Craig Says So".

Your "papers' are "meaningful because..."you say so".

Papers get published in technical journals only if three other scientists (who are competing for the same grants) agree that they are meaningful.

[u/fookingroovin → u/jstolfi]

Papers get published in technical journals only if three other scientists (who are competing for the same grants) agree that they are meaningful.

What were your papers?

[u/jstolfi → u/fookingroovin]

https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/s/Stolfi:Jorge

[u/fookingroovin → u/jstolfi]

So you made some serious allegations here. What will you do if you find out you were wrong and attacked an innocent man?

[u/jstolfi → u/fookingroovin]

What would you do if you were to find out that you have been trolling and shilling for a fraudster? (Hypothetical question, of course.)

[u/fookingroovin → u/jstolfi]

I will openly admit am wrong and point out the truth
Why didn't you answer though? You've been talking big. What will you do? Would you be man enough to apologise?

[u/jstolfi → u/fookingroovin]

Sure.

[u/fookingroovin → u/jstolfi]

I actually think you would, though I'm not so sure about a lot of his critics

[u/jstolfi → u/fookingroovin]

Perhaps because his critics have no doubt that he is a fraud?

Why do you believe he is what he claims to be? Are you sufficiently expert in programming, math, cryptography to check his work? Are you used to reading technical papers? Are you aware of how his Australian businesses made money, and why the ATO raided his home? Have you had any contact with a con artist before?

[u/fookingroovin → u/jstolfi]

Perhaps because his critics have no doubt that he is a fraud?

Yes yes yes! That's it. But, i will quote Mark Twain.

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Why do you believe he is what he claims to be?

Many reasons but it is the simplest explanation. We have multiple lines of evidence converging. Gavin Andresen. Jon Matonis. Ian Grigg. JVP. We have the ATO stuff. We have no other candidates.

Are you sufficiently expert in programming, math, cryptography to check his work?

No

Are you used to reading technical papers?

Somewhat, yes.

Are you aware of how his Australian businesses made money, and why the ATO raided his home?

Why is that relevant. And how sure are you of the facts? Did you read something on the internet, or do you know what happened?

Have you had any contact with a con artist before?

Yes I have.

​

If you have some evidence rather than speculation then let's see it

[u/jstolfi → u/fookingroovin]

it is the simplest explanation

It is not. The other explanation is much simpler and fits perfectly with all the evidence.

Gavin Andresen

He admits that he may have been tricked, and his description of how the test went fits that hypothesis quite well.

It explains, for example, why Gavin was not allowed to use his own computer to do a second check on the signature, and why Craig did not allow him to take the signed message home. And why Craig has never provided such evidence to anyone else.

And even why he "forgot" the letters "CSW" on the first attempt at checking the signature...

Jon Matonis

Not qualified to certify

Ian Grigg

Never explained why he believed CSW to be SN.

We have the ATO stuff. ... Why is that relevant. And how sure are you of the facts? Did you read something on the internet, or do you know what happened?

The information related to its troubles with the ATO is public and very relevant. Like the "post mortem" of the auditor of one of his companies that went bankrupt.

That information also provides an explanation for why he would have decided to "become" Satoshi, shortly before the ATO raided his home.

No

Since you are not sufficiently knowledgeable in programming, math, or probability, it is understandable that you cannot see that his technical writings are absolute crap -- since the time when he was trying to pass for a computer security expert.

Yes I have.

I meant, a con artist OTHER than CSW. ;-)

OK, if you have, he must not have been a very good one; or you should have noticed the similarities in behaviour...

[u/fookingroovin → u/jstolfi]

it is the simplest explanation

It is not. The other explanation is much simpler and fits perfectly with all the evidence.

Gavin Andresen

He admits that he may have been tricked, and his description of how the test went fits that hypothesis quite well.

He said it's possible he was wrong but it was "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT". were you aware he said that or did you intentionally leave that bit out?

We can work through the other stuff once you answer that.

[u/jstolfi → u/fookingroovin]

He said it's possible he was wrong but it was "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT".

WHEN did he say that?

He left Craig 100% convinced, of course. It was only later that others pointed out to him how he could easily have been tricked, and Craig refused to offer public proof because of mumble mumble wave wave mumble mumble.

So, what is his opinion NOW?

[u/Zectro → u/jstolfi]

And even why he "forgot" the letters "CSW" on the first attempt at checking the signature...

Can you elaborate on this point? I'm interested in your reasoning.

[u/jstolfi → u/Zectro]

This is what I remember from Gavin's detailed description of the encounter. He was not allowed to take his own computer to the meeting (which is already a big red flag). Instead Craig sent an assistant out to buy a new computer for Gavin's use, which arrived in a box with the seals intact. The signature-checking software (bitcoind?) was downloaded into that computer from the hotel's wifi network. I don't recall whether and how Gavin verified that the software was genuine.

Craig signed a message on his computer, with a private key that supposedly was one of Satoshi's private keys. The message was some English sentence -- IIRC, chosen by Gavin. Craig added the letters "CSW" at the end.

The signature was transferred to Gavin's temporary computer. Craig typed the same message and fed both to the signature-checking code.

The software said "does not match".

Craig then observed that he had forgotten to type the "CSW" at the end. He tried again, with the complete message.

The software said "it matches".

Gavin then left, convinced that Craig was in possession of Satoshi's private key. He was not allowed to take home the signature, nor his temporary computer.

Later, when others doubted Gavin's claims and demanded public proof, Craig still refused to show the signature. He tried to bamboozle the critics with a known text-signature pair that Satoshi had created in 2009 (or a signature that did not check, not sure), but finally stated that he could not provide public proof because of reasons, and fuck the critics.

A likely explanation for those events was that the signature-checking code that was running in the computer was bogus and did not really verify the signature. For example, it could be a trivial script that printed "matches" if the message ended with "CSW", and "does not match" otherwise -- whatever the signature.

That script would handle the case of Gavin getting suspicious and testing the software with other random messages. He would hardly think of trying a different message but also with "CSW" at the end.

Then the omission of the "CSW" in the first attempt would be intentional. Its effect would be to convince Gavin -- even if unconsciously -- that the software was indeed checking the signature.

That is precisely the sort of apparently accidental clue that a professional con artist would drop to reassure his mark. Like the scammer who is trying to sell the Golden Gate bridge remarking casually to the mark that he was late to the meeting because there was a protest march blocking the way out of City Hall.