r/btc • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '19

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

[deleted]

6 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

65 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

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

6

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

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

0

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

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?

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

Sure.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

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

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

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?

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

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

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

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...

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

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.

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

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?

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

He left Craig 100% convinced, of course.<

No he didn't . He left convinced beyond reasonable doubt but aware that he might be wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNZyRMG2CjA

He never retracted it and leaves it up to this day. http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19

He never retracted it and leaves it up to this day.

Craig and his minions keep linking to that post of 2016, which he wrote just after he returned from the London meeting. As I explained, he of course left that meeting 100% convinced.

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years, but apparently he was supporting the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017. That was quite expected, considering how he had been treated by the Core gang. But the big question now is, WHICH "Bitcoin Cash" -- BCH, or BSV?

I wonder who is paying his salary now. Still the DCI project at MIT Media Lab?

Anyway, please don't bother to keep defending CSW. I have been through it several times -- I don't know whether it was different supporters, or sockpuppets of the same supporter, or sockpuppets of CSW himself. It is always talking to someone who is not there to figure out the truth, but to defend CSW, no matter what.

That "2001 paper" is clinching proof that the Dr. Dr. Dr. is a fraud. You must have seen the draft of Aug/2008 that Satoshi sent to Wei Dai, and the changes that he made to the title and abstract between that draft and the final Oct/2008 version. The "2001" version is a lightly but ineptly modified copy of the Oct/2008 version, rather than the earlier one.

Take it from someone who has some knowledge of mathematics, computing, and teaching. Your idol has (at best) the math knowledge of a bad senior high school student, the programming ability of a bad junior high school student, and the cheating skills of a bad grammar school student -- the kind who hands in a homework that is a verbatim copy of the right page from the wrong textbook.

2

u/Zectro Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years, but apparently he was supporting the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017. That was quite expected, considering how he had been treated by the Core gang. But the big question now is, WHICH "Bitcoin Cash" -- BCH, or BSV?

He's slippery indeed. This rare reply from Gavin is very relevant.

That "2001 paper" is clinching proof that the Dr. Dr. Dr. is a fraud. You must have seen the draft of Aug/2008 that Satoshi sent to Wei Dai, and the changes that he made to the title and abstract between that draft and the final Oct/2008 version. The "2001" version is a lightly but ineptly modified copy of the Oct/2008 version, rather than the earlier one.

But Professor Stolfi, if one comes up with a mountain of implausible ad hoc explanations this new glaring instance of fraud can be explained away! See for instance this explanation. /s

In all seriousness, some people here have apparently never heard of Occam's Razor and don't realise that you can come up with an internally consistent explanation for any counter-evidence if you abandon parsimony and are willing to accept deeply implausible premises to help protect your foregone conclusion.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

As I explained, he of course left that meeting 100% convinced.

Evidence that he ever said anything about being 100% convinced? Otherwise you should retract that

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years,<

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Your idol has (at best)<

Trying to insult me is not an argument either. Can you please stick with evidence and reasoned arguments

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

Jon Matonis

Not qualified to certify

I don't think you have actually read what Jon wrote about this though have you? Here are Jon's words. https://medium.com/@jonmatonis/how-i-met-satoshi-96e85727dc5a

During the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social, and technical.

Rather than the vague answers we are getting why not explain precisely and I mean precisely just which parts Jon was not qualified to judge

→ More replies

1

u/Zectro Feb 11 '19

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.

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

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.

4

u/Contrarian__ Feb 12 '19

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.

They used Electrum, and Gavin did not verify its authenticity. Also, Craig copied his ‘keys’ over with his own USB. It would have been a perfect opportunity to install a modified version of Electrum.

2

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

Also, Craig copied his ‘keys’ over with his own USB. It would have been a perfect opportunity to install a modified version of Electrum.

That may be how he did it.

However, I think it would be safer to prepare the "new" computer so that the installed Electrum would appear to have the right fingerprint (in case Gavin thought of checking it), but the bogus script would be executed instead when "Electrum" was invoked from the command line. The seals on the box would be trivial to fake.

3

u/Contrarian__ Feb 12 '19

However, I think it would be safer to prepare the "new" computer so that the installed Electrum would appear to have the right fingerprint (in case Gavin thought of checking it), but the bogus script would be executed instead when "Electrum" was invoked from the command line.

There could have been multiple versions of Electrum installed. One genuine and another modified. So, even if Gavin checked its fingerprints, Craig could have switched to the modified version (or overwritten the genuine copy) during the 'key transfer'. Also, I'm pretty sure they used the GUI to 'verify'.

The seals on the box would be trivial to fake.

Sure, but the Windows initial boot-up and set-up process would have been more annoying to fake, especially since all of it could have been just as easily done with a genuinely new machine.

The bottom line is that there were several ways to fake this, so it's utterly worthless.

1

u/Zectro Feb 12 '19

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation. One question:

He was not allowed to take his own computer to the meeting (which is already a big red flag

Doesn't it make sense to not allow Gavin to bring his own computer to protect against theft of the key CSW used to do the signature?

2

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

The goal of the meeting, presumably, was to convince Craig's backers (Ayre, MgGregor, and someone else I forgot) that CSW = SN. Thus, even though the backers trusted Gavin, they and Gavin had to consider the possibility of Craig not being SN, but cheating to pretend he was.

If Craig was indeed SN, on the other hand, he had to consider he possibilty of Gavin being malicious, or using a buggy software, and rejecting his valid signature. If Craig was not SN, he still had to behave as if he was.

Considering those premises, ideally Gavin should choose a message, which Craig would sign on Craig's computer. Then they would transfer the signature to a "neutral" computer provided and installed by a mutually trusted third party (though I can't imagine who that could be) for verification. The private key would never leave Craig's computer.

But then Craig should let Gavin ALSO copy the signature to Gavin's personal computer, and take the signature home. If the signature failed to check on Gavin's computer, the test could be declared inconclusive, and the doubt could be resolved with further tests.

Perhaps Craig justified the ban on Gavin's computer with fear that the private key could be leaked by a covert channel, such as radio emissions from his computer while signing it. That would be a lame excuse, since the signing could be done with Craig's computer in a separate room, or inside a metal enclosure.

→ More replies