94
95

Satoshi | Gavin Andresen (gavinandresen.ninja)

maxminski が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]paper3 76ポイント77ポイント  (38子コメント)

Holy crap. This thread is 20 minutes old and all the posts are about how Gavin is crazy and losing credibility.

Jesus people, it's not about you and your endless block size war. I don't even necessarily believe this guy is the real thing, yet, but you can't deny that Gavin out of anyone would have a pretty relevant opinion on what Satoshi might be like. And that's all he's offering, his opinion.

Why not let's wait until the story congeals a bit before finding reasons to bash people you dislike?

[–]alex_leishman 24ポイント25ポイント  (9子コメント)

I don't understand why they couldn't just release the pubkey, message, and signature?

[–]paper3 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think what you are looking for is here: http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/

Edit: Folks, I'm not claiming the link contains actual proof, just that it's what the Wright guy released. Holy hell.

[–]alex_leishman 23ポイント24ポイント  (1子コメント)

I saw this. What is the exact text signed? Some strange nobel prize announcement? Where can I actually see the exact text, pubkey and signature clearly listed? Why did he not sign a message saying "Craig Wright is Satoshi"?

I'm not saying the story is not true because apparently Gavin Andresen has confirmed it. But I find it very odd they did not just lead with the cryptographic proof.

[–]paper3 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

These are all very good questions and I absolutely agree with you. That they remain unanswered is extremely fishy to me. The blog post seems designed to distract away from the simple answer.

[–]optimists 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

tl;dr? Which private key was he using?

[–]dapperdanceredditor for 2 months 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, that's all just gibberish.

[–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Salmondish 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The blog post merely revealed Craig was able to identify an old hash referencing Sartre. He never did create a new signed tx to give credible proof.

    [–]optimists 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Not even that. The hash in the blog post is not the hash of the satre quote but a transaction fresh from the blockchain.

    [–]what-the-what-what 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It shouldn't be a matter of opinion. Proof of a signature is all that is needed.

    [–]paper3 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    What I'm saying is Gavin may have believed he saw proof, but glossed over or did not catch errors in how it was presented to him.

    Supposedly something like the signature script replaced a "&&" with an "&", making it invalid. I'm not sure that's necessarily something I'd've caught in his shoes.

    [–]MaunaLoona [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    There's also a spelling error in one of the variable names, so a completely different file would have been loaded.

    [–]killerstorm 0ポイント1ポイント  (21子コメント)

    There are two possibilities:

    1. Wright is Satoshi and Gavin is sincere.
    2. Wright isn't Satoshi and Gavin is a part of a conspiracy.

    I think the second option is MUCH more intriguing and I can't rule it out because Gavin already exposed himself as a non-trustworthy person.

    There are other fishy details: if I understand correctly, Wright only produced a signature using a key which was already used in a transaction. He could have recovered key from a signature, so there is a possibility that ECDSA is broken.

    [–]go1111111 21ポイント22ポイント  (5子コメント)

    It's also possible that Wright isn't Satoshi and he was able to trick Gavin.

    [–]killerstorm 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

    If he's able to trick Gavin he should be able to trick everyone else as well, i.e. he's pretty much indistinguishable from Satoshi.

    [–]handsomechandler 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If he's able to trick Gavin he should be able to trick everyone else as well

    how many others have met him in person and heard him make his full case?

    [–]go1111111 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Gavin has some reasons to be biased about this.

    [–]rational_observer 19ポイント20ポイント  (2子コメント)

    From HN:

    EDIT 2: Debunked! The signature in Wright's post, is just pulled straight from a transaction on the blockchain. Convert the base64 signature from his post (MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=) to hex (3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae0022066632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce), and you get the signature found in this transaction input:

    https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe

    • ECDSA - not compromised
    • Satoshi - not found
    • Gavin - compromised

    [–]killerstorm 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

    https://xkcd.com/1181/

    [–]xkcd_transcriber 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Image

    Mobile

    Title: PGP

    Title-text: If you want to be extra safe, check that there's a big block of jumbled characters at the bottom.

    Comic Explanation

    Stats: This comic has been referenced 50 times, representing 0.0458% of referenced xkcds.

    xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete

    [–]paper3 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The other obvious option being Craig Wright spent a lot of time doing his homework on Satoshi, has a natural character overlap, and has pulled a con on many people, including Gavin.

    Conspiracies are often theories. Just like core being evil and Gavin swaying 90% of the bitcoin user population by sheer charisma.

    This third option seems like the most likely to me.

    [–]leeyun 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

    He could have recovered key from a signature, so there is a possibility that ECDSA is broken.

    If this is the case, then it is a bigger news than Wright being Satoshi Nakamoto.

    [–]killerstorm 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

    There is another possibility: real Satoshi Nakamoto signed a message and Craig Wright reused it. The message Wright claims he signed has no references to Wright himself or present time. If he refuses to sign other messages with the same key then it's much more likely than ECDSA breakage.

    As for ECDSA, we know it's broken when same k is reused, so breakage of a single key doesn't mean much. (Although is disturbing.)

    [–]JazKoneredditor for 29 days 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think the second option is MUCH more intriguing

    This raises the question why Gavin & Co. didn't find Dorian Nakamoto satisfactory.

    [–]what-the-what-what 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Or Gavin was manipulated

    [–]phlogistonical 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Except that Gavin would have known that this would be debunked in hours, if not minutes. It seems highly unlikely to me that he would attempt this scam.

    Whatever he could have gotten out of it would have to come in a very brief window of time after the scam gets large-scale attention. Then he loses all credibility forever. What can he possibly gain that makes that worthwhile?

    [–]killerstorm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Yep, now it looks more like his blog was hacked. As well as Ian Grigg's blog.

    [–]yeh-nah-yeh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    1. Wright isn't Satoshi and Gavin has been fooled?

    [–]shellcraftredditor for 17 days 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Come on I can't believe a veteran such as yourself is writing this. What happened to Occam's Razor?

    [–]killerstorm 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    1. I don't see how Occam's razor is applicable here.
    2. They didn't follow proper authentication protocol. The message should have included a reference to Craig Wright, otherwise this might be a replay attack.

    If person who is well versed in cryptography uses a "protocol" which is highly prone to replay attacks, chances are that it is a repay attack. This is what Occam's razor tells me.

    [–]_supert_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    or 3. Wright is Satoshi, proved it to Matonis and Gavin, and is now attempting to make himself look like a fraud, rather than the real Satoshi.

    Unlikely, but strictly possible.

    [–]ebaley [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Fine, but on the hand why should we trust his authority?