Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
drcraigwright.netAre you telling me that the inventor of bitcoin has:
<script>
document.onmousedown=disableclick;
status="Sorry, not sharing images!";
function disableclick(event)
{
if(event.button==2)
{
alert(status);
return false;
}
}
</script>
Good catch! My thoughts: I imagine the post with the information that's easy to verify, it would have numbers (and files) that could be easily copied, not images that need to be OCR-ed or retyped. So why images? Only to postpone the moment of the verification or the rejection of the claims. Only somebody who wants to postpone that would come to both to the idea of using the images and attempting to make the saving of the images harder. The goal is also supported by having the rambling post, unnecessary references, unverifiable old text segment. So the post's purpose then isn't to prove something but to be a stumbling block long enough for something to happen, like completing some nice media contracts, maybe? And he can later sell that event even as "How I tricked BBC to write 'His admission ends years of speculation.'"
The blog has code preventing ctrl/alt/shift as well, presumably as a crude anti-copy device. What is this, 2003?! Who does that?
It just screams self-important and under informed, two qualities not previously associated with Satoshi.
And if you read the posts on Wright's blog, they have the comparable "taste" of "appearing impressive to those who aren't in the subject, appearing uninformed to those who know" whether he writes about sha256 or programming details like timestamps.
There's also a hint of how some of the posts were made:
https://medium.com/@jprichardson/did-satoshi-steal-my-blog-p...
Interesting point about OCR. But isn't bypassing it as straightforward as taking a partial screenshot, which is simple in any modern OS? At which point it is so simple that it doesn't make much sense.
Although this story is full of mysteries, I'd let this particular bit slide. Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice, as they say.
> At which point it is so simple that it doesn't make much sense.
Isn't overriding the right-click in the browser even simpler? All of this is just to win the time.
Or just disable JS.
Still, questions remain. Mr Wright does not want to make public the proof for block 1, arguing that block 9 contains the only bitcoin address that is clearly linked to Mr Nakamoto (because he sent money to Hal Finney). Repeating the procedure for other blocks, he says, would not add more certainty. He also says he can’t send any bitcoin because they are now owned by a trust. 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.”
This is a quote from the Economist article [1], and it succinctly summarizes the biggest criticism of this blog post. This blog post presents a single signed message, of a quote from half a century ago. Why did Dr. Wright not sign a message that is more direct, such as "I confirm that Craig Wright is Satoshi, and am making it public as of May 2016"?
Along that line, why is he refusing to sign more messages? A smart individual such as Satoshi would recognize that given the context, people would naturally doubt a single statement. It would not take him more than a few minutes to sign a dozen or two messages from various sources, which would essentially guarantee that he holds the private key.
I do not care for the non-technical arguments that other people presented, such as difference in personality, etc. However, it would be incredibly easy for the true Satoshi to put the issue to rest, by simply:
1. Sign several custom messages with his PGP key dating to 2008
2. Sign several custom messages with his block 9 private key
3. Prove that he owns the first blocks by moving them around.
Doing these things (even if he doesn't do all 3) would take him a few minutes at most. I question this roundabout 'sign a Sartre quote and call it a day' method, which would probably increase intrigue and reduce his privacy, which doesn't seem desirable.
This action by Dr. Wright is rather futile- it doesn't positively confirm anything for those who doubt him, and it won't affect those who believe him.
[1] http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steve...
> “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”
If what's being demonstrated is the ability to jump through hoops, he has to jump through at least one. This is just him standing next to a hoop, telling everyone that he just jumped through it.
Looks like the proof is not valid and does not prove Wright is Satoshi [1].
So the question becomes what is Wright trying to do by providing fake proofs?
And I wonder if the press/reporters even bothered to verify the proof or they were caught in the craze to publish breaking news.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hf4xj/creator_of_...
What is the point of that base64 string at the top? In the context of the article, I thought it would be a signature of "Craig Wright" or "Craig Wright, Satoshi", but it's only a base64 encoded string of one the earlier things he wrote:
% base64 --decode <<EOF
IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNhdG9zaGkuCgo=
EOF
Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.That's what he signed.
Except no, that's not what he signed. Have you checked it before saying so?
That Sartre quote is incredibly ironic. Sartre turned down the Noble prize. His point was that signing with the affectation was in bad faith.
r/bitcoin is calling bullshit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hflr3/craig_wrigh...