Quote from: Preclus on December 09, 2015, 03:36:10 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on December 09, 2015, 02:47:39 PM

Checkmate Mr Wright.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxslii7

If anything, that proves it is him. Specifically, the argument is this:

"PGP key.. its metadata contains cipher-suites which were not widely used until later software."

Craig was building PGP from source himself at the time. It would have included any new/experimental versions of the cipher suites. At the time, he was working with encryption. Go check his Usenet posts.

Quote from: Preclus on December 09, 2015, 04:15:18 PM

Quote from: stan.distortion on December 09, 2015, 03:52:50 PM

Any chance of a bit more info on that? Hadn't bothered looking at this after the presses previous Satoshi screwups but it's starting to get interesting.

Start by searching for "Craig Wright AES" in Google Groups (old Usenets posts)

Quote from: stan.distortion on December 09, 2015, 04:16:21 PM

Quote from: Preclus on December 09, 2015, 04:11:42 PM

As a followup, the argument that the preferred hashes "weren't added" to GNUGPG until after 2009 is meaningless. Read RFC 4880:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-9

That is the RFC from November 2007. Now look at section 9.4, the preferred hashes. Hash algorithms 1 through 11 are in there. They are not experimental, they are standard hashes.

GNUPGP was just one of a number of OpenPGP implementations. PGP itself dates back to 1991. OpenPGP to 1997. Looking at the preferred hash list is meaningless.

Cheers, not about to jump to any conclusions on it but FUD free facts are much appreciated.

Quote from: theymos on December 09, 2015, 05:52:07 PM

Quote from: bri912678 on December 09, 2015, 05:24:03 PM

Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.

Quote from: keepdoing on December 09, 2015, 04:36:02 PM

Quote from: Denker on December 09, 2015, 04:20:54 PM

But it would be crazy if he really holds seveal hundred thousands of bitcoins, which ATO might be going for now.

ATO was investigating/working with Craig in parralel. #1 - because of the bitcoin phenomena, as a gov't they have the responsibility to set the correct precedent. Craig was starting up a huge bank. Doing it properly also - sort of like Circle in the U.S. (by that I mean that Dynarius Bnk was being set up according to proper rules/regs.)

If you read one of the referenced transcripts, you will see that as the discussion/decision regarding the "Nature of Bitcoin" decision was evolving - you will see that teh very real possibility that one outcome would be that a REFUND from Gov't to Craig/Dynarius was a real possibility. You will also see that they not only supported the advancement of the bank, they wee working very hard to get through the mandatory process of setting a firm foundation/definition of how to treat bitcoin - so that they could free up Craig to continue the project as quickly as possible. (READ the transcript - it is all there)

But unless I missed something, at no time was there a realization by ATO that Craig was actually Satoshi. They were dealing with Huge amounts of Bitcoin, but they were looking at it as investment, trying to figure out what it meant to transfer say 30,000 Bitcoins from Wallet 1 to Wallet 2, and if that defined a change in ownership, how that applied to tax, cross border transactions etc.

WHEN the Craig = Satoshi news broke, they realized that the guy they had been working with was MUCH bigger (in potential amount of bitcoins) than they had previously been aware of.

Craig has now already pretty much concluded his "negotiations" with ATO to a degree that his future activity with the previously undisclosed bitcoins is now covered/protected by the conclusion of previous negotiation.

But of course it is never as simple as one thinks when dealing with Governments, and now Craig is based in London, with moves to Iceland. Could be ATO is simply "making a show", or it could be they are feeling hoodwinked.

Craig does have a law degree

The "Satoshi stash" is probably now protected legally, and available to openly be used to supply all the necessary reserves for his new Bitcoin bank. Just a thought

Quote from: Preclus on December 10, 2015, 11:43:26 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 10, 2015, 10:28:16 AM

It wasn't even _in_ the software until a year later; by "the software" I mean the actual commit that introduced that selection. Building from source wouldn't have done it, because it wasn't in the source.

Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.

To start with, I see no reason why someone wouldn't generate PGP keys with two different pieces of software. Especially if one was run under Windows and one under a variant of Linux. The "entropy" post made my Mr. Wright that contained a PGP key talks about "/dev/random" and such showing he was working on a Unix (Linux) variant.

However, there is an argument I find more compelling that things have been backdated.

And that is the blog post from 2008.

Specifically, this one:

https://archive.is/HWfzH

which was grabbed by the crawler in March 2014.

It contains a PGP key with this up front:

"Version: SKS 1.1.4
Comment: Hostname: pgp.mit.edu"

The article stating there may have been backdating states that the key was not in the blog post in 2013 because there was a Google Reader cache version found that showed it was likely modified in 2013. I can't find a Google Reader cache version like that as the Google Reader product was discontinued by Google and the archive they have doesn't appear to have much as far as the web goes.

But ignoring that, the key says "Version: SKS 1.1.4".

That shouldn't have been there until 2012. Specifically:

https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2012-10/msg00010.html

The crawler grabbed it March 2014 so the key would have had to been edited in earlier than March 2014. And I agree that is a sign that posts were modified after the original publish date.

As Mr. Wright and his partner have/had a long background in computer forensics, this will be one tangled and extremely messy pile of spaghetti either way.

My personal belief is that it is him, along with his partner, and the rest of the developers. And I believe the launch post was an unedited post. And I believe the bitcoin community will rally around trying to discredit him as the founder at any cost. But I will also take the facts as they come out. And they will, one way or the other.

Thank you for the sleuthing. Maxwell has demonstrated on occasions that he doesn't do thorough enough analysis to question his own biases and lashes out at others.

Theymos how about the possibility (and almost a certainty) that Satoshi isn't one person and that this Craig Wright is asserting his role. He mentions working in a group on research and also mentions having other "beta coders" involved.

I haven't researched the case enough to form an opinion on the likelihood he is a scammer or other motive.

Readers make sure you read my prior post as well. I posted twice just now.