Re: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam]
A Beautiful Tweet
Excellent, thank you. Thats how its done, folks!
We each have our strengths and weaknesses. I recently tried to set up a Twitter account, for the exact purpose of Bitcoin advocacy. Couldnt figure out how to use it. ;-) I may try again, sometime... But regardless of what I do, if you are already on Twitter and similar sites, I encourage you to spread the word!
An Ugly Tweet
Ugh. Thanks a lot.
Twitter now totally requires Javascript; so in case anybody wants to see it without kowtowing to that, this is what were dealing with:
If Gavin Andresen had even a shred of honesty, he would be shouting from the rooftops and fighting tooth and nail to try to undo what he did. Not only would now, but would have been already, for the past four years! Equivocation doesnt cut it. No way.
This bears repeating from the other thread:
This is not a matter of opinion. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wrights claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresens 2016 verification of Faketoshi presents a compound question of factcompound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and cui bono?
So no, he shouldnt be able to have an opinion that Craig Wright might be Satoshior rather, his such opinion should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation were to opine that the Earth might be flat.
Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for yearsa grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.
Damn. You made me look outside at the sky, just to double-check! And then, I started wondering if maybe, just maybe, I am colourblindprotanopia often does cause difficulty distinguishing green from blue!or perchance, I went slightly insane, and I confused the meanings of basic English words blue and green in some Twilight Zone style psychosis...
I encourage readers of this thread to learn more about Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity. That is what we are dealing with here.
Quod Vide
I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.
Of course, I dont speak for gmaxwell; and I dislike quoting myself from just the last page of this same thread. But in case you didnt see it, he already addressed that question [pre-posting edit: and whilst I was previewing and adding a reply to AGD below, he addressed this again here]:
That was posted on a thread where I replied to another part of his post, and your reply to me was this:
If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Eh...
http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-22_Sat_06.05h/976210.html
For my own part, I stand by my negative trust feedback on Gavin Andresen (Reference). Three-digit UIDs who visit the CIA are not immune to being called out for what they have done. For my part.
Insecure E-mail
Was that before or after this?
That is from something that I recently posted in the Beginners & Help forum: A hands-on lesson on why you should check PGP fingerprints! I encourage others to read it, and to learn how to verify that you have the right key.
My thanks to others for the interesting discussion of this important issue.
"Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against ID Theft
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0
Any ID claiming to be #satoshi #nakamoto must put up a publicly verifiable signed message or shut up!
This is how identity works in #Bitcoin =#BTC
#SNTrustChain #ProjectAnastasiaBTC #LNTrustChain3"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1231979635589701633
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0
Any ID claiming to be #satoshi #nakamoto must put up a publicly verifiable signed message or shut up!
This is how identity works in #Bitcoin =#BTC
#SNTrustChain #ProjectAnastasiaBTC #LNTrustChain3"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinFX_BTC/status/1231979635589701633
Excellent, thank you. Thats how its done, folks!
I did not make Project Anastasia for the Bitcoin Forum only. I made it as a message to be built on Satoshis own forum, and spread by a cadre of Bitcoiners to every other venue of discussion.
We each have our strengths and weaknesses. I recently tried to set up a Twitter account, for the exact purpose of Bitcoin advocacy. Couldnt figure out how to use it. ;-) I may try again, sometime... But regardless of what I do, if you are already on Twitter and similar sites, I encourage you to spread the word!
An Ugly Tweet
Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289
Ugh. Thanks a lot.
Twitter now totally requires Javascript; so in case anybody wants to see it without kowtowing to that, this is what were dealing with:
Quote from: Chilli @5omni 2020-02-24
I had regular meetings with him (Gavin
Andresen) when I was writing Life After Google & Gavin was absolutely firm that Craig was Satoshi. He (CSW) then went out and got a 1000 patents or something!
That would suggest some sort of knowledge of Bitcoin technology. #Bitcoin
#BSV
Andresen) when I was writing Life After Google & Gavin was absolutely firm that Craig was Satoshi. He (CSW) then went out and got a 1000 patents or something!
That would suggest some sort of knowledge of Bitcoin technology. #Bitcoin
#BSVIf Gavin Andresen had even a shred of honesty, he would be shouting from the rooftops and fighting tooth and nail to try to undo what he did. Not only would now, but would have been already, for the past four years! Equivocation doesnt cut it. No way.
This bears repeating from the other thread:
Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?
This is not a matter of opinion. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wrights claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresens 2016 verification of Faketoshi presents a compound question of factcompound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and cui bono?
So no, he shouldnt be able to have an opinion that Craig Wright might be Satoshior rather, his such opinion should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation were to opine that the Earth might be flat.
Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for yearsa grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.
...he exploits the fact that people are usually unprepared to deal with such an audacious liar. ... the sort of person who will go literally red faced screaming at you that NO, IN FACT THE SKY IS GREEN NOT BLUE THE SKY IS GREEN. When faced with behaviour like that some people just start wondering if maybe its legit because they'd personally never act that way unless they were telling the truth and were absolutely sure of it.
Damn. You made me look outside at the sky, just to double-check! And then, I started wondering if maybe, just maybe, I am colourblindprotanopia often does cause difficulty distinguishing green from blue!or perchance, I went slightly insane, and I confused the meanings of basic English words blue and green in some Twilight Zone style psychosis...
I encourage readers of this thread to learn more about Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity. That is what we are dealing with here.
Quod Vide
Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289
I have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly.
Of course, I dont speak for gmaxwell; and I dislike quoting myself from just the last page of this same thread. But in case you didnt see it, he already addressed that question [pre-posting edit: and whilst I was previewing and adding a reply to AGD below, he addressed this again here]:
And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.
Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature. The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.
Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature. The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will.
That was posted on a thread where I replied to another part of his post, and your reply to me was this:
Gavin has done massive actual harm: Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi verification, Btrash shilling... You are defending him because he says theres an equal chance that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?
If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Eh...
http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-22_Sat_06.05h/976210.html
Quote
~nullius's judgement is Distrusted by:
[...]
10. NEW nutildah (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1763 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
[...]
10. NEW nutildah (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (14) 1763 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
For my own part, I stand by my negative trust feedback on Gavin Andresen (Reference). Three-digit UIDs who visit the CIA are not immune to being called out for what they have done. For my part.
Insecure E-mail
In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.
I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.
I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back.
Was that before or after this?
Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity. Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity. With my large boldface supplied:
Topic: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised
Topic: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised
Today I received an email from satoshin@gmx.com (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps satoshin@gmx.com expired and then someone else registered it.
Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)
I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.)
Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)
I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.)
* nullius asks, But what is Satoshis PGP key fingerprint? If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?
The email said:
Not exactly Satoshi's normal style.
Quote from: satoshin@gmx.com
Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.
Not exactly Satoshi's normal style.
That is from something that I recently posted in the Beginners & Help forum: A hands-on lesson on why you should check PGP fingerprints! I encourage others to read it, and to learn how to verify that you have the right key.
This was created today. It could have said anything that I wanted it to:
Verify it!
[...the fake key, how I made it, etc...]
Always make sure that you have the right key. Check PGP fingerprints!
Code:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Signed,
Satoshi Nakamoto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCXkcnOQAKCRA228A4i3Sc
ixUGAJwJP2WaRtRRQoH2oRuib6SxiitnpACfdpOP4PzmLqAOJgM5Ly9HYNzu8lI=
=HmWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Signed,
Satoshi Nakamoto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCXkcnOQAKCRA228A4i3Sc
ixUGAJwJP2WaRtRRQoH2oRuib6SxiitnpACfdpOP4PzmLqAOJgM5Ly9HYNzu8lI=
=HmWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Verify it!
[...the fake key, how I made it, etc...]
Always make sure that you have the right key. Check PGP fingerprints!
My thanks to others for the interesting discussion of this important issue.