In which Craig S Wright answers questions on btcchat.slack.com initially through Vlad, then through his own account created at 6:43 AM in logs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Today May 4th, 2017 -----

christophbergmann [4:00 AM]

Hei, @vlad2vlad are you here?

[4:01]

You said CSW could answer any question I ask through your voice

vlad2vlad [4:01 AM]

Ask away

christophbergmann [4:01 AM]

cool ... I will ask several questions in next half hour

[4:01]

First ... how did it come that you have become the voice of CSW?

vlad2vlad [4:02 AM]

Destiny?

[4:02]

Or you want me to ask him?

[4:04]

I sent him the question. Any other ones.

christophbergmann [4:06 AM]

No, yes, both ... I mean, I guess he did not just call you and said: Vlad, be my voice. Did you search him? How did you win his trust?

vlad2vlad [4:06 AM]

Here's what he said: You are a little mad, as I am and I would not say you are my voice. And more than that, you never treated me like shit. You never required that I prove anything to befriend me. You are always civil.

[4:08]

I was hitting him up on twitter last year and I also sent him some emails but I didn't expect anything to come of it. I tend to try and talk to all the major industry players.

christophbergmann [4:09 AM]

When did you start believe that he is Satoshiß

[4:09]

?

[4:09]

thank you for taking the time, btw

vlad2vlad [4:11 AM]

I personally thought he was Satoshi before it was leaked, when I saw a 2 part video from like 2015 I think. That's what sold me on it. Then when he came out and all that crazy stuff happened it was confusing but I figured there had to be some logical explanation for it all so, unlike most people, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I felt he at least deserved that. Everyone does until there's real proof. Media sound bytes are never proof for me.

christophbergmann [4:12 AM]

Thanks

[4:12]

What did he do 2010-2015?

vlad2vlad [4:20 AM]

2010-2011. I was in a shit place family wise>

I was in a court battle with the Tax office (I won this in 2012)

[4:23]

In 2011 I started a co again. I moved assets in 2011. And I did contract code and security work. I was teaching at CSU until 2014. CSU runs the Police and military training.

[4:24]

From 2010 to 2013 I worked for both gaming co.s and LE. They are both the ones who cared about risk. Not that perfect security is all, but risk.

[4:25]

I had too many things answering gov questions form 2014 on

[4:26]

I had a farm, a ranch really. Middle of nowhere. No people closer than 1KM. I could work with no disturbances. I sold it to fund some of the companies as well as other assets. I loved that place. My work comes first.

[4:27]

Next question, @christophbergmann

christophbergmann [4:28 AM]

why did he leave Bitcoin in 2010?

vlad2vlad [4:38 AM]

I was in battles, one after another to keep what I was working on.

[4:39]

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/SYG746/2010/actions

[4:40]

I do not want to have people follow me. I want people to read and think. I want them to question and validate. Not to take my word or for that matter, anybodies. And worse, do not look at something in the past and make that the yardstick.

christophbergmann [4:41 AM]

didn't know this source.

[4:42]

Can you explain what happened? While you continued working on Bitcoin, your company went bankrupt?

vlad2vlad [4:48 AM]

In 2003 I had a fight with a 5% shareholder. My first wife sided with him as she wanted me to be home more. I ended up in an 11 year court battle. Settled part and got the company. I ended up winning. You have the final judgements. are district court, so not on google and people only see what they can easily google.

[4:49]

Here is what you can tell them all..

IF you need to do what I say as I am Satoshi and not because of the idea I am presenting, but the nature of my identity, then you are all lost!

If you cannot think for yourself, then all this was for nothing

[4:49]

If you judge based on an identity alone, on a perceived authority, then you are sheeple and deserve all you get

[4:52]

----

[4:52]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001

list of "8 2 9 10 11", which is the list that GNUPG started generating a year (commit e50cac1d848d332c4dbf49d5f705d3cbbf074ba1) after the date on the key.

BS utter BS.

And this was written as I write, not a paid piece, but as I do and I was the author of the Authority paper.

And it was independantly validated.

It is simple and who actually checks?

Gmax says and it is law.

[4:52]

Think. Learn that code is a tool and us humans can use tools, but it is not a panacea and can solve nothing on its own.

[4:57]

There is no form of non-repudiation. This is stated again and again by those with a past in (applied)cryptography. Yet, it is a concept that does not exist.

We live in a world of people. Code is a tool, it is a means to ensure that we can control our destiny if we use it well, but it does not remove the need to check and will never remove the need to think.

christophbergmann [4:57 AM]

Yeah, Greg seems obsessed with calling you a conman ...

vlad2vlad [4:57 AM]

Non-Repudiation can never exist as we live in a world of law. Law is Law. Crypto is a tool that adds weight to evidence, but it is not law.

I can sign and then say my key was stolen. I can pass a key to another. This is a well established principle. In the courts, it is always possible to repudiate.

I learned this the hard way. In my case, I was given a contempt citation as I argued the fact that electronic evidence supported my assertions. I learnt that law is law in 2004 when I argued that evidence of source information can be used against you and can be falsified and that it is not possible to simply show a key as proof.

[4:58]

----

MiniMax, err, Greg, is a douche. <------ my words. :)

[4:58]

---

[4:58]

Bitcoin is code. It has all the faults that code has. It does not make the world an anarchist playground and with it we are not free. We are free when we are free. We are free only when we allow our minds to be free.

[4:59]

We are in a tragic world. There are no fair solutions, the world is simply not fair and we can do no more than make it worse by interfering with markets and free choice.

[4:59]

‘a piratis et latronibus capta domimium non mutant’

Look it up. It is a concept of law.

christophbergmann [5:00 AM]

Did you sleep in this time? You had a company, a family and developed Bitcoin.

vlad2vlad [5:01 AM]

Theft of keys is a means to have access to keys, and what does it prove, only that you hold a key. Any transaction can be recovered. If you think this is not the case, deal with those with guns. Tax is forced, but try and avoid the force. Try legally.

[5:01]

I spend millions to win a case worth 1.1 million. Pyrrhic. And what was the use. It changed nothing.

[5:02]

End rant...

vlad2vlad [5:08 AM]

I have a company. I have a family and I am enrolled in a Masters degree right now. When I complete this degree, I will start another PhD.

Back then, I was also going to conferences, this I can no longer do.

I am a full fee student. I do not take money for this. I pay my own way. No scholarships. My choice.

[5:08]

So, why is this such an issue for so many people? I enjoy learning and knowledge.

[5:10]

---

[5:10]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001

The following is the sane response:

"grovulent 512 days ago [-]

As others have pointed out - it's arguable that publishing any claim about the identity of SN - puts the target in considerable, potential danger.

Now I can understand that there is a public interest component in knowing SN's identity. And I'd even be willing to accept (but really only for sake of argument) that this public interest overrides SN's own right to privacy and safety.

But to make these accusations when you yourself admit - as the article does - that there is a substantial degree of doubt, is to put at risk the safety and privacy of a person who doesn't deserve it in the least.

This is an absolutely appalling thing to do to anyone. And it should be prima-facie obvious to you as to why.

While I don't condone bullying of any sort - it really is the least of what these authors deserve. I personally don't feel Kanzure is bullying - merely pointing out how appalling this behaviour is, and this absolutely needs to be pointed out."

christophbergmann [5:11 AM]

are you sad that you left Bitcoin in 2010? Was it a mistake?

vlad2vlad [5:15 AM]

As for gaining... I gain nothing by proving I am Satoshi.

My family gains nothing. We go into moving again.

I do not get money and I DO NOT want fame

[5:17]

I did not leave Bitcoin. Gavin was left to manage the code with others. That is not leaving.

christophbergmann [5:18 AM]

How would you call it then?

vlad2vlad [5:23 AM]

I stopped responding to trolls. The base protocol was and is fine.

christophbergmann [5:29 AM]

what is the base protocol?

vlad2vlad [5:31 AM]

With the cap removed it remains ok.

christophbergmann [5:31 AM]

which version?

[5:32]

I'm not so interested in Blocksize things. We had this over and over, it already bored out Bitcoin

vlad2vlad [5:36 AM]

This is the answer to "what is the base protocol"?

[5:36]

The means to have miners controls the network through competition. The exchange of blocks, the format, the original script and protocols.

For example:

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp#L2249

See the comments that they all ignore.

Prove that is not Satoshi. I do not need to sign anything and I do not need to jump their hoops, it is the code.

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

christophbergmann [5:42 AM]

I wondered how can I know that this is the original codebase ...

[5:42]

Some other question

[5:42]

Why did you not publish a signed message?

vlad2vlad [5:43 AM]

Continued from last response: What we need is simple, it is competition. Not a central authority. Not a 1984 double speak committee, but open and free competition.

This means that people are allowed to build on top of the base protocol. That the miners decide (see the 08 paper). If people do not like it, they can lobby miners or better, invest in hash power.

This way, changes are made based on what the market decides. Not an authority, the market. Each tries and fails and grows based on supply to a market.

vlad2vlad [5:49 AM]

Answer to your last questing about signing a message:

[5:49]

URGH!

1. Tax. I am not offering proof that is proof. If I can access or not is MY business and it stays that way.

2. More importantly, stop looking to a bloody saviour!

Markets are the answer, free open competition. Not Satoshi on his bloody white horse. Markets!

[5:51]

Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.

They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

[5:52]

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.

[5:53]

In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter.

christophbergmann [5:53 AM]

Something else ... now you are Chief Scientis at nChain, right?

vlad2vlad [6:02 AM]

Yes. I will not discuss the company though.

[6:02]

The others will. I say too much and get in trouble already.

[6:03]

I am not a CEO for a good reason. I am good at maths and code, I can write responses that nobody reads that are cogent and sincere, but when it comes to politics and fronting things, I just dig holes for myself

christophbergmann [6:06 AM]

Ok, can you say when the software will go open source?

vlad2vlad [6:24 AM]

Not answering re times for Open Source. It is underway.

cryptonaut [6:34 AM]

@vlad2vlad CSW won't use slack or something? Would be interesting to get him on here.

vlad2vlad [6:35 AM]

I seriously doubt it but I'll ask him@

cryptonaut [6:36 AM]

Here's a question. Is Scronty legit or is this story just some fan fiction? (long read, but seems to align closely with the CSW story) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5aflch/bitcoin_origins/

reddit

Bitcoin Origins • r/Bitcoin

Afternoon, All. Today marks the eighth anniversary of the publication of the Bitcoin white paper. As a special tribute, I will provide you with...

[6:38]

If CSW is true and that above thread is true, Team Satoshi appears to consist of Craig, whoever that Scronty guy is, and David

vlad2vlad [6:38 AM]

Dr. Wright says he'll come take a look in this channel but he's not gonna join.

[6:39]

Who's got a link for this channel?

cryptonaut [6:40 AM]

if you click on your name in the top left corner there should be an option to invite people by email

[6:41]

tell him to make a throwaway if he wants to check it out but not join and get harrassed

csw [6:43 AM]

joined #general

cryptonaut [6:43 AM]

:new_moon_with_face: :rocket:

csw [6:44 AM]

Scronty is a wanker

csw [6:44 AM]

I am tired of people saying they worked with me. Scronty even got the number of BTC wrong.

2 replies Last reply today at 9:18 AM View thread

vlad2vlad [6:45 AM]

Welcome Dr. Wright!!!!

cryptonaut [6:45 AM]

so just some fan fiction then? and yes, welcome :smile:

csw [6:46 AM]

Yes, and not a fan

[6:47]

"I wondered how can I know that this is the original codebase ..."

[6:47]

It is not, it is close, but it is available on the satoshi Inst as well.

cryptonaut [6:47 AM]

Are you able to say how many there were on the team? 3, or was there more? Not that it matters really

csw [6:47 AM]

The first released code was 0.0.9

[6:47]

It crashed.

onchainscaling [6:47 AM]

Why was 21 million chosen? was it arbitrary number or is there a reason for that particular number?

csw [6:48 AM]

The first other users are Bear and Hal

[6:48]

M1

[6:48]

21 million links to global M1

christophbergmann [6:48 AM]

Hallo Mr. Wright!

csw [6:49 AM]

There are no decimal points, 21 million is the reference for people, the no. Satoshi (and I did not call them that) are related to M1 (edited)

cryptonaut [6:50 AM]

can you expand on that?

csw [6:50 AM]

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=m0,-m1,-m2,-m3,-m4

[6:51]

If you read the 08 paper, you will note the use of fiat as a value.

[6:51]

Sect, 9. Page 5

[6:51]

In the use of 21 million x 10^8 parts you have a value that maps to the cent

[6:51]

That is, to global M1

vlad2vlad [6:52 AM]

So bitcoin is meant to displace global fiat

[6:52]

?

csw [6:52 AM]

This would be 21,000,000,000,000 USD as M1.

21,000 trillion

[6:52]

The idea is global cash.

[6:52]

A single world currency

[6:53]

Can I assume that you have read Hayek's work on global money?

vlad2vlad [6:53 AM]

You're not gonna have many friends out there. But if you can pull it off bitcoin is gonna reach astronomical levels.

[6:53]

No. But i will. :)

csw [6:53 AM]

I have few friends.

cryptonaut [6:53 AM]

section 9 is titled 'combining and splitting value" and does not mention a fiat value

csw [6:54 AM]

I am not looking for them, I work best as I am and I find having a head in maths and code does not make one amiable to others.

[6:54]

"Although it would be possible to handle coins individually, it would be unwieldy to make a

separate transaction for every cent in a transfer"

[6:55]

I believe that you will find that in S9.

cryptonaut [6:55 AM]

right

[6:56]

gotcha

csw [6:56 AM]

I am sorry, I can be a little vague... If I am, ask for explanations.

[6:56]

I make assumptions of knowledge

cryptonaut [6:57 AM]

all good, just trying to piece together

csw [6:57 AM]

It comes from too long inside universities

cryptonaut [6:57 AM]

never been :wink:

csw [6:57 AM]

Never been out...

vlad2vlad [6:57 AM]

Lol

csw [7:00 AM]

Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-10 14:09:26 UTC

James A. Donald wrote:

> Furthermore, it cannot be made to work, as in the

> proposed system the work of tracking who owns what coins

> is paid for by seigniorage, which requires inflation.

If you're having trouble with the inflation issue, it's easy to tweak it for

transaction fees instead. It's as simple as this: let the output value from

any transaction be 1 cent less than the input value. Either the client

software automatically writes transactions for 1 cent more than the intended

payment value, or it could come out of the payee's side. The incentive value

when a node finds a proof-of-work for a block could be the total of the fees in

the block.

Satoshi Nakamoto

cryptonaut [7:01 AM]

Hah. So google tells me M1 USD supply is just under 2.1 trillion. Total # of satoshis is 2100 trillion. Close enough I say lol.

csw [7:01 AM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/util.cpp#L210

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:02]

Have a look at the code.

[7:03]

n /= CENT;

@212; 255; 261

in src/util.cpp

[7:03]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L17

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:03]

Main.h

[7:03]

Defined against Cents

[7:04]

// Value

int64 nValue = (GetRand(9) + 1) * 100 * CENT;

if (GetBalance() < nValue)

{

wxMessageBox("Out of money ");

return;

}

nValue += (nRep % 100) * CENT;

[7:04]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/ui.cpp#L3178

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:04]

Do you require more evidence?

cryptonaut [7:08 AM]

makes sense to me. Here's one for you though: what was the thinking behind adding the 1MB block limit that we are now dealing with 2.5+ years drama to solve?

csw [7:08 AM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:09]

// Transaction fee requirements, mainly only needed for flood control

// Under 10K (about 80 inputs) is free for first 100 transactions

// Base rate is 0.01 per KB

int64 nMinFee = tx.GetMinFee(pblock->vtx.size() < 100);

[7:09]

At 0.08 cents a BTC, flood control did not work.

[7:09]

At more than 100USD, it does

[7:09]

We are at more than 100USD a BTC right now.

[7:10]

In early 2010, the number of nodes (please note, nodes are always verification agents, that is miners) was low. (edited)

cryptonaut [7:10 AM]

friggin $2200 canadian on localbitcoins right now

csw [7:11 AM]

It should be higher. The more people can use BitCoin natively, the more the value will increase.

cryptonaut [7:11 AM]

spelling it BitCoin is heresy you know :stuck_out_tongue:

csw [7:12 AM]

This is not as has been suggested exponential, but logistic

[7:12]

It was in the early code as BitCoin

cryptonaut [7:12 AM]

eh, looks ugly though. But yeah, to the moon and such

csw [7:12 AM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/readme.txt

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:13]

Line 1: BitCoin v0.1.3 ALPHA

cryptonaut [7:13 AM]

Line 13: Bitcoin. Inconsistent lol

csw [7:13 AM]

I have never been accused of being a designer

[7:13]

I also never said I am perfect and yes, I do go back and forth.

[7:14]

Lines 34 - 36:

To support the network by running a node, select:

Options->Generate Coins

cryptonaut [7:14 AM]

I tend to do the same when naming things

csw [7:14 AM]

Code naming conventions do not always move into the real world well.

cryptonaut [7:14 AM]

true

csw [7:14 AM]

Words are not variables as much as I would like to have this be so

[7:16]

I thought the comments in the code were rather good, then it seems they are either ignored or they are not read.

[7:16]

Either saddens me, though I cannot state which would sadden me more.

cryptonaut [7:16 AM]

which points or comments do you feel are being ignored?

csw [7:17 AM]

Have you read Brooks?

[7:17]

Mythical Man Month, 1975, 1995 re-printed

cryptonaut [7:17 AM]

I have not

csw [7:17 AM]

A shame.

[7:17]

Page 65 from memory of Brooks

[7:18]

Triple redundancy

[7:18]

//

// "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three."

// Our three chronometers are:

// - System clock

// - Median of other server's clocks

// - NTP servers

//

// note: NTP isn't implemented yet, so until then we just use the median

// of other nodes clocks to correct ours.

//

[7:18]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/util.cpp#L326

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:19]

I do not see why there are arguments on things link the use off NTP as a base that is averaged in the system between nodes.

[7:19]

The code has a number of comments stating that this is to be done.

[7:20]

// Only let other nodes change our clock so far before we

// go to the NTP servers

/// todo: Get time from NTP servers, then set a flag

/// to make sure it doesn't get changed again

}

[7:22]

And it should not be monolithic...

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/net.cpp#L893

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[7:22]

//// todo: start one thread per processor, use getenv("NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS")

[7:22]

And the market place was never fixed.

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/ui.cpp#L1619

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

cryptonaut [7:23 AM]

I'm not too familiar with the nuances of NTP and server clocks etc, just a humble web developer. To get back to the 1MB block size thing for a second - did you anticipate the difficulty of removing or replacing the limit that we are currently experiencing?

csw [7:23 AM]

There was supposed to be a means to have a merchant exchange a message with the purchaser. This would be a direct PoS system, no need for Visa etc.

[7:24]

2010

[7:24]

See email

[7:24]

Well before we get to where we are RIGHT NOW it is possible to preempt this and have an increase.

jp [7:25 AM]

Why did you credit Adam Back hashcash when you didn't use it?

csw [7:25 AM]

Adam intro'd Wei

[7:25]

I do not generally talk to people I do not know. Not without an intro

jp [7:26 AM]

But why credit him while you not used his? This wrong citation creates this evil blockstream

csw [7:26 AM]

Adam was helpful for all that he said it would not work, but I am used to people saying my work is not worth considering.

jp [7:26 AM]

Why you didn't credit triple entry accounting?

csw [7:27 AM]

I am not able to see the future.

cryptonaut [7:27 AM]

re: merchant exchange, decent idea but probably premature and not the best idea to put so many use cases into a single application (for example, the wallet accounts system used by Core is total garbage)

csw [7:27 AM]

The list of references would be in the 100s of pages if I was to list the giants it was built to stand upon.

jp [7:28 AM]

You used triple entry accounting in 2005 to inspire blockchain. But instead you credited something not actually used

csw [7:28 AM]

Yes, the marketplace was far too early. And my design skills are far too poor.

[7:28]

Using wxHtml was also a mistake.

jp [7:29 AM]

It is why Ian grigg was heavily undervalued while core Adam back is crook

cryptonaut [7:29 AM]

the idea for PoW is an iteration/evolution of hashcash so I don't think the citation is off base really

csw [7:29 AM]

And triple entry accounting was something I stayed away from commenting

jp [7:29 AM]

It is not too late to comment now

csw [7:29 AM]

It was something I was introduced to when I was working at BDO, an accounting firm

jp [7:29 AM]

Yes. Granger did

csw [7:31 AM]

Again, I never foresaw the world to come as it has come. I did not see the politics. I saw state actors as more the issue than Adam B(l)ack

jp [7:31 AM]

I Think you should also correct the citation. Adam back himself was surprised when he saw he was credited

christophbergmann [7:31 AM]

why was Ian Grigg heavily undervalued, @jp ?

cryptonaut [7:31 AM]

what a mind trip adam must have had lol

jp [7:32 AM]

He was the one kept looking for hmwjo SN was because he was surprised as his name was included in whitepaper while he knew hashcash was not used

csw [7:32 AM]

It is published. Papers should not be played with

[7:32]

I am not a god, I am a researcher. I code, I do maths and I am fallible. (edited)

jp [7:33 AM]

It is not late to correctly credit people whose works you used.

[7:33]

Adam back is not and should not be on whitepaper because of just an introduction email to Wei Dai

csw [7:34 AM]

Should not. Is. These are separate concepts.

tomothy

[7:34 AM]

I know you touched on the 1mb cap and mining but can you comment on the idea of the UASF, (user activated soft fork) and your thought on using it to implement segwit? Also general thoughts on segwit? Thanks.

csw [7:34 AM]

I do not want to be found. I did not want to be found.

cryptonaut [7:34 AM]

frankly unless csw somehow 100% proves he is satoshi, any whitepaper update wouldn't be taken seriously and probably a waste of time. Plus blockstream is already a thing, too late for that

csw [7:35 AM]

UASF - Miners are nodes. Nodes are miners.

[7:35]

There are NO full non-mining nodes.

[7:35]

Please read the paper.

[7:35]

It is VERY VERY clear

[7:35]

If you have issues, look at the code.

tomothy

[7:35 AM]

And then segwit generally?

csw [7:36 AM]

"Nodes" that are not mining are wallets, these are fat SPV systems and sock puppets

[7:36]

SegWit centralises the system

jp [7:36 AM]

What is your plan to stop segwit? A hard fork coming soon?

csw [7:36 AM]

It means that developers can make further changes without a consensus

bdd [7:36 AM]

joined #general

csw [7:37 AM]

There will not be an update. Mistakes on referencing or not

tomothy

[7:37 AM]

To the best of your knowledge, does segwit infringe on any patents?

csw [7:38 AM]

And I will not prove. I am not here to prove. If you need to listen as you think that I am and this is the sole reason, then it is lost to you in any event.

[7:38]

Tomothy.

[7:38]

Yes

[7:38]

I cannot expand on that here and now.

[7:39]

That will be addressed soon and in the manner that is requires

tomothy

[7:39 AM]

And is it safe to the assume that the creators of segwit had alterior motives for creating it, introducing it, and refusing to increase 1mb limit?

[7:39]

Understood. Eagerly await.

csw [7:39 AM]

I cannot speak for the motivations of others I do not know intimately

jp [7:39 AM]

What can we do to help?

csw [7:40 AM]

Law is Law.

Cryptographic tools are tools.

I know many do not see this, but when it comes to intellectual property, it is rather certain.

[7:40]

To help... compete.

[7:40]

Competition and markets are the source of human freedom and innovation.

[7:41]

Make something.

[7:41]

Develop

jp [7:41 AM]

Compete in what way? I see that the SDK is one stone two birds. Kill core and alts

csw [7:41 AM]

And if you fail for the n-th time... Start and try again.

cryptonaut [7:41 AM]

amen to that, @jp compete in all ways :stuck_out_tongue:

[7:41]

getting super late here, I'm out guys. Cheers

jp [7:41 AM]

Will there be any smart contract applications coming?

csw [7:41 AM]

I cannot discuss that./

[7:42]

I also need to go.

I am sorry, but I have a lot to do.

jp [7:42 AM]

Thank you.

tomothy

[7:42 AM]

Same, thanks for providing so many responses!

csw [7:42 AM]

Please, all I ask is do not follow me, a developer or anyone based on who they are. Look anytime, everytime on the solution, the effects and the trade-off.

bitsko [7:43 AM]

thank you for your thoughts!

csw [7:43 AM]

Please remember, this is a world of scarcity, there is always something that is a trade-off, a cost and we cannot just assume that a change comes without a cost.

[7:43]

Fair well.

jp [7:45 AM]

And he gone.

cypherblock [7:45 AM]

well that was interesting.

bitsko [7:46 AM]

:awesome: :ohyeah: :awesome: :ohyeah: :success: :success: :wut: :rocket:

norway [7:47 AM]

This is crazy.

tomothy

[7:47 AM]

Thanks for making that happen vlad

vlad2vlad [7:47 AM]

BOOM!!! Told you guys Dr Wright was the real deal!!!

tomothy

[7:47 AM]

I still expect some God damn fireworks though. That better not be the end of it.

vlad2vlad [7:47 AM]

I do what I do. ;p

[7:48]

I don't think that's the end of it. It's like core is gonna compromise.

tomothy

[7:48 AM]

We need that tabloid inquirer type juice too

jp [7:48 AM]

I told you were a working tool. Good one.

vlad2vlad [7:48 AM]

Lol.

tomothy

[7:48 AM]

LOL compromise LOL

vlad2vlad [7:48 AM]

Haha

norway [7:49 AM]

I like this one: "There are NO full non-mining nodes."

cypherblock [7:49 AM]

I thought his first post was interesting.

norway [7:50 AM]

Bitcoin mapped to current M1 makes a lot of sense.

vlad2vlad [7:50 AM]

Replace cash. Brilliant.

norway [7:51 AM]

M1 is not just physical cash. It's also spending accounts.

vlad2vlad [7:51 AM]

Yeah, cash equivalents

[7:52]

That was a solid showing

cypherblock [7:53 AM]

@vlad2vlad why did his first post here call out Scronty. Were you guys discussing him previously?

vlad2vlad [7:53 AM]

I don't think so. Not sure if someone else maybe mentioned him.

jp [7:54 AM]

Scronty is a wannabe wanker

vlad2vlad [7:54 AM]

Lol

jp [7:54 AM]

He even sent emails asking for 500k btc

norway [7:54 AM]

I made a calculation of potential bitcoin value a couple of years ago. I used M2 (Cash + spending accounts + savings accounts) as the basis. It's these pie charts: https://i.imgur.com/KA8CuED.png (231kB)

vlad2vlad [7:55 AM]

That guy messaged me telling me crazy stuff. Sounded desperate. Scammer type.

cypherblock [7:55 AM]

ah I see @cryptonaut posted question about Scronty. Scronty seems like a nice guy, either he is full of shit or he is not. Same as csw.

jp [7:57 AM]

Scronty sent emails demanding 500k btc

cypherblock [7:57 AM]

@jp please post

[7:58]

csw posted ~invalid~ faked, scammy satoshi signatures. (edited)

jp [7:58 AM]

uploaded this image: Screenshot_20170504-045821.png

Add Comment

vlad2vlad [7:58 AM]

Scronty told me he asked for 500k BTC. Said it was owed to him

jp [7:59 AM]

uploaded this image: Screenshot_20170504-045849.jpg

Add Comment

cypherblock [8:00 AM]

@jp didn’t look like a demand there, but that is semantics I suppose. Sounds like he was involved then? Can you confirm?

jp [8:00 AM]

Oh. It was a lot of rants prior that

[8:01]

Scronty was not involved. He is pissed off because he was not

[8:01]

Like you knew someone before he/she getting famous and now you jump up and down to tell people that you two were best friend forever lol

vlad2vlad [8:02 AM]

@jp are you Joseph?

cypherblock [8:02 AM]

Not involved at all? Didn’t help author the white paper or see any drafts of it prior to publication and give feedback on that?

jp [8:02 AM]

John Paterson

[8:02]

Not involved

[8:02]

You can write that fantasy novel too

[8:02]

By gathering public info and some studies

newliberty [8:03 AM]

joined #general

cypherblock [8:03 AM]

@jp who came up with using hashcash (yes I know you hate) pow? Was that csw?

tomothy

[8:03 AM]

NL this is slack text I wanted to send or link dunno how

jp [8:04 AM]

No. Hashcash was not used

[8:04]

It is why I raised this issue

cypherblock [8:04 AM]

double sha256 as pow then. who came up with that?

jp [8:04 AM]

Adam Back was surprised when he was credited

[8:05]

He kept wondering who was Satoshi because Adam back said solutions Satoshi put, wouldn't work

[8:05]

And here we re. Adam back tries to steal everything

[8:06]

Wei Dai helped

tomtomtom7 [8:06 AM]

joined #general

tomothy

[8:07 AM]

I think he might now be in http://btcchat.slack.com

[8:07]

If you have access

cypherblock [8:07 AM]

@jp but bitcoin does use double sha256 as proof of work, so there is some basis for referencing another work that also used that.

tomothy

[8:08 AM]

For those just joining and hoping to get some answers. Was just told he got there and is talking also

jp [8:08 AM]

Read Ddos resistance paper

tomothy

[8:08 AM]

Unless this is that slack... Lol I don't think it is though, right? To many slacks

cypherblock [8:08 AM]

@timothy this is btcchat yes.

jp [8:09 AM]

Hashcash was used for email spam

tomothy

[8:09 AM]

Oh. Damn, sorry NL.

jp [8:09 AM]

It was hashcash original purpose

cypherblock [8:09 AM]

@jp yes I am aware. I completely agree that bitcoin is far far different than hashcash

jp [8:10 AM]

Too much fantasy from email spam solution to bitcoin as Adam back claims. Totally scam

cypherblock [8:11 AM]

but still the concept of proof of work, of something that is easy to verify and hard to create is important. Adam came up with good solution for that and saw its use but obviously nothing like bitcoin.

vlad2vlad [8:11 AM]

JVP?? Man, Dr. Wright brought in the big strangers. Welcome, @newliberty

jp [8:11 AM]

If the whitepaper citations were done properly, actually credit properly then we wouldn't have blockstream Adam Back of today

[8:11]

But as Dr. Wright said, he could not see the future

[8:13]

Hal Finney, Dave Kleiman. Wei Dai were the team. If anyone else claimed to be a part of It and asking for money, it is scammer

vlad2vlad [8:15 AM]

@jp What about bear? I'm pretty sure he helped out early on

jp [8:16 AM]

I won't comment on that.

vlad2vlad [8:16 AM]

The answer is yes.

cypherblock [8:16 AM]

yeah who is bear? Sorry I mean I’m not familiar with that moniker, is he referenced elsewhere?

vlad2vlad [8:16 AM]

I actually talked to him a couple weeks ago about another project

[8:16]

Ray Dillinger

[8:17]

Maybe we can get him in here too. Bring back the whole team. Minus Hal, of course.

jp [8:17 AM]

Minus Dave K

vlad2vlad [8:17 AM]

Oops. Him too.

[8:18]

I've got Gavin's email. Gonna try him

jp [8:19 AM]

Adam Back should stop riding the bitcoin whitepaper coattail

vlad2vlad [8:20 AM]

I sent bear and Gavin and invite. Maybe we'll get a super dev slack going here.

awemany [8:25 AM]

joined #general

bitsko [8:27 AM]

Was trying to get full text with slack signup as title for a pastebin. Looks like i didnt get it all, now on cell and must work. :fearful:

travin [8:27 AM]

joined #general

cypherblock [8:29 AM]

@jp were you involved with early bitcoin? You are not jvp right? Sorry so many monikers to track.

jp [8:29 AM]

As Dr. Wright said, he is tired of having people saying that they worked with him.

tomothy

[8:29 AM]

Yeah also on mobile, Vlad maybe make a pastebin of today's excitement?

1 reply Today at 8:31 AM View thread

jp [8:29 AM]

I am John Paterson

csw [8:30 AM]

No, I posted a link to read Satre.

Pinned by jp

Today at 8:32 AM Pinned by jp

[8:31]

Please read the following (translated) page for this:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/

The New York Review of Books

Sartre on the Nobel Prize

Jean-Paul Sartre explained his refusal to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature in a statement made to the Swedish Press on October 22, which appeared in Le Monde in a French translation approved by Sartre. The following translation into English was made by Richard Howard. I deeply regret the fact that the incident has become … (13kB)

vlad2vlad [8:32 AM]

I'm also on mobile. 4 years strong

xhiggy [8:33 AM]

joined #general

vlad2vlad [8:33 AM]

Now I remember reading that

awemany [8:34 AM]

csw, so what I am wondering, given the general hands-off attitude you seem to possess: why do you want to get involved with Bitcoin development again through nchain? Do you distrust the market? Or do you think the market simply includes you as a market participant as well, and it therefore should reflect your actions?

csw [8:34 AM]

East vs West, this is a cultural comment. It does not relate to what people see, but to order and anarchy. Neither is the way. Being a Libertarian is a means to allow free trade and market solutions, but it requires institutions.

[8:34]

The market is all I trust!

[8:35]

Am I being a wet blanket here, or does anyone understand the point of the Satre rejection letter?

[8:36]

There exists nothing to relate a free market based global money to. It is as a consequence of never truly having been free. The "Gold standard" was in fact a Gold exchange standard and worse, it was a BiMetalist system (edited)

newliberty [8:38 AM]

There've been a number of different gold standards, so there's not really a standard gold standard.

tomothy

[8:39 AM]

The point of the letter is apt and plainly similar. Thanks for sharing.

csw [8:39 AM]

Everyone seeks an authority. This is what BitCoin was created to bypass. We can all trade and we can do this as the market determines. Not as a consequence of a high priesthood, but through trial and error, failure and just sheer will to try and learn and fail again.

[8:40]

Satoshi has to be a myth. If you make me, or anyone a 'God', an infallible authority, then what is the point?

cypherblock [8:40 AM]

did you purposely want to undermine Gavin as a way to remove his authority as well? That seems a bit, well, rough.

charlieshrem [8:41 AM]

joined #general

charlieshrem [8:42 AM]

Hey

2 replies Last reply today at 8:42 AM View thread

awemany [8:42 AM]

csw: yes that authority part makes a lot of sense and also why the creator had to hide. this is why I am wondering about your personal involvement again. is nchain going to be funded by early coins?

csw [8:42 AM]

Core should not tell you what to do. They need to propose and allow the market to decide. Bitcoin solves the issue of sock puppets in a manner analogous to the gambler at the roulette table. This means we propose and allow it to compete and to see what we can have, not as a centralised system but through many groups.

newliberty [8:42 AM]

Recognizing "Satoshi" ought be more about gratitude than authority seeking. Authorities are to be questioned.

csw [8:42 AM]

nChain is funded, but I will not discuss that. There are people in the group who will.

jp [8:42 AM]

Someone pastebin this chat pls. I'm on mobile

csw [8:43 AM]

Authority NEEDS to be questioned.

[8:43]

I study and I write. More than that I do not ask.

awemany [8:43 AM]

csw: ok. Core supporters often bring forward the 'alternative implementations are menace to the network' part - what did you mean by that, in light of 'many groups' above? (edited)

tomothy

[8:44 AM]

Newliberty did.

csw [8:44 AM]

They are a menace only to those who freely decide.

wellspenttime [8:44 AM]

joined #general. Also, @joeldalais joined.

csw [8:44 AM]

If you consider the flaw in BU, it was a loss to the miner, not to the protocol

charlieshrem [8:45 AM]

BU has too many issues to safely be considered the reference client.

csw [8:45 AM]

That should be encouraged. No transaction was lost and the overall system did not suffer, so why is this a problem generally?

[8:45]

Charlie, I do agree. But the solution does not need to be so difficult

charlieshrem [8:45 AM]

Agreed.

csw [8:46 AM]

And we can scale on and off chain at the same time

charlieshrem [8:46 AM]

Agreed as well.

[8:46]

I feel like good solutions have come alight, but are blocked/put down based on who their authors are.

csw [8:46 AM]

In the 8 years, Moore's law has held and will continue.

[8:49]

Did any of you know that a 2nm transistor was created. This was something considered impossible. It is lower than the 7nm Quantum tunnelling effect.

lunar [8:49 AM]

@csw . Good afternoon. I'm just one small cog in the Bitcoin Unlimited team, but we've been trying to solve the blocksize issue for several years now. I was interested in what you thought about the emergent consensus solution? The idea BU implements, by giving miners the tools to signal between each other and come to a free market driven determination of the blocksize commodity, with an adjustable block cap. Thanks

csw [8:49 AM]

This occurred in 2012.

[8:49]

I think that miners need to decide.

joeldalais [8:50 AM]

can i ask - what is nChain bringing to the table? will it be a new client implementation? actual development (instead of this stalling we've had for years)? new teams of programmers (seems you have a very strong team)? business solutions? end user solutions? or - a mix of everything and more? or don't worry if its too early to ask (edited)

csw [8:51 AM]

In 2009/10, the value of Bitcoin was far too low for flood control to work based on fees without a cap.

tomothy

[8:51 AM]

See above, not really discussing nchain

joeldalais [8:51 AM]

fair enough :slightly_smiling_face:

Pinned by jp

Today at 8:52 AM Pinned by jp

csw [8:51 AM]

I will not discuss the business side here sorry. There is a team who do that. I focus on code and maths

[8:51]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[8:51]

Please have a quick look at the 0.1.3 and earlier code

joeldalais [8:51 AM]

ok, then i'll be quiet and soak up what knowledge i can :slightly_smiling_face:

csw [8:52 AM]

Lines 2249 as comments and on:

// Transaction fee requirements, mainly only needed for flood control

// Under 10K (about 80 inputs) is free for first 100 transactions

// Base rate is 0.01 per KB

[8:53]

It is simple to create a flood based fee system

newliberty [8:53 AM]

For QC threats over the coming years, Shor's algo for keys and Grover's for hashing are concerns, but they will hit most every other security protocol before they are problems for Bitcoin, so should ample be time to resolve, and the failures of others to learn from. I imagine these were design considerations? Care to comment on this?

csw [8:53 AM]

Offer a set amount for free and then have a capped value - not a limit, let TXs pay to be in if there are too many (as decided by the market and not a committee)

[8:54]

QC is bunk

[8:54]

Grover's algo means a large QC could solve a hash in a billion years or so... classical growth will solve this faster

[8:55]

As for Shor's, the rate of calculation would lead to a 110 or longer solution time when a private key has been exposed.

[8:55]

This means that a 20 billion USD system could solve for 3 keys a year.

[8:56]

As a consequence, large values could be moved to multiple keys or even to multi sig systems.

[8:56]

I have a paper being published in this area. It took time. I needed to study some more physics first.

satoshi [8:57 AM]

joined #general

awemany [8:57 AM]

what is "110 or longer"?

vlad2vlad [8:57 AM]

Oh look, Satoshi is here. Lol

[8:57]

This is getting good

newliberty [8:58 AM]

The double hashing resolves most the preimage issues, and one-time use of coins means there is only the window of time from transmission to mining to crack, so had guessed that these were considered from the beginning.

csw [8:58 AM]

At a discounted rate of 1 Billion USD a key per annum, the requirement would be that a key would need to have 100 BIT stored and to have a based value of 100 million USD per BTC to make attacking Bitcoin ECDSA keys valid.

[8:59]

More, the double hash means that the input to the hash needs to be of a set size. The collision problem allows for scaled solutions.

satoshi [8:59 AM]

I am not Satoshi.

csw [8:59 AM]

So, if you have a set number of collisions, you find that the possibility of a valid collision diminishes

vlad2vlad [9:00 AM]

For crying outloud @satoshi I thought you were. Lol

jp [9:01 AM]

Can we focus on the technical discussion here?

satoshi [9:01 AM]

What is the most productive thing the average user can do to support on-chain scaling?

csw [9:01 AM]

There are an estimated infinite number of collisions for any hash, but the size is indeterminate.

[9:02]

Satoshi, use bitcoin and call for real solutions. This is not 2 Mb. From 09 to now, systems have increased about 100x

[9:02]

In this time, we have not moved from a cap that was set for flood control at all.

freetrader [9:03 AM]

joined #general

csw [9:03 AM]

Can I ask people to look at the code comments in the 0.1.0 to 0.1.3 release.

joeldalais [9:03 AM]

its where its noted as 'flood control'?

csw [9:03 AM]

I think that it was rather clear, but then I have a habbit of losing people

[9:04]

Yes.

[9:04]

There should always be free TXs

joeldalais [9:04 AM]

people seem to gaze over that part and ignore it :disappointed:

csw [9:04 AM]

Where the idea of a cap should be is a market decided limit that is not stopped, but sold at value

[9:04]

Nobody reads the code comments :disappointed:

[9:05]

There was a 100 TB drive released in the last 6 months.

[9:06]

This i not a standard laptop addition, but the truth is that we are in a world were exponential scaling is occuring and against that we have a logistic one.

awemany [9:06 AM]

csw, tbh, you lost me with the above calculations. why is it '1 billion USD a key *per annum*?". Ialso do not understand " The collision problem allows for scaled solutions.". I assume that "More, the double hash means that the input to the hash needs to be of a set size." means that the input width is fixed for the 2nd SHA256? Why is that relevant and important?

newliberty [9:06 AM]

Storing the full chain costs about 0.001BTC worth of drive today

csw [9:07 AM]

Can I assume that people understand the distinction between a logistic and exponential growth system?

ajd [9:07 AM]

csw were you on IRC while you were developing Bitcoin?

joeldalais [9:07 AM]

i was looking at bandwidth+drive space (costs) some while back, the growth/cost over the last 15 years. It boggles my mind why people think this growth will suddenly stop, there is certainly room now and in the future.

csw [9:07 AM]

Shor is not the same as linear classical systems.

[9:08]

If you have a 20 Billion USD system, and you can factor 3 keys a year, a basic IRR means you come to a value a little over 1 billion USD for each key.

[9:09]

joeldalais, the Intel roadmap is strong for the next 2 decades.

tomtomtom7 [9:09 AM]

csw: Sorry if blunt, but could you comment on why you let Gavin vouch for you without going public with proof yourself?

csw [9:09 AM]

http://gizmodo.com/5807151/2-nanometer-quantum-transistors-are-the-worlds-smallest

Gizmodo

2-Nanometer Quantum Transistors Are the World's Smallest

A team of scientists at Chungbuk National University in South Korea have created a transistor that's only 2nm in size, which happens to be the smallest in the world. By comparison, the current generation of Intel processors use 32nm transistors. (35kB)

[9:10]

Moving goal posts.

[9:10]

Tomx3+7, I had never wanted what occured and I had no plans to be an authority. I will not

[9:11]

I will be a scammer with ideas that go to market before I become something I detest and people wanted that. They dressed me in a bloody turtle neck!

[9:12]

I have NEVER worn a frikin turtle neck in my life. Like I was bloody jobs or something.

[9:12]

I made stupid decisions and I, as all do, have regrets.

joeldalais [9:13 AM]

its not that bad decisions are done, but how we act after that matters

csw [9:13 AM]

I am not good with people. This is difficult for me now. Vlad and others have pushed me to be here and to be frank it scares the shit out of me

1 reply Today at 9:17 AM View thread

tomtomtom7 [9:14 AM]

thank you csw

joeldalais [9:14 AM]

great respect for being here at all :slightly_smiling_face:

jp [9:14 AM]

Incompleteness.

travin [9:14 AM]

Thanks for that, Craig. It's well-appreciated.

joeldalais [9:15 AM]

and for what its worth, i think you're doing fine here

csw [9:15 AM]

Ta

jp [9:17 AM]

csw: you are better with code and math.

csw [9:17 AM]

LOL

newliberty [9:23 AM]

Maybe we work up with some worthy competition in the next 7.

ajd [9:26 AM]

Have you changed your opinion on multiple implementations and if so why?

cypherblock [9:26 AM]

@csw how long did it take the write the original bitcoin source code?

csw [9:27 AM]

I am not going to play Satoshi. I am not wanting to have people think I am and I am going to imagine that nobody ever doxx'd me and that I am just some overqualified academic for the moment... ok?

tomothy

[9:28 AM]

Oh, what's the new masters you are getting?

ajd [9:28 AM]

OK. I'm asking csw that question.

jp [9:28 AM]

Csw is just a con artist and an asshole. Move along, nothing to see.

csw [9:28 AM]

The code should compete, but what matters is that there is a reference protocol

[9:29]

I am completing a MSc right now. It is in financial econometrics

[9:29]

Uni of London

joeldalais [9:29 AM]

hypothetical question .. do you think it would be possible to link 2 blockchains together via a 2nd layer (that ran the same algo). A 2nd layer that basically just read and fed back data from both chains?

csw [9:30 AM]

I have put in a proposal into Cambridge for another PhD in Pure Mathematics this time. I hope to start that in Oct

libitx [9:30 AM]

joined #general

joeldalais [9:30 AM]

its a good uni, think one of my sisters went there

cypherblock [9:30 AM]

any thoughts on recent ext block proposals (or ext blocks in general with ability to move coins back and forth between main and ext)?

csw [9:30 AM]

I see issues, but this is not a place to discuss that.

There are too many problems with the discussion of complex issues in a few words. I have a few papers and I will be publishing again soon.

joeldalais [9:31 AM]

sounds good :slightly_smiling_face:

csw [9:31 AM]

People can read and accept or dismiss the arguments that I pose in those papers.

cypherblock [9:32 AM]

expected pub date? or too soon to say?

prometheus [9:33 AM]

joined #general

new messages

csw [9:33 AM]

Peer review...

Pinned by jp

Today at 9:34 AM Pinned by jp

[9:34]

Some have been completed... peer review is a difficult mistress. Worse than my wife :slightly_smiling_face:

newliberty [9:34 AM]

Peers can be difficult to come by

awemany [9:37 AM]

csw, so I am still trying to parse your above comments on using shor to crack a priv key. what I do not understand where the double hash comes in? I only see the single rpemd160 one.

csw [9:38 AM]

Sha256

tomothy

[9:38 AM]

CSW, which alt should I buy tomorrow? (don't hurt me)

csw [9:39 AM]

:stuck_out_tongue:

jp [9:39 AM]

I guess it is Diem

awemany [9:39 AM]

ok, sure, SHA256. but where does that come into play in cracking priv/pub pairs?

newliberty [9:39 AM]

Guaranteed it will hurt if you do. Rumor is we are running out of bitcoins to buy.

csw [9:39 AM]

2 sec

tomothy

[9:41 AM]

On a serious note, thoughts on Monero, or ZEC, similar coins & code (confidential transactions) with regards to anonymity? Is anonymity something you see being brought to bitcoin in the near/far future? I know blockchain analytics have significantly improved and coin taint can be a concern for some. I.e., BTC tumblers essentially no longer working.

vlad2vlad [9:41 AM]

@tomothy Nuggets!! Buy NUGS if you wanna be rich.

4 replies Last reply today at 9:44 AM View thread

awemany [9:42 AM]

@tomothy : tumblers don't work, why is that?

4 replies Last reply today at 9:43 AM View thread

klee [9:42 AM]

joined #general

awemany [9:43 AM]

@tomothy : monero is mostly BTC in constant tumbler mode and seems to be working fine, privacy wise. so I don't see how bitcoin is fundamentally lacking. Now, sure, most people do NOT anonymize their TXN because it is a PITA with the current tools, but I see no reason how BTC is lacking there in principle

new messages

csw [9:43 AM]

The reality is there is nothing to fear

Most importantly, bitcoin uses a double hashing algorithm. The results of this scenario is that any unused bitcoin address will not be reversible to the public key, let alone able to be attacked through a reversal of the ECDSA key pair. Algorithm such as Grover's algorithm (Grover, 1996) are touted as being able to speed up the searching through possible collisions in the reversing of hashing algorithms including SHA-256.

This algorithm is known to be at best a solution in BPP ( ), a class of decision problem that is decidable in polynomial time with an error probability bounded by 1/3 (for all inputs). The idea is that this error rate can be minimised or made to be exponentially small in 'k" using a process of iterating the algorithm 'k' times with the most frequent value returned as the result. This process ignores the noise of the quantum computer and reports an error rate based on the ideal system alone. Bennet et al. (1997) demonstrate how an ideal quantum Turning machine cannot find a solution to an NP problem in less than time . For SHA-256, this is time and is a far more difficult problem when the true problem, the solution of a bounded size hash to a hash puzzle is introduced. His conclusion was that “Anyone afraid of quantum hash-collision algorithms already has much more to fear from non-quantum hash-collision algorithms”.

More importantly, when Bernstein (2009, ) analysed the known quantum algorithms he demonstrated conclusively that “all the quantum-collision algorithms in the literature are steps backwards from the non-quantum algorithm of (Oorschot, et al. ). In other words, any attack on the hash functions of Bitcoin would be more effective using a classical computer.

Bitcoin is thus secure against (theoretical) quantum computer attacks against a key that has not been used. Once a transaction is signed and sent to the blockchain, an attacker can extract the public key. This is not a flaw in the algorithm but a standard part of the functioning of ECC and ECDSA based systems. The question is then, what is the cost to an attacker to break the ECDSA key itself?

Grover’s algorithm could be said to reduce the bit-security of such primitives by half; one might say that a 256-bit pre-quantum primitive offers only 128-bit security in a post-quantum setting. This is far too large to be broken on any QC any time in the foreseeable future. However, Bitcoin uses the Hash of a Hash. The combination of both SHA256 bit hashes of SHA256 values and the use of a 160Bit RipeMD hash of a SHA256 value for an address makes the analysis of bitcoin addresses to uncover the private key infeasible.

Attacking ECDSA with Shor

Let us for a moment assume that a working solution to the problem of creating logical qubits on a FTQC that can maintain coherence for long time periods can be achieved. We next need to note that Shor's algorithm is not simple and a Universal QC would need specialised breaks - you cannot just solve ECC in one hit as is suggested by many pundits.

The other common fallacy and assumption is that a FTQC will just factor the private key before you can spend. It is more probable that even a 1 million logical qubit FTQC system would likely take weeks or months to break 256 bit ECDSA keys.

9:44]

On the basis of these numbers, performing a 2048-bit number Shor factorization will take on the order of 110 days and require a system size of 2 × 109 trapped ions.

Trapping 2 × 109 ions will require 23 × 23 vacuum chambers occupying an area of ca. 103.5 × 103.5 m2.

Pinned by jp

[9:44]

Bitcoin Mining.

As we noted from Bernstein’s (2009) results, quantum computers are slower at solving hash collision than are algorithms for the deployment on classical systems. Hence, there is no economic benefit for a miner to use Quantum Computers for the solution of hash puzzles as they would solve fewer hashes than a miner on a more traditional ASIC. This excludes the costs of the Quantum computer as well (which is significant) and does not consider the fact that qubits are slower to process than bits (Bernstein, 2009). The result is that a miner who was to deploy a Quantum computer for the mining of Bitcoin (if one was to ever exist in the first place) would be at an economic disadvantage to a miner using more traditional ASIC based systems.

Post-quantum cryptography ( ), a purported non-partisan site for the scientific dissemination of information concerning the effects of quantum computing on cryptography that is heavily used by partisan personalities including Vitalik Buterin, (co-founder of Ethereum) starts with the doom saying prophecy:

“"Imagine that it's fifteen years from now. Somebody announces that he's built a large quantum computer. RSA is dead. DSA is dead. Elliptic curves, hyperelliptic curves, class groups, whatever, dead, dead, dead. So users are going to run around screaming and say 'Oh my God, what do we do?'”

This false prophecy is clearly misleadingly designed to read as if it was a quote from Daniel Bernstein’s ( ) analysis. The removal of the line “The New York Times runs a frontpage article reporting that all of the public-key algorithms used to protect the Internet have been broken” changes the context where the author starts by stating, “A closer look reveals, however, that there is no justification for the leap from “quantum computers destroy RSA and DSA and ECDSA” to “quantum computers destroy cryptography.””

More importantly, no consideration of the costs and time in uncovering a private key has been announced. As Bernstein (2009 ) also demonstrated, the move to alternate hashing algorithms is unwarranted due to theoretical quantum computers even were they to become a reality.

So, please never listen to the FUD. Forget ideas such as Lamport Signatures. Bitcoin is as it is for a reason and the reason that these others who worry about science fiction did not create it is the reason we need to maintain it as the protocol was created.

[9:44]

Sorry... parts of a paper I am writing.

awemany [9:46 AM]

ok, thanks, let me digest that

new messages

tomothy [9:50 AM]

CSW can you address thoughts regarding privacy concerns on the blockchain and comment on coins that attempt to address some of those issues? I mean, it's recognized that it's a "PUBLIC LEDGER" with "PUBLIC WALLETS" so... but still it's an interesting topic and I just wanted to see your thoughts.

[9:51]

Also, someone was wondering what your thoughts were about "vaults". Not sure if you've seen the article. http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/02/26/how-to-implement-secure-bitcoin-vaults/

Hacking Distributed

How to Implement Secure Bitcoin Vaults

We have come up with a simple and elegant technique for implementing hack-proof Bitcoin vaults, to deter Bitcoin thefts. (176kB)

csw [9:51 AM]

Threshold signatures.

csw [9:52 AM]

The problem with signatures is solvable using set theory. Anyone know about Cantor's use of diagonalism?

1 reply

hankdasilva [9:54 AM]

joined #general

klee [9:54 AM]

I am the guy interested for the Vault thing

newliberty [9:54 AM]

Infinite sets comparisons

klee [9:55 AM]

and also if BitCoin blockchain was made transparent (regarding anonymity, privacy) by design

[9:55]

or was the best thought back in the day

awemany [9:56 AM]

csw, so I read the above, I see most parts of where you are coming from now and it makes sense. however, the only thing remaining is the double-hashing, which is unclear to me. what does it add in terms of security in terms of QC considerations? Grover's algo will work in sqrt(n) both for a single and a double hash and the double hashing is just a constant factor in time - no?

tomothy [9:56 AM]

"jp [3 minutes ago]

csw: had a conversation with Dr. Conway about Cantor

tomothy [2 minutes ago]

JP does that have to do with anonymity or storing of txs

csw [1 minute ago]

Keys. And there are ways that you can make keys more private as well... but again, too much for slack

tomothy

[< 1 minute ago]

Thanks, will repost into slack as threads aren't stored easy."

newliberty [9:57 AM]

Surreal numbers, Conway worked on something related. JP met with him a while back

[9:57]

Not sure how it applies though

new messages

iang [9:58 AM]

joined #general

jp [9:58 AM]

Welcome Ian grigg

newliberty [9:59 AM]

This is a rich meal of food for thought

csw [9:59 AM]

Hello Ian.

iang [9:59 AM]

good morning all

jp [10:00 AM]

Our bloody buddy is here Ian.

csw [10:00 AM]

In distributed thresholds you have the (n+1) vs (2n+1) issue

[10:00]

Sorry, there is not a lot that can be explained in this without maths.

newliberty [10:02 AM]

Yes, it gives diagonalism, infinite sets which are not equal

vlad2vlad [10:03 AM]

Man, this channel is full of world class talent.

tomothy [10:04 AM]

Do you think Grigg has been credited properly?

[10:04]

With regards to triple entry?

iang [10:05 AM]

lol. triple entry is a concept, it’s a bit difficult to just turn around and implement. A bit like smart contracts.

klee [10:05 AM]

https://youtu.be/4GuqlQvFYJo

YouTube Bitcoin News TV

Craig Wright Interview - Part 1 - 2014 - Satoshi?

csw [10:22 AM]

This way, the back office PoS can be distributed for smaller companies

[10:22]

Well, actually there are both an infinity of countable and uncountable infinities.

[10:22]

It send Cantor mad... literally

joeldalais [10:23 AM]

an infinite infinities :slightly_smiling_face: people used to give me weird looks when i used to say that about bitcoin

newliberty [10:23 AM]

freetrader: preimaging a hash for a collision with a dataset of unbounded size is a much easier problem than doing so with a fixed size

csw [10:23 AM]

NL... not zero, 2 as a maxima

awemany [10:23 AM]

csw, I see no aleph1 anywhere? all I see is that sha256^2 reduces from alelph0 to uint256 in the middle between the hashes?

freetrader [10:23 AM]

@newliberty : sure, but if anyone has proven that there are 'zero' SHA256 collisions on input size of 256 bits, I'd like to know

3 replies Last reply today at 10:28 AM View thread

csw [10:23 AM]

But, the collisions are infeasible to solve

joeldalais [10:23 AM]

i can see a chain of businesses forming to create what you're talking about...

pesa [10:23 AM]

joined #general

csw [10:25 AM]

Awe.. the Aleph 1 comes from an unbounded set of input functions. That is not the case when a single hash is input to a hash

[10:26]

Freetrader. Yes, the maths to prove the reduction is proven and not just by axiomic conditions that are not completely determined.

newliberty [10:26 AM]

"Nearly zero" (though I think he misspelled it as neatly zero)

awemany [10:26 AM]

where does the unbounded set of input functions come from?

11 replies Last reply today at 10:38 AM View thread

csw [10:27 AM]

In the input to a hash function, the standard calls for a stream. That stream can be of any form

newliberty [10:27 AM]

awemany: If there were sha256 not 2sha256

awemany [10:28 AM]

csw, right, but the closure of that is just aleph0?

csw [10:28 AM]

Yes, or lower when you bound the input

[10:29]

A stream is an unbounded set.

[10:29]

Note that this is in itself not infinite. That is finite but unbounded. Add to that infinite and the set increases again.

[10:30]

Joel... Yes, and in a set of companies and businesses, we create a system that can self regulate and grow.

awemany [10:31 AM]

but all the streams I actually can hash appear to be strictly enumerable? it is not like SHA256 works on *infinite* streams?

checksum0 [10:31 AM]

joined #general. Also, @mastodon joined.

csw [10:32 AM]

SHA256 works on infinite the same way any machine works on infinite... You never halt and hence it is never solved in real time. It is in the conceptual infinite

[10:33]

We have a distinction here between an implemented system and a mathematically possible state.

awemany [10:33 AM]

ok. fair enough. i can see that now. thanks!

joeldalais [10:33 AM]

when i thought that i couldn't have anymore 'epiphany' moments in bitcoin, another occurs :slightly_smiling_face: ty csw

csw [10:34 AM]

This is going to get me in so much trouble. I know it.

joeldalais [10:34 AM]

:smile:

[10:34]

nah, we've been lucky so far, no trolls, its been good sensible talking :slightly_smiling_face:

odindillinger [10:35 AM]

joined #general

csw [10:35 AM]

If we now start to look at network propagation models. In epidemic modelling we have giant nodes at the point of decision between competing epidemics

iang [10:35 AM]

r any changes necessary to base protocol to go to coffeechain?

jp [10:35 AM]

It is Hidden Markov Chain

csw [10:35 AM]

These are able to be made into propagation systems. Routers you may say.

[10:35]

Yes, the cap needs to be lifted.

iang [10:35 AM]

(I’m not familiar with the argument as to how this is done… just trying to divide and conquer…)

[10:36]

Ah, that’s easy.

csw [10:36 AM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp#L2249

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

iang [10:36 AM]

:upside_down_face:

csw [10:36 AM]

The early code (commented) notes what is needed for flood control

awemany [10:37 AM]

csw, ok thanks you cleared this up, I think. to restate to figure out whether I got this: basically, you do the double hashing pretty much to make further analysis of the hash function - if taken as a black box - easier?

csw [10:38 AM]

A double hash reduces the input to a hash and makes collisions infeasible

[10:38]

MD5, SHA1...

[10:38]

All of this goes away when you have a hash of a hash

[10:39]

That means that when there is a flaw in the code, the hash function I should say, you end with enough time to migrate away and to another and even those who are left do not have a more than nominal chance of compromise

awemany [10:41 AM]

ok, thanks, I think I get the idea now. there's still nothing that proves SHA256 is surjective, however, or is there?

iang [10:41 AM]

In late 2000s this was a thing, post Shandong 2004.

chritchens [10:41 AM]

joined #general

csw [10:41 AM]

No, SHA256 has not been proven in all cases

[10:42]

So, there can be a particular SHA256 hash that maps to many 256 bit values

csw [10:43 AM]

uploaded this image: image.png

Add Comment

csw [10:43 AM]

Wow. This lets me post math images :slightly_smiling_face:

[10:44]

So, no, SHA 256 has not been proven surjective... That image above. There are axioms that need to be proven for this to hold

ajd [10:44 AM]

from wikipedia?

csw [10:44 AM]

Yes :slightly_smiling_face:

ajd [10:44 AM]

:smile:

csw [10:44 AM]

I could not get it to take Latex

csw [10:45 AM]

Can you do latex in this?

1 reply Today at 10:45 AM View thread

awemany [10:45 AM]

so... that would get worse with double hashing, it potentially reduces the size of the output set. do you have any discussion on that trade-off?

csw [10:45 AM]

Not that I can really do justice to here

[10:46]

Does this thing have a whiteboard or something similar?

wpalczynski [10:46 AM]

joined #general

newliberty [10:46 AM]

No whiteboard in slack

csw [10:46 AM]

:disappointed:

newliberty [10:46 AM]

https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

codecogs.com

Online LaTeX Equation Editor - create, integrate and download

HTML LaTeX equation editor that creates graphical equations (gif, png, swf, pdf, emf). Produces code for directly embedding equations into HTML websites, forums or blogs. Images may also be dragged into other applications like Word. Open source and XHTML compliant.

wpalczynski [10:47 AM]

hey!!

jp [10:47 AM]

You can livestream using 3rd app

klee [10:47 AM]

https://github.com/sand500/SlackLateX

GitHub

sand500/SlackLateX

SlackLateX - Bot that posts posts Latex pictures

csw [10:48 AM]

Got those, but no way to draw directly.

bicmac1973 [10:49 AM]

joined #general

klee [10:50 AM]

Just paste the captioned image (from elsewhere)

[10:50]

for me is the fastest way (edited)

csw [10:51 AM]

I will but answering on the fly is not so easy in latex :slightly_smiling_face:

coinspeak [10:51 AM]

joined #general

jp [10:51 AM]

Please consider doing some whiteboard videos in the future.

joeldalais [10:52 AM]

there's a paid sketch board thing for slack, but doubt this slack has it :disappointed:

csw [10:53 AM]

I have a big electronic whiteboard, but I do not think it has a slack plug

tomothy

[10:54 AM]

pretty sure bitsko's sleeping or at work, he mentioned it hours ago :confused:

jp [10:54 AM]

New slack ICO - decentralized whiteboard function included

tomothy

[10:54 AM]

( I think work) (so can't add functions or change things currently)

satoshi [10:54 AM]

Ha!

joeldalais [10:54 AM]

https://sketchboard.io/pricing - for future reference (edited)

csw [10:55 AM]

Yep

[10:55]

Got it

[10:55]

I need to run in a moment.

Other questions

iang [10:56 AM]

Which institutions do you think should emerge?

[10:56]

I for one have promoted the idea of Arbitration (complicated I know) … but there are many possibilities. (edited)

csw [10:56 AM]

Many, but this is also a market function. Arbitration is a good one as it is possible to contract law.

wings [10:56 AM]

joined #general

tomothy

[10:57 AM]

When are you coming back again? :smile:

csw [10:57 AM]

That is, you can agree on an arbitrator and make the contract conditional on that role. This then replaces the role of the court and in Rothbardian terms allows for the democratisation of the justice system

satoshi [10:57 AM]

Thanks for answering questions Craig. It went surprisingly well I think. Amazing what can be accomplished in the absence of trolling.

jp [10:58 AM]

LukeJr missed the debate. I pinned Dr. Wright scale comments here. Expect to see Luke Jr reaponse.

iang [10:58 AM]

There’s also the possibility of moving direct voting into the system - create an ability for people holding BTC to vote on a proposal. As the proposal wins some form of majority, it leads the direction on changes.

craig_s_wright [10:58 AM]

joined #general

megalodon

[10:58 AM]

lol

csw [10:58 AM]

I have a doppelganger it seems :slightly_smiling_face:

satoshi [10:59 AM]

So many Craigs, so little time.

megalodon [10:59 AM]

will the real Craig Wright please stand up

craig_s_wright [10:59 AM]

Hi guys

new messages

checksum0 [10:59 AM]

And cue the trolls...

freetrader [10:59 AM]

lesson on identity

iang [11:00 AM]

brands are such fun… everyone should have one

tomothy

[11:00 AM]

But seriously, I'm sure there will be some interesting responses to a lot of your comments here today. You've provided a lot of food for thought. If I pester Vlad enough do you think you can make another appearance? :smile:

csw [11:00 AM]

Yes.

If we keep it civil

craig_s_wright [11:00 AM]

congrats on matonis

jp [11:00 AM]

Mod here will purge trollers and craig_s_wright

csw [11:01 AM]

Thanks Craig :slightly_smiling_face:

bicmac1973 [11:01 AM]

hi guys and gals, nice to be here. Let me stress that I am absolutely not craig wright!

jesse [11:01 AM]

joined #general

csw [11:01 AM]

LOL BicM...

craig_s_wright [11:01 AM]

I'm actually a famous craig_s_wright, and I wouldn't mind staying in this chat as craig_s_wright. nowhere do I claim to be the "real" Craig S Wright

csw [11:02 AM]

Well, there are a good number of Craig Wrights :slightly_smiling_face:

daniweav [11:02 AM]

joined #general

wings [11:02 AM]

be serious guys...talk on topic only plz

craig_s_wright [11:02 AM]

I'm going to bid 900 BTC on bitstamp right now

iang [11:02 AM]

ok … so here’s a rhetorical. What innovations post-2009 from the ideas / literature would have been good to put in, if only?

daniweav [11:02 AM]

Hello, newbie here. :baby_bottle:

[11:02]

Nice to meet you all. :slightly_smiling_face:

vlad2vlad [11:03 AM]

@bitsko time to come back!!!

csw [11:03 AM]

Another time Ian.

iang [11:03 AM]

k

tomothy

[11:03 AM]

Alright, well thank you for your time today CSW. I'm sure we can waste your time all day. Hope we get to do this again in a bit.

csw [11:03 AM]

I do need to go. Sorry.

joeldalais [11:03 AM]

i'm off for now, was great chatting, a lot of thanks to csw :+1: have a good one all

satoshi [11:03 AM]

Bye Craig. Ignore the trolls and keep working.

tomothy

[11:03 AM]

Thanks again for staying as long as you did. Greatly appreciated you sticking around to address all the additional comments.

craig_s_wright [11:03 AM]

I can take over for you @csw

daniweav [11:03 AM]

So many craig s wrights :dizzy_face:

jp [11:03 AM]

Fuck off

[11:04]

Where is mod?

daniweav [11:04 AM]

I'm very confused... Can someone help me?

satoshi [11:04 AM]

csw = Craig

tomothy

[11:04 AM]

Bitsko's at work. Please make a pastebin of texts

satoshi [11:04 AM]

My pastebin is updated.

tomothy

[11:04 AM]

If we play well and are polite maybe we get to do this again another time.

[11:04]

Thanks Satoshi. Can you share a link for those that just joined?

daniweav [11:04 AM]

Hmm... I'm going to squelch myself and observe. :thinking_face: :bow: please forgive me.

tomothy

[11:04 AM]

Do you have the early morning discussion as well? Or evening/afternoon depending on timezone?

Pinned by jp

Today at 11:05 AM Pinned by jp

satoshi [11:05 AM]

https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK

Pastebin

Craig Wright Q&A on Slack - Pastebin.com (19kB)

awemany [11:05 AM]

thanks!

satoshi [11:05 AM]

I'm going back to add discussion prior to csw joining. I have it in another notepad.

awemany [11:06 AM]

and make it an rbtc post. I am really wondering what nullc finds to pick apart

tomothy

[11:06 AM]

Alright Vlad, back to throwing mud at one another!

vlad2vlad [11:07 AM]

Hahaha. Awesome

[11:07]

All that tech talk. We can go back to talking about cats and Transylvania

[11:07]

The important stuff

tomothy

[11:07 AM]

and vampires, so many vampires

iang [11:08 AM]

2nm ??? f**k

craig_s_wright [11:08 AM]

His stuff reads like /r/iamverysmart

jp [11:08 AM]

Fuck off craig_s_wright

Pinned by jp

Today at 11:08 AM Pinned by jp

travin [11:08 AM]

I have also updated my pastebin now - https://pastebin.com/5A7Awrmd

Pastebin

Craig Wright Q&A btcchat.slack.com - Pastebin.com (19kB)

[11:08]

Thanks to @satoshi for doing the same. :slightly_smiling_face:

[11:10]

Mine is just the start at 10:00 CEST. With the first question from christopher (edited)

satoshi [11:12 AM]

Thanks Travin.

craig_s_wright [11:15 AM]

If I say that 1) I am not really Craig S Wright and 2) I don't believe that the real Craig S Wright is Satoshi, can I stay here? :muscle:

tomothy

[11:15 AM]

I think CSW or JP discussed original team members before in pastebin

[11:15]

early on in discussion

[11:16]

we've got vlad and bruce here so, :smile:

[11:17]

:heart:

checksum0 [11:17 AM]

@craig_s_wright You saw this conversation was happening by being linked to it so you damn well knew what was going on here and you still decided to sign up with that name and you expect people to not believe you are a goddamn troll?

craig_s_wright [11:18 AM]

It is a poorly chosen username, I admit.

tomothy

[11:18 AM]

whale, not troll...

[11:18]

another pastebin copy

[11:18]

https://pastebin.com/5A7Awrmd

[11:19]

nm, already posted :smile:

bitcoindevotee [11:19 AM]

joined #general

prometheus [11:20 AM]

Greetings, everyone! What a wonderful chat session with CSW. Thank you for setting this up @bitsko and @vlad2vlad . I do hope CSW will return for another Q&A. I'd love to hear him answer more questions about the original code and his future vision of BTC.

vlad2vlad [11:22 AM]

We'll make it happen - it was too good to not do it again. :)

tomothy

[11:22 AM]

Quick, cat pictures or mud slinging!

craig_s_wright [11:22 AM]

Stop listening to Craig S Wright, he is a phony and wants your money.

vlad2vlad [11:23 AM]

@bitsko give me mod power. I need to smash some trolls.

craig_s_wright [11:23 AM]

don't be part of the problem, be part of the answer

daniweav [11:34 AM]

The solution* answers can be wrong. :neutral_face:

deadsea33 [11:47 AM]

joined #general. Also, @peggy joined, @macsga joined, @satoshi420 joined.

macsga [11:55 AM]

greetings

[11:57]

all the nice people here

alp

[12:01 PM]

how do we know this is real csw?

[12:01]

any verification?

bitsko [12:01 PM]

Nothing to see here alp

tomothy

[12:01 PM]

E-mail linked to his slack, text of discussion.

[12:02]

It can't possibly be him. He clearly was just making things up as he went along.

[12:02]

I paid my brother to make a fake e-mail address and spought smart sounding stuff.

[12:02]

...

bitsko [12:02 PM]

:dove_of_peace:

tomothy

[12:03 PM]

But maybe it is... (Of course it is!)

bitsko [12:03 PM]

:ohyeah:

klee [12:03 PM]

:aa:

vlad2vlad [12:05 PM]

@alp ohhh, you missed it

[12:05]

Here's the pastebin for you

tomothy

[12:06 PM]

no pastebin...

[12:06]

probably because it's already been posted? can you redirect link to it or something?

macsga [12:06 PM]

https://pastebin.com/5A7Awrmd

vlad2vlad [12:06 PM]

https://pastebin.com/5A7Awrmd

tomothy

[12:07 PM]

nm :smile:

alp

[12:07 PM]

I saw the pastebin

[12:07]

havent gone through it all

[12:07]

but how was he verified?

macsga [12:07 PM]

pretty serious stuff were spoken in there, among those is that who is SN doesn't really matter

alp

[12:07 PM]

well csw is a fraud so of course he makes stuff up

macsga [12:08 PM]

that's one way to see this

alp

[12:08 PM]

who is jp?

[12:08]

jvp?

macsga [12:08 PM]

the other is to patiently check the text

[12:08]

God and Jesus Christ

[12:08]

(respectively)

norway [12:08 PM]

Homework for @alp

macsga [12:08 PM]

does it matter?

[12:08]

:slightly_smiling_face:

alp

[12:09 PM]

yall get bamboozled?

norway [12:09 PM]

Maybe

macsga [12:09 PM]

definitely

alp

[12:10 PM]

fake fake satoshi pretends to be fake satoshi lol

norway [12:10 PM]

Thanks for sharing, @apl

tomothy

[12:11 PM]

jvp is new liberty

[12:11]

jp john

[12:11]

and yeah i'd agree with macsga on characterizations

[12:11]

I gave him all my money and got a pin

[12:11]

(worth it)

alp

[12:11 PM]

ok wasnt sure who john is in that context (edited)

tomothy

[12:13 PM]

see pastebin its in there

[12:13]

its allllllll in there

[12:13]

:slightly_smiling_face:

macsga [12:14 PM]

yeah, nice 10m read

[12:15]

I'll review it once more once home

andrewquentson [12:33 PM]

joined #general

andrewquentson [12:39 PM]

"IF you need to do what I say as I am Satoshi and not because of the idea I am presenting, but the nature of my identity, then you are all lost!" why bother telling us all you're satoshi then, instead of, you know, just presenting your work @craig_s_wright @csw @vlad2vlad

csw [12:40 PM]

https://medium.com/@MADinMelbourne/welcome-to-the-ministry-of-truth-in-the-wiki-age-601ec28a2504

Medium

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth in the Wiki Age. – #thewildcard – Medium

“Is this really happening?” was tweeted to me yesterday as nChain announced it’s arrival into the Bitcoin scene, bringing with it the…

Reading time

----------------

4 min read

(461kB)

April 17th at 5:36 AM

[12:40]

Nothing of the last year was planned.

[12:41]

I listened to the wrong ideas and simply where we should be is ignoring and leaving the myth.

[12:42]

I had started to present my work. That is when the attacks started and i was not prepared for any of it.

[12:43]

I did not expect to have to explain the distinction between a PhD and a professional doctorate and I did not expect to have any of the other fabrications to defend.

[12:44]

I have learnt from this. I am saddened that people feel they need an authority and cannot learn and must come to a state where they express an attack as an opinion.

Yes, you can have an opinion, but this is not the same as a reasoned argument.

andrewquentson [12:45 PM]

Sorry, but your first act was to claim authority by claiming you are Satoshi

[12:45]

why?

csw [12:45 PM]

No, I was not the one talking in Dec 2015

[12:46]

Nor did I make up stories about recommended settings in encryption software

iang [12:46 PM]

The events of 2015 - 2016 weren’t really of Craig’s wanting. The first problem was the attacker and extortionists and various other sundy gossipers… so the writing was on the wall.

jp [12:46 PM]

In 2015 we were hacked and blackmailed

iang [12:46 PM]

The second problem was the circus team in London that went out of control.

andrewquentson [12:47 PM]

Does that include the BBC interview?

macsga [12:47 PM]

lol

csw [12:47 PM]

I was promised a simple low key interview. No TV camera

andrewquentson [12:47 PM]

with the BBC!

[12:47]

low key?

csw [12:47 PM]

It was not what eventuated

iang [12:47 PM]

yes all the events of May 2015 and the big reveal … it actually started around mid 2015.

betty [12:48 PM]

joined #general

alp

[12:48 PM]

csw can you with a key for me?

andrewquentson [12:48 PM]

Alright, can you tell me how it came that Gavin ended up vauching for you?

csw [12:48 PM]

I signed the contracts and moved to London 5 months before any of this.

[12:49]

A...Q... no. If Gavin does, that is his decision

iang [12:49 PM]

Basically it’s as said - CSW was used to add a couple of zeros to the patent portfolio. Which necessitated the ‘big reveal’ … circus. Unfortunately, CSW fails at being a pop star. Who knew…

alp

[12:49 PM]

when does Gavin join NChain?

[12:49]

How much money did Roger give to nChain?

csw [12:49 PM]

The worst thing I can do is play a public role.

[12:49]

I have given no money to Roger

andrewquentson [12:50 PM]

Well, how more public can you get than Gavin vauching for you

iang [12:50 PM]

sounds like business questions - I for one would expect the business team at nChain to deal with them.

csw [12:50 PM]

Gavin is semi retired and does not miss the trolling

andrewquentson [12:50 PM]

now, my memory might be wrong, but back then I think he publicly wrote saying you or someone related asked him to visit you

[12:50]

is that true?

csw [12:50 PM]

Related yes.

travin [12:50 PM]

Hey Andrew.

andrewquentson [12:51 PM]

so you willfully went forward with a ceremony which was meant to prove your identity, why?

mrhodl [12:51 PM]

joined #general

alp

[12:51 PM]

how much money did roger fund nChain/

[12:51]

not that you paid him

andrewquentson [12:51 PM]

identity as claimed satoshi that is

csw [12:51 PM]

Roger. Nothing

beautybubble [12:51 PM]

joined #general

csw [12:51 PM]

I believed promises.

[12:52]

I was told, one time, and then you can be left alone.

andrewquentson [12:52 PM]

I mean, if you want us to just judge you, rather than authority, why engage in an event which tries to claim authority by showing an alleged satoshi owned address signature?

csw [12:52 PM]

I agree

andrewquentson [12:52 PM]

you agree with what sorry?

klee [12:53 PM]

read the pastebin before asking questions already answered DAMNIT

csw [12:53 PM]

I agree that was foolish

beautybubble [12:53 PM]

Pleased to be here to learn some new things.

[12:53]

Thank you for having me.

andrewquentson [12:53 PM]

alright

travin [12:53 PM]

@andrewquentson -https://pastebin.com/5A7Awrmd

Pastebin

Craig Wright Q&A btcchat.slack.com - Pastebin.com (19kB)

andrewquentson [12:53 PM]

this supercomputer @csw it doesn't exist does it?

csw [12:53 PM]

Actually it did

tomothy

[12:53 PM]

Yes, Look at yesterdays disclosure from Vlad

andrewquentson [12:53 PM]

did?

tomothy

[12:53 PM]

He provided all the information concerning the computer

csw [12:54 PM]

Did.

tomothy

[12:54 PM]

Invoices, receipts, along with significant other information

andrewquentson [12:54 PM]

what happened to it?

csw [12:54 PM]

I had dealings with people connected to Liberty Reserve and who later ran systems in Panama

jp [12:54 PM]

I did the security pen test on it before the public class programming on supercomputer started

andrewquentson [12:55 PM]

where was the supercomputer stored/held csw?

csw [12:55 PM]

Panama

iang [12:55 PM]

Moore’s Law :slightly_smiling_face: computers do get rather old…

macsga [12:55 PM]

like I said several times, I'd put a good use to it :slightly_smiling_face:

andrewquentson [12:55 PM]

ok

[12:55]

I can see your typing looks fine

[12:56]

your background shows, however, you often like to miss-spell words

[12:56]

create grammatically messy sentances

[12:56]

why?

csw [12:56 PM]

I have friends who own more computer power than I do. They simply do not use them to do scientific calculations, they run Poker rooms.

[12:56]

Would you like me to mis-type

beautybubble [12:56 PM]

Because I prefer specifics. Are you speaking of The Panamanian SERVIR center is housed in the City of Knowledge, at CATHALAC.

andrewquentson [12:56 PM]

my preferences are completley irrelevant

beautybubble [12:56 PM]

Thank you.

andrewquentson [12:57 PM]

the document which says you entered into a partnership with the company that provided the supercomputer parts is grammatically unsound

[12:57]

your public forum statements are often grammatically unsound

[12:57]

why?

csw [12:57 PM]

My academic papers are sound.

iang [12:57 PM]

wtf?

andrewquentson [12:58 PM]

is the miss-spelling intentional?

csw [12:58 PM]

:slightly_smiling_face:

[12:58]

No more.

alp

[12:58 PM]

you angered him andrew

[12:58]

the wizard of oz will close the doors on you

iang [12:58 PM]

@andrewquentson have you ever usd computers?

andrewquentson [12:58 PM]

you're completely free to not answer

[12:59]

but that doesn't leave many obvious conclusions

freetrader [12:59 PM]

... and did you spell-check your comments above (if not, you should)

csw [12:59 PM]

Your assumption is that I created those documents. Even now, I like to work in my own area and remain a curmudgeon, but I am not too far from people.

snoop [12:59 PM]

Alp=ass

alp

[1:00 PM]

hi poons

andrewquentson [1:00 PM]

"When looking at Craig Steven Wright’s background, his seemingly inability to spell stands out immediately. As does his preference for general terms, vague language, and long windedness.

Wright’s now deleted Linkedin profile contains 26 A4 sized pages and terms such as “Encryption Techniology” and “continential kitchens”."

alp

[1:00 PM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6qPo1zzU7s

YouTube doc biz

in which Craig Wright says "fuck off"

andrewquentson [1:00 PM]

you didn't write your own linkedin?

csw [1:00 PM]

:slightly_smiling_face:

alp

[1:00 PM]

fuck off your mother if you want fuck off

csw [1:00 PM]

I did not manage much of my social media

beautybubble [1:01 PM]

Oh, dear.

kp [1:01 PM]

joined #general

mrhodl [1:01 PM]

@csw How long were you in a relationship with Michelle?

beautybubble [1:01 PM]

Once people calm down we can introduce ourselves and put on the table concerns. Right?

csw [1:01 PM]

Yes, I am angered by people who say that they can reverse ECC private keys (excluding brain wallets)

[1:01]

I have never met Seven

mrhodl [1:02 PM]

Alright, Who manages your social media account?

andrewquentson [1:02 PM]

alright, what's the probability of compromise @csw ?

csw [1:02 PM]

A...Q... is this me...

mrhodl [1:02 PM]

So you never met Seven, eh?

[1:02]

How did you get on that panel?

csw [1:02 PM]

No, I was on a panel from London

mrhodl [1:02 PM]

Sure, but why did she invite you? (edited)

alp

[1:03 PM]

csw's dick is so long it went all the way from london to the us

jp [1:03 PM]

I insisted csw not to do it

andrewquentson [1:03 PM]

"

“Where a system uses an SMS response with a separate system (such as a web page), the probability that the banking user is compromised and a fraud is committed, P(Compromise), can be calculated as: P(Compromise) = P(C.SMS) x P(C.PIN)

Where: P(C.SMS) is the probability of compromising the SMS function and P(C.PIN) is the compromise of the user authentication method [sic]

The user can be compromised by Trojan apps, poor pins that are pasted to a monitor etc.”

mrhodl [1:03 PM]

JP, that's not my question..

[1:03]

How was on on there to begin with?

andrewquentson [1:03 PM]

I suppose that's you, unless others write under your name in mailing lists too

beautybubble [1:03 PM]

I am certain once we get through some of this hostility, we can get on to the bigger, better conversation.

csw [1:03 PM]

That is a long story and I do not wish to discuss it. I was not (as is stated) 'fucking' her, we have never been in the same city at the same time to my knowledge

beautybubble [1:04 PM]

Please guys try and be civil here.

csw [1:04 PM]

ALP... I would like to think so... but I am not that large :wink:

mrhodl [1:04 PM]

long story ..got it

alp

[1:04 PM]

why should we be civil beauty?

csw [1:04 PM]

A...Q... That was a VERY short part of a very long equation (edited)

opet [1:04 PM]

joined #general

beautybubble [1:04 PM]

It allows for team work and conversation.

alp

[1:05 PM]

team work with a con artist?

[1:05]

who gives a fuck

mrhodl [1:05 PM]

@csw Does @jp have a picture of you from 2005?

andrewquentson [1:05 PM]

@csw what's a Merkel Tree?

mrhodl [1:05 PM]

I hear you met at a cypherpunk conference.. he pointed you to a tent?

andrewquentson [1:05 PM]

@alp and @mrhodl can you try and not shut down discussion

beautybubble [1:05 PM]

I came here to meet a person who I am very interested in and I hope we can work through some of the harder parts.

csw [1:05 PM]

MrH... I hope not. But I used to come and go from conferences

alp

[1:06 PM]

lol aquent whining about trolling

andrewquentson [1:06 PM]

questions are cool, but...

alp

[1:06 PM]

pot calling kettle black here

mrhodl [1:06 PM]

Andrew, my questions are more relevant... sorry.

csw [1:06 PM]

A...Q... A merkle tree... Please ask something difficult.

andrewquentson [1:06 PM]

yes yes just relax @alp (edited)

mrhodl [1:06 PM]

@jp Do you have that picture?

jp [1:06 PM]

I'm not jvp

mrhodl [1:06 PM]

Oh, right

[1:06]

So who are you?

jp [1:06 PM]

John

alp

[1:07 PM]

whats your assocation to satoshi dundee

jp [1:07 PM]

Fuck off bastatd

alp

[1:07 PM]

fluffer?

jp [1:07 PM]

Piece of cumbag

mrhodl [1:07 PM]

You told Craig not to go on that panel? Why? Who are you to Craig?

jp [1:07 PM]

Fluff your fucking mother if you wanna fluff

macsga [1:07 PM]

lol

satoshi [1:08 PM]

Don't engage or respond to trolling. Ping bitsko to remove.

macsga [1:08 PM]

dat quote

coinspeak

[1:08 PM]

If you have doubts that's fine but be civil. If you don't believe then just listen and see if you learn something vs dominate the conversation being a troll.

mrhodl [1:08 PM]

@satoshi How is this "trolling"?

iang [1:08 PM]

I think it is fair enough if technical and cryptographic questions are asked.

satoshi [1:08 PM]

Agreed

jp [1:08 PM]

And this is not a fucking interrogation

freetrader [1:08 PM]

I believe this slack is an exercise in free speech. We have to accept the unsavory commenters.

iang [1:09 PM]

Beyond that, the reality TV questions are probably better off left to some other venue. Like . reality TV.

klee [1:09 PM]

why should we give a flying fuk who Craig fucks?

mrhodl [1:09 PM]

CSW is claiming to be Satoshi, yes?

jp [1:09 PM]

Craig, I Think you should leave.

csw [1:09 PM]

Free speech does not incorporate any speech

cypherblock [1:09 PM]

csw is claiming to be csw I think.

mrhodl [1:09 PM]

Interesting..

satoshi [1:09 PM]

csw = csw

csw [1:09 PM]

I believe that I am CSW. I could be mistaken.

satoshi [1:09 PM]

LOL

klee [1:10 PM]

I am Vinny

1 reply Today at 1:10 PM View thread

mrhodl [1:10 PM]

So you're not claiming to be Satoshi?

klee [1:10 PM]

sodl at 1250

[1:10]

still waiting for 800

iang [1:10 PM]

I’ve got that Who song in my mind… “Who are you? Who Who?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLIerfXuZ4

YouTube TheWhoVEVO

The Who - Who Are You?

csw [1:10 PM]

And Freetrader, no, free speech does not incorporate libel or slander.

alp

[1:10 PM]

satoshi: i was told by bitsko this chat room was explicitly for trolling

[1:10]

am i mistaken?

csw [1:11 PM]

I am stating that Satoshi needs to remain a myth and no more. Nobody in any position should be accounted as an authority for where they are. The ideas they express need to be weighted and viewed individually.

megalodon

[1:11 PM]

alp can you go back to the dragon's den and reformulate the strategy? starting to get pretty stale and repetitive by this point in time

freetrader [1:12 PM]

@csw : what I'm referring to is that bitsko has announced he's unlikely to remove anyone from this slack no matter what they say.

libel and slander are dealt with lawfully.

That said, it may not be wise to feed trolls more than they can handle. (edited)

alp

[1:12 PM]

kek

cypherblock [1:12 PM]

@csw do you wish to just become a “regular guy” in the community, who should be judged on his current statements, papers, etc and not on any Satoshi stuff?

alp

[1:12 PM]

i figure satoshi dundee's scam is pretty stale and repetitive too

opet [1:12 PM]

Speaking of ideas, have you released any additional details regarding nChain's intended solution for scaling?

mrhodl [1:12 PM]

:thinking_face:

prometheus [1:12 PM]

@csw Thank you for helping to bring Bitcoin to life, and thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. I enjoyed reading Andrew O'Hagan's "The Satoshi Affair" piece. In it, it mentions the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" created from combining "Satoshi" (The Pokemon character Ash in Japanese) and "Nakamoto" (Tominaga Nakamoto being the Japanese merchant philosopher). Is this the correct origin on the moniker?

You had incredible forethought to create a pseudonym when creating Bitcoin, and creating the "myth" that resulted. Was this influenced by your academic background in Religion and Mythology?

andy [1:13 PM]

joined #general

mrhodl [1:13 PM]

Why are you thanking him for bringing bitcoin to life? He's not Satoshi. (edited)

csw [1:13 PM]

CypherB... I will not be that. In my case it will be a steeper slope

andy [1:13 PM]

Well it's been a lively day already I can see.

klee [1:13 PM]

csw time to talk about serious stuff, like your training in Ninjutsu & Wing Chun

andrewquentson [1:14 PM]

@csw can you share the e-mail you sent to Adam Back?

csw [1:14 PM]

No, I will not release company details. There are people for that and when I talk out of turn, I cause trouble.

andrewquentson [1:14 PM]

not sure if that's been made public?

andy [1:14 PM]

Thanks for answering questions csw.

csw [1:14 PM]

A..Q.. That would not be good iff I was to remain not in a role... That email may come out in time.

andrewquentson [1:15 PM]

ok

csw [1:15 PM]

It would "not" come from me.

andrewquentson [1:15 PM]

what happened after you emailed Adam back in... whenever it was?

andy [1:15 PM]

If bitcoin suddenly ended tomorrow, would you support the creation of a new coin or support an existing one?

csw [1:15 PM]

If Bitcoin ends, then I am broke :slightly_smiling_face:

macsga [1:15 PM]

ME TOO

[1:15]

:stuck_out_tongue:

jp [1:15 PM]

Me too

macsga [1:16 PM]

lol

klee [1:16 PM]

no suga mamma?

megalodon

[1:16 PM]

lol looks like we all really are satoshi then

jp [1:16 PM]

No Vegas

macsga [1:16 PM]

sugga momma will divorce me

klee [1:16 PM]

rekt

macsga [1:16 PM]

unless provide sex

csw [1:16 PM]

A....Q... Adam (from my understanding) pointed a certain person to Wei. :slightly_smiling_face:

jp [1:16 PM]

Vinny rich

klee [1:16 PM]

Where's Vinny?

mrhodl [1:16 PM]

https://btcchat.slack.com/archives/C555C1FME/p1493918140758518 Why do you say that?

csw

If Bitcoin ends, then I am broke :slightly_smiling_face:

Posted in #generalToday at 1:15 PM

macsga [1:17 PM]

Vinny is alp

andrewquentson [1:17 PM]

did you speak to wei @csw ?

klee [1:17 PM]

We are all Vinny

jp [1:17 PM]

Vinnayaan kleecumming

andrewquentson [1:17 PM]

speak obvs includes email etc

rajsallin [1:17 PM]

joined #general

macsga [1:17 PM]

he sodl early and now butthurt

csw [1:17 PM]

99% of my wealth is in Bitcoin in one way or another. I own no Alts and I have sold most of the property I owned

mrhodl [1:17 PM]

@csw Prove it.

csw [1:17 PM]

I have talked to Wei in the past, yes.

andrewquentson [1:17 PM]

did you speak to wei after speaking to adam @csw ?

csw [1:17 PM]

MrH... Prove what?

[1:18]

A...Q... No comment

jp [1:18 PM]

Keep up with the kardashian is happening, featuring Craig Wright and dragon den ... Ding ding ding.

Round 1

mrhodl [1:18 PM]

That you are the type of holder you say you are.

andy [1:18 PM]

That you'll be broke. Ignore it. It's not an assertion that requires proving imo.

mrhodl [1:18 PM]

At least sign block 9?

klee [1:18 PM]

Plan 9 from Outer Space

andrewquentson [1:18 PM]

@csw can you describe what b-money is and how it's similiar or different from bitcoin?

[1:18]

this one is a genuine question

csw [1:18 PM]

Yes, I can explain b-money

alp

[1:19 PM]

uploaded this image: image.png

Add Comment

andy [1:19 PM]

I'm pretty sure csw has at least a couple of bits if he's CEO of a $300m enterprise looking to dethrone BS.

iang [1:19 PM]

Signing things with early keys is not particularly helpful - the keys were moved around several times, and no ‘proof’ is therefore proof.

csw [1:19 PM]

Have you read b-money, the concept is sound, but it was not developed

mrhodl [1:19 PM]

@csw Will you ever sign any of the early blocks?

alp

[1:19 PM]

andy: how is bs ona throne

andrewquentson [1:19 PM]

I'm actually very curious to know how b-money is similiar and different from bitcoin @csw in a sort of high level conceptual manner

andy [1:19 PM]

I bet nChain has more BTC holdings that BS does, as they keep their funds in fiat.

macsga [1:19 PM]

@alp VINNY!

alp

[1:19 PM]

kek

iang [1:19 PM]

I outlined this on Crypto list a year back: http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029323.html Basically, signing won’t give you the proof-boost you want.

alp

[1:19 PM]

you think nchain has any holdings?

andy [1:20 PM]

If tons of people have access to early keys then the coins associated would have moved by now, no?

csw [1:20 PM]

Part 1 - the paper to discuss.

mrhodl [1:20 PM]

@csw Will you ever sign any of the early blocks or are you going to continue bullshitting us?

csw [1:20 PM]

I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities

traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the

government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and

permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is

impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible

because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical

locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could

operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants,

and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way

to enforce contr