Hal Finney was NOT Satoshi. He did work with Satoshi to clean up some of the code and was involved in the community early but he did not have the economics, math or game theory chops.
Not to mention pic related is one of MANY emails publicly available of Hal Finney emailing Satoshi privately to talk about stuff. No, retards, he was not emailing himself and typing back a reply to himself
Other urls found in this thread:
nakamotoinstitute.org
groups.csail.mit.edu
cypherpunks.venona.com
cypherpunks.venona.com
mail-archive.com
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
unenumerated.blogspot.com
mail-archive.com
mail-archive.com
unenumerated.blogspot.com
bitcointalk.org
nakamotoinstitute.org
medium.com
satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org
malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
mycryptopedia.com
blockchain.com
twitter.com
>not using windows Xp in the year 2019
Why didn't Craig receive any emails from Satoshi?
Satoshi was a 43 year old lesbian black woman. Deal with it.
You can do text analysis to figure out who he isn't
why would satoshi email himself
>imagine believing that Craig actually knows how to code in the first place, had the work ethic to complete a solo project and oversee its continued development, all the while suppressing his insecurity and need for praise and ego stroking for 10 years
nakamotoinstitute.org
Szabo is satoshi
>Szabo supports using Segwit
>meanwhile in the whitepaper "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures"
oof
He said if he could go back and design bitgold again he’d use second layer solutions knowing what he knows today.
>Satoshi: Bitcoin is turing-complete. using cellular automata and unrolled loops, any calculable number is calculable in bitcoin
>Szabo: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what is that i have never heard of that
There was another guy who claimed to be Satoshi too. Some old Australian fatso.
let me fix that for you: A drunk, fat, schizo from Australian
Whatever I am satoshi so let's merge the forks and give me access to a wallet I don't already have access to
>Segwit is second layer
Why are all C*recucks retarded and have never read the whitepaper?
bip16 nigger
you gonna claim that bitcoin stopped being bitcoin in 2012?
CW is not Satoshi, he is nothing but a fraud
The real Satoshi is unironically Nick Szabo.
All the evidence and breadcrumbs from the early cypherpunk email lists point to him, its so obvious its not funny. Especially with how Nick changing his blog posts on bitgold on purpose to make it look like they were released later than they were, but the internet archives and blog URLs don't lie, and can't be changed.
cypherpunks.venona.com
cypherpunks.venona.com
mail-archive.com
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
unenumerated.blogspot.com
"I had to write all the code before I could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I wrote the paper."
mail-archive.com
Satoshi says he's spent the past 1.5 years coding bitcoin, implying he started around mid 2007. This lines up with Nick Szabos comment on his blog some time after April 2008 where he asked 'Anybody want to help me code one up?'
mail-archive.com
Nicks first public reference to 'BitCoin' and Satoshi
unenumerated.blogspot.com
Satoshi acknowledges Bitcion is built upon Szabos Bit-Gold, despite not including it in the whitepaper
bitcointalk.org
because he is a literal nobody who cant even code
already been done
What's your point?
>Noecker said Hal Finney is the most likely candidate from a linguistic point of view. There are, however, indications of multiple contributors.
segwit didnt change anything regarding the often touted whitepaper quote p2sh did
>one strips signatures from transactions, the other allows for multi-sig transactions
God hates namefags.
This. Plus you know it when you see it
>Thanks for your help!
That sentence right there pretty much confirmed CSW isn't Satoshi. Can you imagine CSW thanking someone for anything, let alone like this?
That fucker would never write that, not in a million years.
p2sh allows to spend without signature
among other things in fact segwit transactions are valid p2sh for legacy nodes. you dumb smelly pajeet
>p2sh allows to spend without signature
No it doesn't.
everyone knows that dude
Szabo is satoshi end of story
nakamotoinstitute.org
Obviously Szabo is Satoshi. I wonder why anyone bothers discussing it any furthur.
holy shit lmao
turing complete is the worst possible way to do computation, it's a literal buzzword to make you sound like you know something
Magic the gathering is turning complete, you fucking asswipe, go ahead and use it to calculate shit lmfao
a minecraft computer does better calculus than a fucking turning machine
kys
Yikes
The last comment on the archived blog post 2005/12 is translated into this-
"Moreover, an automatic protection against inflation is built into the system: there can be 21 million coins in nature and not a penny ...
-posted by Federal Hazard Service"
How could an anonymous comment have predicted the supply of Bitcoin? There is no mention of a supply in Nicks post. Seems fake.
Satoshi Nakamoto will never be revealed. We will be strung along forever believing X or Y is Satoshi. It doesn't fucking matter. BITCOIN is here now.
So we know FOR SURE that hal wasnt satoshi
wow nice find user. This page was archived in March 2006, so whoever left that comment definitely made it between Dec 2005 (when the blog was posted) and when the archive was taken in 2006. I can't find any mention of 21 million coins in any of the 'pre bitcoin' proposals
>yikes
>cringe
>seething
>btfo
>that's a no, chief
Fuck off, zoomer scum.
>Why didn't satoshi receive emails from satoshi?
duh.
medium.com
Szabo was not Satoshi...
He doesn't like Bitcoin's scaling. Satoshi was a big blocker from the start, which would rule Szabo out. Szabo also didn't even realize Bitcoin was turing complete until Craig pointed it out to him
lol Imagine CSW living rent free in your head and making you sperg out to this degree.
Surely Satoshi meant a simple laptop when he was talking about specialization and server farms.
>At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org
"bloody hard"... Out of Szabo, Hal and CSW, who would use a phrase like that...
You think someone as smart as Satoshi would leave a comment like that unless its a red herring? cypherpunks.venona.com
Is it even possible to fake an archived blogpost like that? If not, then Bitcoin has probably been in the books for longer than we thought.
no, the archive was definitely taken in 2006. What I'm not sure about though is how that linked blog post to some russian blog was in there, despite that blog post not being put up until 2010 malaya-zemlya.livejournal.com
Not sure if all that was archived was some dynamic code that looks up linked blogs, and that one existed at that time so it grabs it when we view, even via the archive?
funnily enough, the linked blog post to bitcoin was removed by Szabo in 2012:
Between March 5th and April 13th 2012, NS deletes the link to the bitcoin blog on the russian site at the bottom in the comments
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
Weird... spent the last 30 minutes trying to wrap my head around it, but to no avail.. lmk if you find something interesting user.
thats why i said read about it
because its not creg is just reaching hard and moving the goalpost
Or maybe you should. Literally nothing about this allows for spending without a signature and is primary used for multi-sig which requires more than one signature.
>red herring
Gonna have to do better than that chief
read again until you get it user pay to script means exactly that you dont have to provide a private key signature at all like with normal wallets because it pays to a valid script not a valid signature. that script can obviously check signatures duh. or fucking not.
The unlocking script is literally a signature and public key. What the hell are you talking about?
I don't even get why it matters who Satoshi is. Who the fuck cares?
>BIP numberBIP 16TypeMiner-activated softforkPurposeAllow the recipient of a transaction to specify the redeem script instead of the sender
Deployment
CB signature/P2SH/Starttime2012-03-08 00:00:00Timeout2012-03-15 00:00:00Supermajority55%ActivatedBlock #173805
2012-04-01 00:00:00
Pay to script hash(P2SH) transactions were standardised inBIP 16. They allow transactions to be sent to a script hash (addressstarting with 3) instead of a public key hash (addresses starting with 1). To spend bitcoins sent via P2SH, the recipient must provide ascriptmatching the script hash and data which makes the script evaluate to true.
>balding
>numale
>problem glasses
>"toxic" trump
Jesus fuck he collected all the soi points.
>the recipient must provide ascriptmatching the script hash and data which makes the script evaluate to true.
Yes and in order to do that they must have the unlocking script, which as I already told you consists of a digital signature and public key. Show me a non-Segwit transaction that utilizes P2SH and spends without the correct unlocking script.
You always need to provide a correct unlocking script. The unlocking script
does not need a signature unless the output script contains OP_CHECKSIG or OP_CHECKMULTISIG
>The unlocking script does not need a signature unless
Its literally made from a digital signature. omfg. Checksig is redundant.
If you find out who he is, he grants you the keys to his hoard of bitcoins. Same deal as the grail knight.
it has nothing to do with signarures unles you write the script so thats my point.
Can he get any more based?
Your point was that people have been sending unsigned transactions on bitcoin since BIP 0016, which isn't true.
That's an edited version of the comment itself. Pic related.
>Its literally made from a digital signature
Wrong
How about you sauce me, boss.
Sounds like someone who was never properly taught automata theory. Don't ever talk to me or my phd ever.
Somebody should do a proper analysis of Satoshis C++ coding style.
I was suprised when I first looked at his C++ code: it was written with a fuckton of Windows-isms and looks like coming from someone that learned his coding chops in the Windows environment. Cypherpunks/crypto-nerds/academic-coders are usually deeply entrenched in the GNU/Unix environment. Hal Finney would have never written Bitcoin in C++ using fucking hungarian notation.
Which is why I think that Dave Kleiman is a good candidate for Satoshi, at least the coding bit. He was a "Microsoft MVP" for Windows security and wrote books about the low-level details of Windows security.
(t. C++ software dev)
Here you go. Read the chapter on scripts and transactions in mastering bitcoin, free on githib
>Spending Conditions (Encumbrances)
>page 117
>. When Bob chooses to spend that amount,his transaction will release the encumbrance, unlocking the output by providing an unlocking script containing a signature from Bob’s private key
Ya blew it.
You are either trolling or a clueless faggot. How about you read the page i provided
it has happened ever since then you can
segwit is baby steps compared to p2sh
>hungarian notation
as a hungarian i feel ashamed for that mostrosity
You posted a sideways picture. I'm not hurting my neck, but from what I gathered its simply describing a True outcome of combining two matching locking and unlocking scripts. So how about instead you give me a fucking page number.
Meanwhile
>p.119
"Once the UTXO is selected, the wallet then produces unlocking scripts containing sig‐natures for each of the UTXO, thereby making them spendable by satisfying their lock‐ing script conditions. The wallet adds these UTXO references and unlocking scripts asinputs to the transaction."
There's a nice diagram on p. 124 as well.
I think you're getting confused with unlocking scripts outside the realm of spending bitcoin.
No.
>t. C++ software dev
btw why are you using that obsolete shit? i mean it's fine for hobby projects if you like the language but for work... i would rather take thousand years of pain up the butt.
Alternatively you're talking about other arbitrary requirements in the script to unlock the funds received, such as a password or something else. In which case wouldn't necessary require a signature, but in order for the recipient to then spend those funds they will still have to sign the transaction. Also the original sender had to sign the previous transaction as well. None of this shit removes digital signatures from transactions. That's what Segwit does.
keep on deluding yourself, pay to script means pay to any valid script. this allows for a wide variety of layers to build on top of btc base protocol. for example you want a soft fork to a turing complete scrypt for btc? you can do it any day. all it has to do is produce a proper output that you can use in the p2sh script as data and it's all dandy. people running old nodes wouldn't know the difference. fucking magic.
It's Szabo, Dai AND Finney. The three of them worked together. That's why Szabo constantly denies it was him. It wasn't just him.
It's Collin cantrell obviously guys cmon
Send a transaction without digitally signing it and post the evidence. I'm going to bed, but I'll keep this thread open.
blockchain.com
>You will notice that the script line is "0151". The redeem script for that address is basically the number 51. It's the hex for OP_True and it is thus valid without the need for a signature.
it's funny cashies don't realize when they run their mouth about locking in the protocol how locked in btc is. a fucking soft fork of all things made all future hardforks completely unnecessary (except one or two maybe).
(and that's a good thing!)
it's amazing, not saying i like it in every aspect but blows your mind.
what i'm trying to say here and that's the main thing after bip16 segwit is fucking nothing. bip16 changed bitcoin forever in 2012. yet cashies only started talking shit in 2017. i only heard creg talking about undoing bip16 good luck with that tho too much is built/depends on it.
you're a pawn.
CSW infamously is a windows faggot as well. the sloppy ass v0.1 code was clearly the work of a couple amateurs like craig and dave slapping something together. its amazing they got it to work at all. actually if you read a recent csw blog post he talks about how all the nodes ran windows and all crashed after genesis block because of fucking patch tuesday, kek. took those retards like a week to get the network running again
craig and dave are unironically satoj. the brilliance of bitcoin was in putting all the pieces together, game theory and economics. the implementation was just a proof of concept, released to the open so they could get some fucking professional coding help on it lol
Banksy is Satoshi.
I almost want Craig to be Satoshi. The butthurt it would cause in the Bitcoin camp would be too hilarious.
>minecraft computer isn't just an abstraction of a turing machine
you need to actually pass your CS Fundamentals class before you pretend to know what you're talking about
based
based
