The Greatest Conman Who Ever Lived

The absolute state of assblasted corecucks.

When proof comes out in court that he is Satoshi, which people with above average intelligence already figured out long ago, are you all going to kill yourselves out of pure embarrassment?

Attached: 1557372573606.jpg (289x289, 18K)

he only managed to convince retards and those that protected satoshi went along with it for their own reasons.

creg can't code for shit he himself admitted this but it's pretty evident.

>never coded before
Hello World is basically the first thing you learn to do in pretty much every language. This goes over non-coders head and they think it's a gotcha because Craig copy/pasted a literal lesson one code to troll idiots with Craig Derangement Syndrome.

“I’ve done some changes to the Bitcoin code, and my style is completely different from Satoshi’s. I program in C, which is compatible with C++, but I don’t understand the tricks that Satoshi used.” (Hal, second developer hired to work on PGP after Phil Zimmermann)

Now imagine Creig being more experience than Hal. I cannot, I mean, it’s just fucking impossible.

That's a funny image.

yeah but nobody said creg is satoshi except a few imbeciles. satoshi was a prolific and accomplished c++ coder.

>Craig has literally been schooling people on the Turning completeness of Bitcoin for years including szabo
>nobody even understood why Satoshi included a double hash function in Bitcoin until Craig recently explained it

He may not be the absolute best coder out there, but he knows his stuff.

bullshit if you use a hash twice you basically create a new nonstandard hash. nsa put exploits in earlier hashes in the sha family satoshi probably just wanted to exclude a remote possibility. it has nothing to do with any of the bullshit creg is about.

>SHA-256(SHA-256(x)) was proposed by Ferguson and Schneier in their excellent book "Practical Cryptography" (later updated by Ferguson, Schneier, and Kohno and renamed "Cryptography Engineering") as a way to make SHA-256 invulnerable to "length-extension" attack. They called it "SHA-256d".
well it's not even as nonstandard as i thought.

>Wright explains, “We can say that if we iterate a hash n times, it makes it n times as likely that a collision will occur. I am taking some liberty here, and the [math] involved in what I’ve explained is not completely accurate, but it is true that for each time we rehash a function using the same hash function, we lose collision security for the function. In fact, if we look at how addresses in Bitcoin are created, we see that the double-hashing function increases the effect even further. In other words, the hash of the hash in the scenario is more likely to lead to a collision than a single hash or even the hash of the same hash function (a double hash).”
aahhahahahah the retarded monkey actually believes this jesus

This kills the CSW shill.

Attached: faketoshi.jpg (1199x752, 116K)

What in particular are you talking about? If you read the rest he explains how it allows for specialization of mining.

what craig describes has zero practical impact, nobody sends the transactions to the miners they work solely on the header with the merkle root anyhow and only distribute the nonce ranges.

>the math involved... is not completely accurate
Classic scammer talk when you're bluffing something. Make it sound like you're condensing complex calculations for normals to follow, where it fact you're putting a failsecure in, so if someone who actually knows jack shit calls you out you can just point out "yes, I told you it wasn't strictly true, it's an approximation for my teaching moment" then threaten to sue them

oh and the other thing he describes would only be true if the hash parts had variable init vectors. again a bust, it's like this guy is just regurgitating some autists musings (unwriter?) without understanding anything about the tech.

Absolutely this. See my previous

You're nitpicking. The transactions data is broadcasted to miners, not literally sending a transaction to a miner.

Wow backtracking is hard with these guys these days....
Who would have though, now they will use key-doesn't-matter arguments, while whole last year was "provide keys"
PFHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: jimin (685).jpg (1080x1350, 141K)

by miners i mean the actual units (asics) that churn the hash not the miner nodes. miner nodes have to verify the transactions or risk orphaning. i simply don't see the point in this bullshit.

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
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=3FTe
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

If you're really good at solving hash puzzles, but not great at propagation. Division of labor, bread and butter of capitalism.

who?

again doesn't make sense, the hash power required to assemble the blocks is negligible to the pow. absolutely negligible.

Having them may not be sufficient proof that one is Satoshi.
Not having them is a sufficient proof that one is not Satoshi.
How does it feel to paste in every thread an "argument" that gets BTFO so easily noone bothers to have the reponse stored and can just type it in thirty seconds and be done with it.

If Craig is a genius, lets see some of his programs he made. Lets see his work. Oh wait he has none. He hires everyone to do it. But no proof is out there. Remember a guy named Hal who lived a couple blocks from a guy named Satoshi Nakamoto. A guy who stayed up hours of the night making programs. Major libertarian. The first to download Bitcoin and receive them. Too much evidence there.

yeah the only problem is you can objectively only prove having them and never prove not having them. we can just say it's overwhelmingly more probably creg doesn't have the keys if he doesn't sign as he has every incentive to sign if he is honest about his goals and still has plausible deniability by his own admission for digital signatures are no proof of identity nor of past ownership.

So you're saying if you lose the keys to you house, then your lack of keys sufficient proof that the house is not yours? I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds a bit strange to me if this is the case

>the hash power required to assemble the blocks is negligible to the pow
What do you mean? Hash is just used to solve it and the amount required is dependent on the difficulty.

not just but obviously thats the hard part

Yeah, proving a negative is not feasible, but the good thing is that the interaction between, say, us and CW is entirely one directional. He wants us to believe he is Satoshi. We want him to prove it or shut up. So we don't have to prove a negative, the negative is presumed correct until proven otherwise.
If he wants to convince people that he is Satoshi and had the keys, he'd use them. If he doesn't actually want to convince people he's Satoshi, I don't want to get involved in whatever game he's playing.

>The most important private key in the history of cryptography, information that can be stored on paper, digitally or even remembered by the human brain, is something the creator of bitcoin would just straight up lose.
Possible, but significantly reduces my interest in what he would have to say.

>the negative is presumed correct until proven otherwise
unless you are a mentally deranged curry cashie

Court can't be compromised?

>absolutely no sources in the image
put together by an amateur not looking to convince anybody

reaching this badlly

i'm just pissed over the no-source-provided generation (and people like yourself who don't even think it's a problem). the image itself can be disregarded completely if satoshi was in fact multiple people, which i believe (and craig has claimed).

Attached: hourglass2.jpg (666x666, 56K)

English is not your first english, right?

can you stop posting this mentally ill unemployed man. all of his crap is completely off-topic to this board

He reminds me of L Ron Hubbard.

Did all the Btrashies jump on this hunk of shit? hahha fkn brainlets at least they are good for a laugh

>A E S T H E T I C id

he can code
but bitcoin is beyond his capabilities
he has no education in terms of cryptography and the integers bitcoin uses
now, he can teach some undergrads a couple of programming courses
there are millions of professors just like him

All hail Vishnu!

Attached: 1556346680456.jpg (570x483, 528K)

this is the coding course Craig teaches
youtube.com/watch?v=cfoFFyypJxs

>turning
IT'S TURING (from Alan Truing) NOT TURNING YOU LITERAL STREET SHITTER
and the turing completeness of bitcoin is the same as the turing completeness of a deck fo cards, it is meaningless to crypto code.
You NIGGERS keep throwing this buzzword out like it means anything. IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. Your Magic the gathering deck is turing complete. You don't do computation with it, because you'd have to be fucking retarded.

also this is the video where Craig throws this buzzword out like it means something, confusing even the bitcoin creator himself
youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

Exoteric

Exoteric refers to knowledge that is outside, and independent from, a person's experience and can be ascertained by anyone. The word is derived from the comparative form of Greek ἔξω eksô, "from, out of, outside". It signifies anything which is public, without limits, or universal.

this is how Szabo describes the 'turing completeness' of bitcoin
18:10 in the video

if bitcoin was turing complete it could interpret any turing complete language without external interference. it's obviously not. alternatively write a javascript interpreter tx or bitcoin or fuck off!

*for bitcoin

Indeed, saying "this isn't completely accurate" preps the situation for if anyone decides to call him out on it. It's also classic scammer tactic like you mentioned, "Trust me, I'm lying" sort of thing.

Which is EXACTLY what he does, with all his forgeries.

Indeed. Like some retard stood beside a fancy car, pointing at it and saying look, here's my car!

"Ok, unlock it then".

"Um, well, urmm, I'll PROVE IT, IN COURT!".

Just unlock it, faggot. Sure being able to unlock it doesn't 100% PROVE you're the owner (might have stolen the key), but being unable to, surely proves you aren't.

The only reason why wouldn't be able to is if the keys had been lost, and well, are these faggots saying Satoshi himself would have lost his private fucking key?

Are you saying Satoshi-fucking-nakomoto would be so careless as to lose his private key?

Don't you think he'd work on sorting that out and gather some proof, BEFORE coming public?

this is how we will know satoshi this is his identity

Doesn't the original creator has a key to stop the whole BTC network? I thought that Szabo had it. If CSW had it, he could simply stop the entire shitshow with one hand. CSW is as much Satoj as I am.
In fact, I am Satoshi Nakamoto.

Attached: vvvv.jpg (1280x800, 96K)

This argument is easily defeated, and I already addressed it in the reply you are responding to. He could have lost the keys, gave them away, or they could be timelocked in a legal trust wink wink.

Possession or non-possession of keys is not proof of creation. Even very low IQ people can understand this simple concept.

if Craig has the keys he is satoshi nakamoto
end of story, doesn't matter what some fags might tell you about 'stolen keys'. A master cryptographer like satoshi that covered his tracks is NOT going to simply lose his keys unless he wanted to.
If Craig has the keys he is satoshi
Bu of course. If he HAD them, he would have shoved them into Greg's asshole, singed a message saying core is cancer and ending this discussion.
He does not have the keys
Is that so hard to understand? Regardless of what you think about the BSV project, Craig is not satoshi and he is not part of some satoshi group. There is no fucking satoshi group. There are simply no fucking indication of it. The code suggests a one man job. Hal finney's bug fixing suggests a one man job. Gavin jumping in and making commits to the project suggests a one man job. The e-mails, the posts, everything about the moniker suggests a one man job.

get over it

He only needs to sign, faggot, not move the coins. What trust would prevent signing?

And also like I said, are you honestly suggesting SATOSHI would lose his only copy of his private fucking key?

As to "giving away", lol, prove it.

Again regarding all those above, you'd sort it BEFORE "coming out" as Satoshi, especially in a field where you would KNOW people would be demanding you to sign.

Make a system, don't use it, complain that people are asking you to use your own system. Sure m8, what's more likely, all that convoluted bullshit, or this faggot is a fucking con man?

[-]

>The way to prove he is Satoshi is demonstrating his knowledge about Bitcoin and its creation that only someone who created the system would have.
I know you're being intellectually dishonest on purpose as nobody is this much of a dumb cunt but there is no law that says only one person in the world would have the intelligence to trick others into believing they have knowledge that only the creator of this system could have, especially when the creator is dead.

Exactly, I can't believe people fall for this. The entire reason Satoshi used an alias in the first place was because the concept of a cryptographically secure blockchain was bigger than the guy putting it into a whitepaper. He didn't want to be known.