Judge blasts “intentionally false” testimony by supposed bitcoin creator
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That would mean that Kleiman alone could decrypt the file and thus he alone could have access to everything (including being able to liquidate the bitcoins), which would utterly defeat the purpose of this scheme. It would be like a "secure" dual key bank box where one party had one key and the other party had both keys. Shamir's Secret Sharing algorithm does not work that way. Each party has their own unique slice of the secret.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Which one was this? I only know them for knowingly buying stolen property.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Wright sounds like a dishonest jackass. But I'm still uncomfortable with a judge using his assessment of "demeanor" to decide a case.
Upvote
-12
(5
/
-17)
After reading the Wikipedia bio of Dave Kleiman, it seems more likely that -he- was Satoshi Nakamoto, and Craig Wright is just trying to take the glory (and maybe the bitcoins) from his former 'friend' after Kleiman died.
Or neither one is Satoshi, in which case, as Sbol says above, David Wright is just arguing himself into owing lots of bitcoins for nothing.
Or neither one is Satoshi, in which case, as Sbol says above, David Wright is just arguing himself into owing lots of bitcoins for nothing.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
When Judges have to go by testimony, believability of the witness weighs into the judgement and, like it or not, demeanor is part of that.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
Or he deleted his original keys because the whole thing was a dumb little side project that he never thought would go anywhere. With no way of accessing it, he'd have been known as both the inventor of bitcoin (which might be worth a book deal), but more importantly as the man who deleted a billion dollar fortune.
Basically, owning the invention of bitcoin is admitting to being a colossal jackass and the subject of the greatest self-own in history. Not sure that's worth the nerd cred and unwanted attention.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Why does every Bitcoin related article have to remind me that they were easy to mine early on?
Time to crowdfund a time machine: after I get back to claim the thousands of BC I (will have) mined/purchased years ago, I promise to split it with all my backers.
Time to crowdfund a time machine: after I get back to claim the thousands of BC I (will have) mined/purchased years ago, I promise to split it with all my backers.
Upvote
-2
(5
/
-7)
Seriously. Who is going to put the only way to access a billion dollar fortune on a freaking computer? COME ON, anyone tech savvy enough to design bitcoin is going to have paper backups of the key in a safe deposit box someplace.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
If you dig around a bit you will find other (equally unverified and probably unverifiable) statements that Satoshi is, in fact, dead.
Though from sources close to the dev effort.
Which I would tend to trust a little more than Mr. Wright (so maybe >1%).
Mr. Wright is definitely not dead, that, at least, is provable. Though it might be the only thing actually provable here...
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Not sure if it is what you are trying to say but literally splitting the key in half would be a really bad idea.
It allows someone with half the key to test all the other combinations of the other half. This is not just half as hard as trying to crack the whole key it is exponentially easier and likely easily crackable
making an m-of-m key does not make it any easier for the person you gave the key to to guess the other part.
It allows someone with half the key to test all the other combinations of the other half. This is not just half as hard as trying to crack the whole key it is exponentially easier and likely easily crackable
making an m-of-m key does not make it any easier for the person you gave the key to to guess the other part.
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
Yeah, a reasonably common approach to side attacks is to try to get enough of a key to enable you to brute force the rest: (+1 for splitting the key being a bad idea).
Edit: it's been maybe 20yrs now since cryptography in college so thanks for the reminder.
Edit: it's been maybe 20yrs now since cryptography in college so thanks for the reminder.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Well certainly there is no science fiction featuring crypto currencies from a well known author like Neal Stephenson called The Cryptonomicon or anything. That would certainly lend credence to the faint possibility of people being able to foresee it coming ahead of time.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Ha ! So now I know why there seems to be a germinating acorn in every plant pot on my patio.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
PopeBenedict
Ars Centurion
Craig Wright isn't doing this for nothing, he is doing it to promote the "real" Bitcoin (BSV Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) which is mostly his own useless scam fork of Bitcoin. He mines BSV and owns lots of it therefore he has an interest in it's value going up. Some stupid people believe it and think they are getting the deal of the century with the possibility of accumulating the "real" BTC at such a low price.
Wright has been exposed at least a dozen times for using forged documents, once could be a mistake but it happens constantly with him. Not to mention his behavior doesn't seem to match what we know of Satoshi.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Well, yes and no. But mostly no. No court is going to give an award based on "we don't know where the first million Bitcoins are, but we think Satoshi has them, and since you claim to be Satoshi, you owe 500,000." The court did say that Wright owes half of what he mined up to the end of 2012. So the next step is going to be to determine what that number is. Looks like trying to figure out how much Bitcoin ended up in the Tulip Trust will be the next step of this dispute.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Lots of differences from a security standpoint.
Splitting a key in multiple pieces: As you recover more pieces, it may become possible to brute force the remaining portion of the key that you don't have, depending on how big each piece is. Thus, key recovery can become practical even if you don't fully possess (and shouldn't have access to) the full key. Additionally, you need every piece to successfully decrypt without guessing, making the scheme very fragile to a piece being lost (due to deaths, drive failures, fires, etc.)
Shamir's Secret Sharing (the scheme described in the article): Each piece is independent, and knowledge of one piece does not give you any knowledge of other pieces. Since each piece is the same length, brute-forcing unknown pieces is impractical for sufficient piece sizes. Nor does knowledge of n-1 pieces (where n is the number of pieces needed to successfully decrypt) give you any knowledge of what the decrypted data looks like -- it'll be complete gibberish if you try until you have n or more pieces. You can have more than n pieces total, but any combination of n pieces will successfully decrypt, making the scheme more resilient to pieces being lost (due to deaths, drive failures, fires, etc.)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I mean,
It's all bullshit, and he isn't Satoshi, but you have to admit, this sounds like a fantastic treasure hunt movie.
There are fifteen pieces to the fabled Nakamoto treasure somewhere on the Internet. The first to find 8 of them will become rich beyond imagination! But the evil Cabal of the secretive Tulip trust is hunting for it. Can our Hero find it first?
Join our crew of misfits on an adventure of a lifetime, where they will learn what is important in live, and that some things can't be bought with money....
Starring,
...Shia Lebouef as "The Hacker"
...Jack Black as "The Mentor"
And Lady Judi Dench as "Satoshi"
In
The Fifteen Pieces of Nakamoto.
(In theaters soon)
It's all bullshit, and he isn't Satoshi, but you have to admit, this sounds like a fantastic treasure hunt movie.
There are fifteen pieces to the fabled Nakamoto treasure somewhere on the Internet. The first to find 8 of them will become rich beyond imagination! But the evil Cabal of the secretive Tulip trust is hunting for it. Can our Hero find it first?
Join our crew of misfits on an adventure of a lifetime, where they will learn what is important in live, and that some things can't be bought with money....
Starring,
...Shia Lebouef as "The Hacker"
...Jack Black as "The Mentor"
And Lady Judi Dench as "Satoshi"
In
The Fifteen Pieces of Nakamoto.
(In theaters soon)
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
In that case of missing 1 'slice', a brute force is not out of the question, especially since what is being sought is not fully unknown.
The only hitch is if the 'slice' position is known. If it is not, that exponentially makes it more difficult.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
Why did you have to do that? I have his last FOUR books sitting unread in my backlog, and now I want to read Cryptonomicon again.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The thing that would interest me, then, would be any evidence that Ira Kleinman can lay before the court as evidence to substantiate his assertion that Dave Kleinman had any form of business relationship for the development of Bitcoin.
Given the subject matter at hand it seems somewhat dubious that there would not be *some* evidence available. For example, it seems reasonable that if Dave Kleinman and Craig Wright were in partnership, then there would be evidence of communications between the parties.
But there's another angle to this.
In the article, we learnt that Wright's defense is that all the owned Bitcoins are in a "locked file" set up in the name of "Tulip Trust", which Wright further claims he set up in partnership with Kleinman. But extraneous evidence suggests that the value of the "missing" Bitcoins could be worth as much as $10 billion.
I would want to ask Wright things like:-
1. What encryption scheme did you use to protect the file?
2. What key length did you apply?
3. How was the key entropy generated - for example did you use any of the PRNGs that we now know to have been compromised by the NSA (courtesy of Snowden's leaks).
4. Where is the file stored?
If I were Craig Wright, I would go one further...
I would go to the Australian Government [I believe he is an Australian citizen], who are one of the "5 Eyes" members and tell them about the file. I would offer any supporting evidence I had that could show the file contained the $10 billion in bitcoin and say,
"Look, right now this file is worthless to everyone. However, would you be willing to come to an arrangement by which you use your amazing surveillance technology to crack the encryption key, in return for which I will gladly pay you a finder's fee of 25% of the value of the file's contents."
If Wright were wasting their time, they could throw him in jail for doing so. If he is genuine, he gets $7.5 billion and they get $2.5 billion [by all means come up with a different scale of sharing the proceeds].
At the very least I would have a bitcoin mining farm doing its level best to brute force the key myself.
The point being: if you had the opportunity to cash in and make literally billions of dollars and demonstrate beyond doubt that you were, indeed, Nakamoto, then wouldn't you be doing that?
I think the judge has the right idea: paint this guy in to a corner until he either provides some hard evidence, or get him on some form of contempt of court charge.
Given the subject matter at hand it seems somewhat dubious that there would not be *some* evidence available. For example, it seems reasonable that if Dave Kleinman and Craig Wright were in partnership, then there would be evidence of communications between the parties.
But there's another angle to this.
In the article, we learnt that Wright's defense is that all the owned Bitcoins are in a "locked file" set up in the name of "Tulip Trust", which Wright further claims he set up in partnership with Kleinman. But extraneous evidence suggests that the value of the "missing" Bitcoins could be worth as much as $10 billion.
I would want to ask Wright things like:-
1. What encryption scheme did you use to protect the file?
2. What key length did you apply?
3. How was the key entropy generated - for example did you use any of the PRNGs that we now know to have been compromised by the NSA (courtesy of Snowden's leaks).
4. Where is the file stored?
If I were Craig Wright, I would go one further...
I would go to the Australian Government [I believe he is an Australian citizen], who are one of the "5 Eyes" members and tell them about the file. I would offer any supporting evidence I had that could show the file contained the $10 billion in bitcoin and say,
"Look, right now this file is worthless to everyone. However, would you be willing to come to an arrangement by which you use your amazing surveillance technology to crack the encryption key, in return for which I will gladly pay you a finder's fee of 25% of the value of the file's contents."
If Wright were wasting their time, they could throw him in jail for doing so. If he is genuine, he gets $7.5 billion and they get $2.5 billion [by all means come up with a different scale of sharing the proceeds].
At the very least I would have a bitcoin mining farm doing its level best to brute force the key myself.
The point being: if you had the opportunity to cash in and make literally billions of dollars and demonstrate beyond doubt that you were, indeed, Nakamoto, then wouldn't you be doing that?
I think the judge has the right idea: paint this guy in to a corner until he either provides some hard evidence, or get him on some form of contempt of court charge.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Going by my knowledge of the "tech savvy" at the time, offline meant it would have been jotted down and pinned to a cork-board, or on a post-it. Also, at the time, it was worth less than a pizza.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Give it time and the fortune will be "worth less than a pizza" again.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
How so?
Cryptocurrencies were inevitable and everyone agrees blockchain technology is revolutionary.
Even if you wail about flaws in his execution of bitcoin, it's kind hard to see how creating these things makes him a "colossal jackass", especially when blockchain is on the verge of being incorporated into every facet of our lives.
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
It's moved a lot of video cards, proven fantastic at burning coal, and blows bubbles like few other intangibles ever could!
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Oh, yes, you are correct. If you search you can find a few scattered naysayers, which is true for any subject on the face of the planet.
But if you search for "blockchain" and look at the news that comes up, you will find a boatload of stories, just from the past few days - not wordpress opinion articles from over a year ago, where it is being implemented and heralded as revolutionary.
I did read the Wired one, where it spent the majority of the article pointing out percieved flaws in Bitcoin, not Blockchain and at the end I believe the summation was that blockchain tech requires "trust" to get people to use it and it doesn't succeed in engendering that "trust".
If I summed that up correctly, I don't agree with it at all, as blockchain can do what it claims to do regardless of whether anyone "trusts" it or not.
Upvote
-8
(1
/
-9)
Point. It’s sold lots of shovels to them there prospectors, yee haw!
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I'm assuming you mean "one thing" blockchain tech is being implemented into:
"Regarding the underlying technology, many mainstream giants have begun incorporating blockchain into their various operations. Enterprise players such as Walmart, Amazon and JPMorgan Chase have all taken steps toward the new tech."
This, from Forbes, was one of the first of a multitude of articles about companies using blockchain that came up when I Googled it.
You don't have to wait for me to provide you with examples if you can use Google. If you can't, I'd be happy to provide more.
Upvote
-10
(1
/
-11)
The same is true with most billionaires. Most of their wealth is assets which if all sold at once would decrease the value, eg Bezos networth is based on the current market value of his shares of Amazon, but of course he couldn't sell them all at once either. Even with only half the total you could sell $1 million worth a month for the rest of your life and still have plenty left to pass to any heirs (assuming bitcoin doesn't crash completely).
Once you get into the billions, the value of something is impossible to accurately determine because you own so much of it that whatever you do will impact the market.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
There is exactly no content there. “Steps”. “Begun”. “Tech”. This is all meaningless. Find an actual case where it was implemented to form the core or even a significant part of a business. Hint: you can’t, because none exist other than buzz-compliant startups, departments created to make a company seem more hip to what all the cool kids are (not) doing, and of course, lots of flat-out con games.
Sorry sparky.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Except with, you know, actual lumps of gold in the former case.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
As you will recall, the statment I made which you responded too was this:
"...blockchain is on the verge of being incorporated into every facet of our lives"
Which is EXACTLY what you just agreed was happening.
Listen, I know "BITCOIN BAD!!!!", but there really is no use in engaging in conversations where there is AN ENDLESS WEALTH OF INFORMATION available with which to prove you wrong.
As a side note, your belief that Walmart, Amazon, JP Morgan and just about everyone else is in the process of implementing blockchain tech to "seem more hip", is just really really stupid.
EDIT:
And had you actually cared to look, you would have found a slew of companies ALREADY USING blockchain tech:
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3 ... quity.html
Upvote
-8
(1
/
-9)
So where is it being used?
Blockchain has been around for years now. So have the promises of revolution, from inventory to logistics. But I'm not aware of any commercial products making use of it, or of any of its variants.
Blockchain simply doesn't scale, and that inability is built into its very nature. Efforts to work around this severe limitation wind up removing all of the tool's purported revolutionary advantages.
If blockchain were useful, it would be used. It isn't.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
So in other words, nothing.
Also, your Forbes article is concerned solely with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies - it mentions none of the revolutionary applications outside of cryptocurrency you claimed. Which is kind of hilarious, given that you derided another poster for similarly conflating bitcoin and blockchain earlier. I guess such conflation is good when you do it, but not when others do.
And finally, none of these companies are actually, you know, using it - even for that purpose.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Here is a link that was already posted that lists COMPANIES ALREADY USING BLOCKCHAIN TECH:
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3 ... quity.html
And the Forbes article you mischaracterized IS ABOUT COMPANIES CURRENTLY DEVELOPING BLOCKCHAIN APPLICATIONS for their businesses.
So, you're wrong, on all counts.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)