Finally the one and only creator of Bitcoin revealed himself

If they only had the knowledge to differ a valid from an unvalid key. I think it is enough for them when one fiddles around with the keyboard and have some "KEY ACCEPTED" message coming up to have them convinced.

BTW. Gleb, you nailed it once again. Nice to have you here.

Do you realize that when I'm talking about the selling point, I mean the pitch to the general public. The average joe who has no experience with cryptography and doesn't understand the blockchain.
We might not need them embracing bitcoin just yet, but we will need them at some point.

+1

Plus the fact it would mean the BBC is telling the truth for the first time in history.

Fuck the BBC (but thanks for the snooker) and fuck you Craig.

Because people don't have anything that they can use to proof they are really Satoshi. It's just another lame attempt to create panic or whatever else their intentions are.

Hmm so after a quick skim of SCW's blogpost it's all "here's how you'd verify a signed message... if I were to provide one which I haven't prepared earlier... which I will... in a future post".

Degree of belief lowering...

Gavin Andresen has a post up saying he believes it's the real deal and has seen the demonstration. I admire him for putting that up. It's a real "in a day or so, my credibility will either be worth millions or nothing" kind of post.

Well I'll wait and see until/if:

1) SCW provides a signed message, preferably more than one.
2) Those in the know verify it checks out.
3) They also answer all the objections someone could reasonably point out (was the message crafted? Could SCW have got the private key by nefarious means? etc).
4) Someone gives a dummies guide for us popcorners to be able to verify for ourselves.
5) I go and do that.

I'm out.

ETA: Hang on, wait a second, not sure if 'not enough coffee' or 'too much coffee'...

In SCW's blogpost, is the idea that Sartre's quote, "If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner” is the message to be signed, and "IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh
dG9zaGkuCgo=" the signature? And that it's signed with the privkey of the address from which Satoshi sent to Finney in block 9?

Because if so, even a doofus like me could probably figure out how to verify that. It would go quite some way to alleviating my concerns. There'd still be the possibility that SCW is a bad actor that somehow stumbled upon the real Satoshi's privkeys. But IIUC, there's no significant possibility of "message carefully tailored to verify".

I guess I'm saying, "where can I find someone who actually knows this shit?". It's all very well for any of us to bleat "just sign a message with the privkeys" and smugly think we know what we're actually talking about.

Oh shit!
Man this better than watching any movie in cinema.
Bitcoin as soap opera back again.Awesome!

He seemed quite angry about it all..

Anyways, It's not the conclusive proof we all imagined we'd get if Satoshi was to ever reveal himself. The next few days will be very interesting indeed.

Anyone curious about the timing of this as well ? Just so happens that this is released right after the "deadline" of segwit be released where people are complaining that the HK agreement was not met regardless of the scalability timeline always indicating a simple pull request expected in April (which was met weeks ago)