I see what you mean! It felt like the end of the Perplexity puzzle that existed, the moment it was found the excitement behind it all just didn't keep going!
Mind you, the card to find someone using six degrees of separation is also called Satoshi!
Hah, I was just thinking about Perplex City the other day and wondered if that Satoshi was ever found. I really did love that game and the community around it.
The question is can he liquidate his holdings without causing a market crash? Not just because of economics of demand and supply but because of the psychological effects on the market.
considering the cause for him needing to liquidate is known, he has major tax penalties he has to pay, exchanging them now won't cause as big of a stir as if he did it when he was anonymous and would lead to suspicion of some sort of problem with the protocol. and a run to cash in.
Mossack Fonseca alternatives will gladly arrange gradual liquidation into a Caribbean trust, to allow eventual retirement to a cheap island with pretty girls and piña coladas without salt.
Perhaps folks more knowledgable could weigh in if a large liquidation event could happen by darkpools or some other means that wouldn't cause an oversupply "market run."
The all time high was ~$1216 a coin [1]... so that would put him approximately at $1.2 billion if he has a million coins like the OP suggests. There are about 15.4mm coins in circulation [2], so he has about 6.5% of the current market, or 4.7% of the total BTC that will ever be mined (1/21 million).
> A currency where a single individual owns 4.7% of all currency isn't going to end well
It's not that far off from real world USD (if you limit it to the US, and extrapolate for number of users) where 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01% control 11.2% of total wealth
I think the biggest difference is that those 16,000 families aren't just sitting on dollars that are stuffed into Scrooge McDuck vaults. Their money is invested everywhere and is part of the economy.
In contrast, Satoshi's coins are currently outside the system, and adding them to the system would cause a whole bunch of instability.
There's a huge difference in illiquid assets (most of that 11.2% is real estate, stock, etc.) and currency that is at least presumably intended to be liquid.
The difference is that that wealth isn't cash hidden in a secret vault, but various assets that are already accounted for and an active part of the economy.
The closest real world analogy I can think of would be that if all the unaccounted for physical US currency that is floating around outside the US all of a sudden returned 'home'.
Besides what others have already said, there's also the fact that the US families have no real incentive to flood the market with dollars or control price fluctuations. What are they then going to trade with? Pesos?
You could, however, control prices if you controlled 5% of Bitcoin, which you could cash out in USD or EUR.
There is no alternative to USD or EUR - at least not one that is widely accepted.
> A currency where a single individual owns 4.7% of all currency isn't going to end well
Funny story. Although the UK has one currency, Northern Ireland and Scotland have different designs for banknotes compared to England & Wales (and too each other).
In December 2004, approximately 10% of the cash (~£26mil) in circulation in Northern Ireland was stolen. In response the bank recalled and reissued all the notes, to prevent the theives being able to use them.
"I never, ever want to be in front of a camera ever again" Can't blame him there. Some Bloomberg mobile reporter came up to me once for an interview about BTC hitting $1k, and I redirected him to Google HQ. Fuck that soundbite, MSM, lazy shit.
That's really interesting. I've been updating this Quora answer for a while and he actually commented on it saying "People always know" in Sep 2015 before his name ever came up.
I'm not sure I believe his comments fully in his latest video though. It seems he's been conflicted for a long time on whether to reveal himself but for all the times he says he wants to be left alone, he easily could have but yet here he is.
The owner of the profile of the person who answered your question (whoever he is) seems to have changed his username from "Craig S Wright" to Frank Blu on Dec 12th 2015.
He also seems to have deleted, on that same day, every post he made on Quora after Dec 11 2014.
The titles of the questions on which he posted revolved a lot around cryptocurrencies, cryptography and supercomputers, as well as finance and economics. Some example of questions to which he contributed are:
"How large will the Bitcoin blockchain be in November 2015?"
"How would I estimate the cost of setting up a 100 Tera-Flop server at my..."
"Why is gold considered so precious and why does it have such high prices..."
"Are there better uses of stimulus funds than others?"
His earliest activity on the site is the creation of a topic called CSCSS, on Jul 30th 2012.
Why would he verify that he is the creator? Even though Bitcoin is past the phase where the governments can criminalize it publicly they will surely torture him in every roundabout way possible for the rest of his life.
He seems to be owning up to it in order to protect others but I think he has no idea what he is getting into. They mention that his house was raided a couple of years ago but I guess that didn't phase him.
Governments could have criminalized it at any point, they can criminalize it now, and they will certainly criminalize it in the future if they feel a need to do so (unless this thing gets used by >1% of the population which I'm willing to bet money against.) They didn't because they didn't want to. If they wanted to know who created Bitcoin in order to "torture" them they would have found out, at this point we know how good they are at this sort of thing; also, if they wanted to "torture" prominent people behind the Bitcoin software there was never a shortage of people with known identities. That he didn't pay his taxes seems to be a separate issue.
BBC says it's also confirmed through GQ but I don't see anything related yet.
(My view below)
The way he is communicating in the interview sounds like the government was putting pressure on him. Whomever is 'forcing him' to come out as Nakamoto, I don't think this will end well for Wright nor his companies.
The signature in Wright's post is just pulled straight from a transaction on the blockchain. Convert the base64 signature from his post (MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=) to hex (3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae0022066632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce), and you get the signature found in this transaction input: https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69...
Note that the base64 string at the top of his post isn't a signature, just a cleartext message: " Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.\n\n".
Now the only question is how he fooled Gavin. I would imagine this story will still get spread around some naive channels for a while, just like the last time Wright tried something like this.
Credit goes to jouke in #bitcoin for figuring it out.
Something still seems off to me, why does he go into such specific detail in verifying the signature? I would have assumed he would just let people figure out the verification themselves. But maybe I'm just skeptical because Satoshi having a public identity takes some of the magic away.
As pointed out by maaku, he never revealed what message the signature is supposed to be signing.
-----------------
My Original Post:
Everyone in this thread is already taking this as the truth. But remember that Wright has not publicly released any cryptographic proof, there is only a claim from BBC that he showed the signature to them and a few magazines.
This strikes me as a little strange since originally Satoshi pretty much only interacted with the community via the bitcoin mailing list. Why did he "reveal" the proof by sending it to some magazines rather than emailing the mailing list?
It really seems like the person who created Bitcoin, a trustless system based on cryptographic proof, wouldn't make everyone take his word on his identity when it could be trivially solved with one email.
Last time around, he peddled fake proof. A deliberately backdated PGP key trying to look like Satoshi's. The key also reported being created on a date when the software it was created with didn't yet exist. (Keyservers will happily accept keys that claim to be generated in 1992. Some publications that ought to have known better still accepted it back then, until it was pointed out.)
Still looking at the page you posted in the edit, but not yet convinced.
Wright goes into a long post explaining public key crypto - to me it looks intended to bedazzle more than inform - but as far as I can see he does not produce a signature from any of the genuine keys associated with Satoshi.
but since getting a single piece of whitespace wrong would throw the hash off completely, that isn't terribly useful. Though it seems that it should be possible to brute force every reasonable permutation of formatting for the article and find one whose hash matches the one he provided, if it's the real source. The search space of "documents within a string edit distance of N" is probably not too large.
Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.
He needs to sign a message provided to him right now - or otherwise show ownership of coins in early blocks by moving them around.
Edit: He apparently haven't even provided a valid message/sig, so the whole thing stinks.
Yes, absolutely. He apparently goes to great lengths to "prove" that he is Satoshi, but when asked to sign a new message, answers "I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops."
Um, what? Signing a new message is a minuscule jump through a very large hoop, not something difficult or cumbersome or time consuming.
This fact alone is indefensible, smells of fake and should be enough to dismiss the claim.
If you're using a given key daily, yeah, it's not a big hoop. But I imagine Satoshi having his key hidden on an offline computer right now, hidden securely. Taking it out of vault must be a lot of effort.
But if you actually want to prove you're Satoshi, isn't that exactly what you'd do, rather than spend a lot of time on these other 'proofs'? What's the point?
To play devils advocate, if I had private keys that were tied to a not-small fortune, I'd keep them so far from my computer that even the proof he's provided would be out of the question.
...On the other hand, the screenshots are from Windows. Windows! Are we really to believe Satoshi uses Windows?
Well, he'd still want to keep them in a safe place he can access if he ever wants the money. And he's had at least 4 months to do something with the key.
I don't see why he would go through all that trouble with the blockchain when he could just send an email with "'sup all, I'm Satoshi" and sign it with his PGP key.
Can you explain why the signature matching one in the blockchain disproves the theory?
I imagine the signature must also be somehow related to his private/public key pair otherwise his blog is just junk cryptography and would have been easily debunked anyway?
Absolutely - it's the weirdest thing ever that he says this - will he turn down the medal, or just the cash reward - someone who is looking to take your money says something like this.
It's a non-topic really, compensation for winning an award, it's bizarre he plays it up like this.
Let me put forth an alternate theory. Everyone is suggesting this is a scam for more money, which is undoubtedly the most likely explanation. However, I think an alternate explanation is that this may be a larger ploy to try to bait the real Satoshi out of hiding. Get him to say "No, that guy's a poser, it's really me." and while he's out, say "Hey man, what do you think about the blocksize?" This could explain Gavin's participation; pulling out all the stops to try to "save" bitcoin by getting founder-approval for a blocksize bump.
Even if that were the case, why would it reveal Satoshi? Even if the real Satoshi felt the need to step in, he wouldn't need to reveal himself or open up future communications - just post an anonymous message signed with a known key that states "I am not Craig Wright".
If there is an official narrative establishing a fake satoshi, the real satoshi would be over-joyed because this would basically ensure any further inquiry into his identity would be in the realm of conspiracy theory... leaving media unwilling to touch it.
He didn't retract the blog post. He just agreed that the phrase "I confirm as member" was badly worded. He then replied by tweet: "@tomerkantor you are right - that is badly written. I’ve fixed it on the blog." The blog now reads: "I confirm Kleiman was a member of the team." The stuff confirming Craig Wright's claims is still in the blog post.
That whole blog post was weird. He made various assertions with nothing to back them up, and then walked back one of them. Everything he said could be interpreted as being from public sources (which he believes) plus a personal meeting, sans any strong cryptographic proof, with Wright.
Nowhere in the blog post does Wright say “this is the proof I’m Satoshi”. The entire write-up reads like he’s just giving an example. Why does everyone think it’s some kind of proof?
Nowhere in the blog post does Wright say “this is the proof I’m Satoshi”. The entire write-up reads like he’s just giving an example. Why does everyone think it’s some kind of proof?
If he is not the one he claims to be, why doesn't the real Satoshi send an email saying "hi, it is not him". There are only 2 answers.
a. It is him
b. The real Satoshi is dead and Mr. Wright knows so.
Unless he is extremely stupid, he would never risk claiming to be the most wanted man in the world, if he was not sure that no one could discredit him.
We don't need more signature here guys. We just need to decide who will play him in the upcoming Hollywood movie, cause he defies the stereotype of nerdy looking geek :-)
He originally presented an obvious forgery. Now he has presented a slightly better forgery, but given it only to outlets who will agree not to publish it (and risk scrutiny by folks more technically adept than the journalists). My working hypothesis is that Wright doesn't need to convince the "community". He only needs to convince the banks that lent him money based on collateral of an allegedly non-existent bitcoin wallet.
He messaged me on twitter couple of months back out of the blue asking me random questions so I deleted that conversation. My twitter account is @bitcoin22.
A little off-topic, but suppressing right-clicks (and trying to suppress Ctrl/Alt/Shift?) is a really obnoxious thing for a website to do.
document.onmousedown=disableclick;
status="Sorry, not sharing images!";
function disableclick(event)
{
if(event.button==2)
{
alert(status);
return false;
}
}
function detectspecialkeys(e){
var evtobj=window.event? event : e
if (evtobj.altKey || evtobj.ctrlKey || evtobj.shiftKey)
alert("The key is not available.");
}
document.onkeypress=detectspecialkeys
I don't believe the real Satoshi has any motive for coming public. As thus, anyone claiming to be Satoshi is not something I put any amount of belief into.
As for your aside, not to mention it is completely and utterly futile. Hurts the normal user experience and accomplishes nothing for anyone who wants to steal the images.
Umm, he obviously does. Money, fame and influence over future bitcoin decisions.
Imagine your Satoshi and you need cash for some reason. Reveal your identity and immediately get a bunch of offers for book deals and speaking engagements. You run into career problems, reveal who you are and you can probably snag a position as a Google fellow.
More concerned about your legacy or some crypto-anarachist vision? Revealing yourself could help you influence both the public policy debate on encryption and bitcoin's future (speaking engagements offer more influence than some signed messages on a mailing list).
Finally, what about credit for your contribution. Being known to your friends and family.
Sure, he may still want to remain anonymous but to suggest there isn't the temptation to go public is silly
I can't actually find the link, but he was some special panelist on a stream last year.. A lot of people were asking who the hell he was, and he was claiming at the time to be a researcher with a heavy involvement with bitcoin, and at the same time either the Australian Federal Police, or Australian Tax Office were raiding his properties looking for damning evidence...
He had taken federal funds for research purposes and miss-appropriated them.
I can't find the original articles, sorry... Here's some links though
Working through it now -- lets say I am rapidly heading towards "Not a hoax" territory.
[Edit: Or, possibly, totally quackadoodle -- but very convinced-in-himself quackadoodle. I've gotten as far as proving "OK, he knows how to reverse a Bitcoin address into a public key, and picked a good address for the purpose."]
He found, maybe by brute force, maybe some other way, a comment signed by whoever mined block 9 (Satoshi himself?) and now he's using this to claim that he just signed this himself.
He's making all this up. Unless the message signed contains Craig Wright's name it's not proof of anything.
I was unable to torture the inputs into verifying, despite worksmanlike effort, unless I trusted calculations made by "the adversary."
I consider the posts by others of this thread of a Bitcoin transaction with the same signature to be dispositive that he was not signing any variant of the Sartre message.
Conclusion: a) The linked blog post is pure hokum. b) I'm very clear on how he got this past generalist media but unsure of how he got it past Gavin.
Patrick, Gavin is just a person and as fallible as any other person. If a long con is being attempted, everything may appear to be right. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Time will tell.
> "OK, he knows how to reverse a Bitcoin address into a public key, and picked a good address for the purpose."
Yeah, but I can do that. Can it be my turn to be Satoshi now? It's specialized knowledge only insofar as you need to have read how to do it and understand enough to write some commensurate code. This is widely-published stuff. It doesn't take a Satoshi or even an expert.
He wouldn't owe any taxes. At least, not any income tax. The coins were worthless when he first mined them, and so there wouldn't have been any tax due.
If he were to sell the coins now, he might incur a capital gains tax, depending on where he lives.
288 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 248 ms ] threadMind you, the card to find someone using six degrees of separation is also called Satoshi!
http://perplexcitywiki.com/wiki/Billion_to_One
Anyone know what this was worth at its peak?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin#cite_note-6... (would appreciate a correction with a better source)
[2]: https://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins
I remember there was speculation that Bitcoin could go up to tens of thousands of dollars. Which would probably make Wright the richest man alive
It's not that far off from real world USD (if you limit it to the US, and extrapolate for number of users) where 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01% control 11.2% of total wealth
In contrast, Satoshi's coins are currently outside the system, and adding them to the system would cause a whole bunch of instability.
The closest real world analogy I can think of would be that if all the unaccounted for physical US currency that is floating around outside the US all of a sudden returned 'home'.
You could, however, control prices if you controlled 5% of Bitcoin, which you could cash out in USD or EUR.
There is no alternative to USD or EUR - at least not one that is widely accepted.
There IS an alternative to Bitcoin
Funny story. Although the UK has one currency, Northern Ireland and Scotland have different designs for banknotes compared to England & Wales (and too each other).
In December 2004, approximately 10% of the cash (~£26mil) in circulation in Northern Ireland was stolen. In response the bank recalled and reissued all the notes, to prevent the theives being able to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bank_robbery
I'm not sure I believe his comments fully in his latest video though. It seems he's been conflicted for a long time on whether to reveal himself but for all the times he says he wants to be left alone, he easily could have but yet here he is.
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-most-likely-Satoshi-Nakamoto/an...
The owner of the profile of the person who answered your question (whoever he is) seems to have changed his username from "Craig S Wright" to Frank Blu on Dec 12th 2015. He also seems to have deleted, on that same day, every post he made on Quora after Dec 11 2014.
The titles of the questions on which he posted revolved a lot around cryptocurrencies, cryptography and supercomputers, as well as finance and economics. Some example of questions to which he contributed are:
"How large will the Bitcoin blockchain be in November 2015?" "How would I estimate the cost of setting up a 100 Tera-Flop server at my..." "Why is gold considered so precious and why does it have such high prices..." "Are there better uses of stimulus funds than others?"
His earliest activity on the site is the creation of a topic called CSCSS, on Jul 30th 2012.
https://www.quora.com/topic/CSCSS
He seems to be owning up to it in order to protect others but I think he has no idea what he is getting into. They mention that his house was raided a couple of years ago but I guess that didn't phase him.
BBC says it's also confirmed through GQ but I don't see anything related yet.
(My view below)
The way he is communicating in the interview sounds like the government was putting pressure on him. Whomever is 'forcing him' to come out as Nakamoto, I don't think this will end well for Wright nor his companies.
The signature in Wright's post is just pulled straight from a transaction on the blockchain. Convert the base64 signature from his post (MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=) to hex (3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae0022066632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce), and you get the signature found in this transaction input: https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69...
Note that the base64 string at the top of his post isn't a signature, just a cleartext message: " Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.\n\n".
Now the only question is how he fooled Gavin. I would imagine this story will still get spread around some naive channels for a while, just like the last time Wright tried something like this.
Credit goes to jouke in #bitcoin for figuring it out.
-----------------
EDIT: Current opinion: still skeptical. Here is the public cryptographic "proof": http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-signif...
Something still seems off to me, why does he go into such specific detail in verifying the signature? I would have assumed he would just let people figure out the verification themselves. But maybe I'm just skeptical because Satoshi having a public identity takes some of the magic away.
As pointed out by maaku, he never revealed what message the signature is supposed to be signing.
-----------------
My Original Post:
Everyone in this thread is already taking this as the truth. But remember that Wright has not publicly released any cryptographic proof, there is only a claim from BBC that he showed the signature to them and a few magazines.
This strikes me as a little strange since originally Satoshi pretty much only interacted with the community via the bitcoin mailing list. Why did he "reveal" the proof by sending it to some magazines rather than emailing the mailing list?
It really seems like the person who created Bitcoin, a trustless system based on cryptographic proof, wouldn't make everyone take his word on his identity when it could be trivially solved with one email.
Still looking at the page you posted in the edit, but not yet convinced.
edit: Sarah Jeong of Motherboard summed up the objections last time: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-prob...
Wright goes into a long post explaining public key crypto - to me it looks intended to bedazzle more than inform - but as far as I can see he does not produce a signature from any of the genuine keys associated with Satoshi.
Really? That just looks like a much too long (targeted to journalists) description of ECDSA signing. Where's the _actual_ signature?
> IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh dG9zaGkuCgo=
It's just a base64 encoded string.
Edit: No it's not.
but since getting a single piece of whitespace wrong would throw the hash off completely, that isn't terribly useful. Though it seems that it should be possible to brute force every reasonable permutation of formatting for the article and find one whose hash matches the one he provided, if it's the real source. The search space of "documents within a string edit distance of N" is probably not too large.
He needs to sign a message provided to him right now - or otherwise show ownership of coins in early blocks by moving them around.
Edit: He apparently haven't even provided a valid message/sig, so the whole thing stinks.
EDIT: Or maybe the latest bitcoin block.
Um, what? Signing a new message is a minuscule jump through a very large hoop, not something difficult or cumbersome or time consuming.
This fact alone is indefensible, smells of fake and should be enough to dismiss the claim.
Just sign a message attesting that YOUR NAME is satoshi. No more work. Done once.
...On the other hand, the screenshots are from Windows. Windows! Are we really to believe Satoshi uses Windows?
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/31/2158024/craig-wrights-...
Yes. This is the one part of the whole story that doesn't smell. The first version of Bitcoin was windows-only.
I imagine the signature must also be somehow related to his private/public key pair otherwise his blog is just junk cryptography and would have been easily debunked anyway?
Granted, the likelihood that he inadvertently collided with a public transaction is astronomically small.
The question is: why creating this hoax in the first place? If anything, the price of bitcoin has been negatively impacted by this.
http://www.coindesk.com/price/
What would it be one's motivation behind this?
Deliberately impacting the price of a good negatively is a great way to get it cheap and then sell it for more later.
Perhaps the oldest con ever. Hence the detailed previous story from him of placing all of Satoshi's stash in a trust.
>https://youtu.be/dZNtbAFnr-0?t=3m21s
Who says something like this?
It's a non-topic really, compensation for winning an award, it's bizarre he plays it up like this.
The sentence doesn't make sense and he sounds like David Brent from "The Office".
If there is an official narrative establishing a fake satoshi, the real satoshi would be over-joyed because this would basically ensure any further inquiry into his identity would be in the realm of conspiracy theory... leaving media unwilling to touch it.
Unless he is extremely stupid, he would never risk claiming to be the most wanted man in the world, if he was not sure that no one could discredit him.
We don't need more signature here guys. We just need to decide who will play him in the upcoming Hollywood movie, cause he defies the stereotype of nerdy looking geek :-)
A little off-topic, but suppressing right-clicks (and trying to suppress Ctrl/Alt/Shift?) is a really obnoxious thing for a website to do.
As for your aside, not to mention it is completely and utterly futile. Hurts the normal user experience and accomplishes nothing for anyone who wants to steal the images.
http://i.imgur.com/vYSRjrs.png
Imagine your Satoshi and you need cash for some reason. Reveal your identity and immediately get a bunch of offers for book deals and speaking engagements. You run into career problems, reveal who you are and you can probably snag a position as a Google fellow.
More concerned about your legacy or some crypto-anarachist vision? Revealing yourself could help you influence both the public policy debate on encryption and bitcoin's future (speaking engagements offer more influence than some signed messages on a mailing list).
Finally, what about credit for your contribution. Being known to your friends and family.
Sure, he may still want to remain anonymous but to suggest there isn't the temptation to go public is silly
EDIT: This thread breaks all records of butthurt downvoters not only in this branch but also in general. Wow.
He had taken federal funds for research purposes and miss-appropriated them.
I can't find the original articles, sorry... Here's some links though
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/bitcoin-suspected-foun...
http://www.coindesk.com/documents-offer-clues-to-alleged-bit...
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/12/15/lawyer-says-craig-wright...
Working through it now -- lets say I am rapidly heading towards "Not a hoax" territory.
[Edit: Or, possibly, totally quackadoodle -- but very convinced-in-himself quackadoodle. I've gotten as far as proving "OK, he knows how to reverse a Bitcoin address into a public key, and picked a good address for the purpose."]
He's making all this up. Unless the message signed contains Craig Wright's name it's not proof of anything.
I consider the posts by others of this thread of a Bitcoin transaction with the same signature to be dispositive that he was not signing any variant of the Sartre message.
Conclusion: a) The linked blog post is pure hokum. b) I'm very clear on how he got this past generalist media but unsure of how he got it past Gavin.
Yeah, but I can do that. Can it be my turn to be Satoshi now? It's specialized knowledge only insofar as you need to have read how to do it and understand enough to write some commensurate code. This is widely-published stuff. It doesn't take a Satoshi or even an expert.
If he were to sell the coins now, he might incur a capital gains tax, depending on where he lives.