Ramon Quesada
[Cryptography] Proof-of-Satoshi fails Proof-of-Proof.
ianG iang at iang.org
Wed May 4 18:44:46 EDT 2016
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029323.html
- Previous message: [Cryptography] Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto
- Next message: [Cryptography] Proof-of-Satoshi fails Proof-of-Proof.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 3/05/2016 04:43 am, Robert Hettinga wrote: >> On May 2, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Erik Granger <erikgranger at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'll believe it when he signs arbitrary messages with satoshis key. No signature, no story. > Spend the coins. > Pics or it didn’t happen. > Cheers, > RAH That ain't gonna happen, sorry folks! Not to rag at RAH, I'm just picking up his perfect foil, and for reasons he'll wryly smile to: Physics. Humanity. Frailty. Complexity. Of the sort that we've all being talking about since forever on this list and many others. Let's break it down. Firstly, we all on this list know that cryptographic keys prove that a private key did a maths transform that a public key can confirm. Full Stop. What cryptographic proofs do not confirm is that a human said something meaningful to another human. Indeed, the more that the Bitcoin community and the tabloid press demand a proof-of-spend and examine the results they're given, the more it demonstrates how humans seem to be isolated by cryptography not joined. In theory, keys are mathware, humans are wetware and the two do not easily mix. How does this play out in real life? We know that the human experiment known as cryptographic signing has failed. We know that there is at least one tiny little country - Estonia - clinging to the European dream of using smart cards to identify humans, but statistically the world has failed to make human signing with public key cryptography work. People write books about this, I simply point it out as a significant data point of where many thousands of people really really tried to use keys to prove meaningful human things. And failed. Let's get more topical. There are strident, demanding calls for people who make statements concerning the identity of one said Satoshi Nakamoto to back those statements up with cryptographic proof. Yet these demands are .. unfounded, and that is the kindest thing that could be said about them. Why? Anyone offering information to the world has no necessary call to offer more information. When I say that Craig Wright was the leader of the team known as Satoshi Nakamoto, I do not contract to say more. Nor did Gavin or Jon or others in any sense contract to say more than they did. They don't owe anyone anything. Even if they made errors, it is not on them to correct them. "Extraordinary claims calls for extraordinary proof" is only a standard for academia, it has little place in human affairs, especially in that democratic tradition known as open discourse, nor in the human standards of proof that have been honed over a thousand years of legal history. In fact, I contracted to say less - as well all do, when we join the encryption business, we covenant to keep peoples' privacy. When I started what became Project Prometheus a few years ago, I promoted their privacy as a goal - because the team known as Satoshi Nakamoto asked for their privacy by posting here in 2008 and disappearing entirely 2 years later. Now, when I come out and say that Craig Wright was the leader of Satoshi Nakamoto, it is only because he himself finally announced it. I remain committed to privacy even if the community Satoshi wrought is revealing themselves to be a pack of rabid statist wolves looking to rip the wool off of the backs of the sheep that they call their customers and future users. Sorry, guys, it gets worse, and I hope the Bitcoin community dissolves itself in collective shame as to their inability to even contemplate protecting their own. As we know in cryptographic affairs, key management is hard. Keys can be lost. Misplaced. Traded. Breached and stolen. Keys can be spoofed - we have an entire cryptographic security system called SSL/HTTPS which is blighted by phishing, based on misuse of cryptographic proof of identity. Let's not go into the details, but I shall revise here FTR the claim of secure browsing: the identities are cryptographically proven. Which apparent claim does not reveal itself to the humans in sufficient reliability in order to defeat basic common or garden social engineering. If the IETF's biggest, bravest and most educated can fail to protect the browsing public from the obvious, known and counted threat, what hope the rest? Even if the above were not sufficient, let me get precise and particular as to why the Proof-of-Satoshi is dead-on-arrival. There are several facts which apply in this case. Firstly, Satoshi Nakamoto is not one human being. It is or was a team. Craig Wright named one person in his recent communications, being the late Dave Kleinman. Craig did not name others, nor should I. While he was the quintessential genius who had the original idea for Bitcoin and wrote the lion's share of the code, Craig could not have done it alone. Satoshi Nakamoto was a team effort. Indeed, a sort of proof is right there in front of you - when you look at Craig Wright, you do not see Satoshi. When you look at Satoshi Nakamoto, you're seeing some measure of the influence of Dave Kleinman, and it isn't possible for Dave to prove anything anymore to anyone. Team Satoshi is ephemeral, and no cryptographic multisig can now capture those that aren't around any more. This team effort was one of a most severe cost to all members of that team, and only privacy is holding us back from recognising it. Further, the keys that controlled critical parts were moved several times between various persons. Which is to say that control of the keys does not indicate more than the holder being trustworthy to the goals of the team at a point in time. Even if Craig manages to sign over a coin, it does not and cannot prove he is "the one," only that he was at one point in time a trusted member of the team. Albeit, the team that he founded, but a wise leader controls for all risks, including those risks posed by the leader himself. More: control at any time does not necessarily indicate ownership, either in the minds of the team nor in the eyes of the law. Recalling the reports of late 2015, can you rule out that the keys haven't been stolen? Finally, as has been reported, the headline bulk of the value is controlled by a trust. Any movement of those coins needs to operate according to trust rules; if not, then we are in a state of sin. What that means is not something that can be described in mathematical terms, but it can certainly be described in hysterical terms - the logic de jure of the Bitcoin community. As an aside, I really strongly suggest that the Bitcoin community not press for the breaking of the trust. If unsure on this point, ask your miners to explain that old curse "be careful what you wish for." Breaking the trust is way off the scale of what anyone will desire. I suggest that it is therefore impossible for any reasonable person to conclude that a "spend" of a Bitcoin coin proves anything beyond that the erstwhile signer was at some point in some way related to a key. A host of factors make the 'proof' too impractical to describe at a press or media level. And, if we have to call in opposing experts to argue the case, what's the point of the "proof"? It is with incredible sadness that I watch an entire community misunderstand the lesson that Satoshi originally taught - trust in mathematics to prove accountancy. Yes, cryptography can prove that a coin is available and disposable pending an attempt to further dispose it. But the Bitcoin design was deliberately weak when it came to proof of persons. Especially, when it comes to known and now revealed weaknesses in the persona once known as Satoshi Nakamoto, there is no proof in mathematics that can satisfy that community's yearning for yet another meal. By all means, take that lamb for yet another feast of slaughter, but do not soil the good name of mathematics for your Pavlovian hunger. iang, CARS. ps; after writing this, I stumbled across: http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/04/logical-fallacies-hunt-satoshi/ pps; This post reflects no commercial agenda or position of myself or any person related to me. I have no position in BTC and have never had any BTC other than a few pence lost in some test wallet somewhere.
- Previous message: [Cryptography] Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto
- Next message: [Cryptography] Proof-of-Satoshi fails Proof-of-Proof.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the cryptography mailing list
SATOSHI IS DEAD – LONG LIVE SATOSHI. By Ian Grigg
https://ramonquesada.com/english/satoshi-is-dead-long-live-satoshi/
