this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
194 points (89.1% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
3333 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not really, all it requires is someone to produce a signed message with one of Satoshi's private keys, which can be easily verified with the public addresses on the blockchain. Whoever produced that message can be proven to possess that private key. Nothing short of that would be believable by the crypto nerds.
If we presume that Satoshi understood that Bitcoin may be valuable one day and kept the keys private, that would mean that the signer really is Satoshi, or one of his associates or heirs Satoshi trusted wih access. Even if that person wasn't actually Satoshi, their word on who it is would be considered authoritative.
Unless it's Craig. Fuck that guy. Nobody believes him.
That is the extraordinary evidence being referenced.
Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence, then?
No, because it's an extraordinary claim.
"Extraordinary" means outside the realm of ordinary. Signing a message is very ordinary
EDIT: Sorry I ment to say: saying "I own a key" is ordinary, and signing a message is the ordinary way to prove you own the key
Sure, anyone can sign with a key. Having THE key is the extraordinary part.
Saying you know who Satoshi is, that's the claim, and that's an extraordinary claim.