I am going to take your word for it that this makes sense. However, I think what you may be missing is that it doesn't matter if Wright convinces you or even "any" of the crypto/alt coin community. While mathematical proofs are hard/impossible to fake, you are a subset of people that understand them to the degree that you could employ them here.
I have no idea what Wright's end game is, as you are obviously correct: his assertions make no sense. However, if somehow he believed there was value in convincing non-technical members of the public he was Satoshi, I think that is quite possible. I find this truth to be self-evident:
A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X, much easier than even a charismatic person could convince a group how to understand and employ a non-trivial group of mathematical equations.
We see this every day. It is totally possible, likely even, that if I can't understand your math- even if it is correct, and even if it is corroborated by others who understand it, I am weighing(or the general idea of "I" as the population) which person is correct based on a standard that is subjective. Possibly:
* He said he was Satoshi
* He had a crypto key I read about in wired.
* Gavin Andreessen appeared to corroborate and I googled him and he is important.
So, you are totally correct. I agree with you as even if I don't understand your math, I am sure there is a mathematical way to prove he was Satoshi by using a different set of keys, a signature or other mathematical proof. Unfortunately, he will likely be able to exploit Satoshi's name.
> A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X
Which, given my limited understanding of bitcoin, is what makes the blockchain exponentially incorruptable. An attacker must convince all, not just X that she is Satoshi. Even if she manages this once, on the second iteration it becomes nearly impossible unless she has some capabilities outside the set of known possibilities.
So, he convinced people the first time around, just like Leah McGrath Goodman (about two years ago?) but the remainder of the compute nodes raised an inchoate response which invalidates those in agreement.
Eventually the consensus that he is an impostor propagates through the system. Eventually after the "buzz of the story" has died down the insight of experts (such as here) will be sought.
His attack "could" work if the experts were not consulted in this way, which I think is only possible in a pervasive 1984 scenario, but even still would bitcoin even be relevant in such a world?
It's hard to believe a cryptographer could think such an attack could work so I can only imagine, given he is an academic he has some sort of surreptitious goal in mind, such as to demonstrate to students the difficulties in attacking this system?
> An attacker must convince all, not just X that she is Satoshi.
I don't see how you make any connection between how blockchain operations work and "convincing somebody who is Satoshi."
"Convincing" even "everybody" wouldn't get Wright the chance to use the bitcoins of real Satoshi, Wright'd still need a real key. Which wasn't used since the original times, certainly not by Wright.
I'm echoing blockchain as a metaphor for consensus - conflating even. I just thought there were interesting parallels between the technology and the actual social scenario that is being played out here.
I have no idea what Wright's end game is, as you are obviously correct: his assertions make no sense. However, if somehow he believed there was value in convincing non-technical members of the public he was Satoshi, I think that is quite possible. I find this truth to be self-evident:
A quick witted conman or charismatic person can certainly convince an untrained group that he is X, much easier than even a charismatic person could convince a group how to understand and employ a non-trivial group of mathematical equations.
We see this every day. It is totally possible, likely even, that if I can't understand your math- even if it is correct, and even if it is corroborated by others who understand it, I am weighing(or the general idea of "I" as the population) which person is correct based on a standard that is subjective. Possibly:
* He said he was Satoshi
* He had a crypto key I read about in wired.
* Gavin Andreessen appeared to corroborate and I googled him and he is important.
So, you are totally correct. I agree with you as even if I don't understand your math, I am sure there is a mathematical way to prove he was Satoshi by using a different set of keys, a signature or other mathematical proof. Unfortunately, he will likely be able to exploit Satoshi's name.