Deniable proof of Satoshi

About two weeks ago in the Bitcoin community we were dealing with a bit of drama surrounding dr. Craig Wright claiming to be Satoshi, convincing Gavin Andresen of the fact with a shady signature, and then proceeding to be thoroughly debunked when a public proof was released. After which, Craig continued with his claim for a little while, saying he would move some old coins to prove he is indeed Satoshi, before quitting the Internet because people are such meanies.

What Craig's "signature proof" essentially looked like

One of the reasons why this hoax gained any legitimacy, was because Craig was able to convince Gavin by providing a signature of some random phrase allegedly using Satoshi's private key. However, he didn't want anyone to release that proof, so everything was done in a controlled environment and nothing was allowed to leave the room to be analysed in more detail:

Gavin explaining how Craig convinced him,

and Vitalik Buterin explaining why it was very unlikely Craig was really Satoshi

While some people blame Gavin for being duped, I personally wouldn't hold any grudges - everyone makes mistakes, it's no big deal. However, lets look at how we could prepare ourselves for when the next bidder to the title of Satoshi comes along.

Deniable proof of Satoshi

One reason why Gavin was unable to debunk the claim early was due to Craig not letting Gavin perform deeper analysis on a signature of a random phrase. This was allegedly to ensure Gavin couldn't leak the proof before the big reveal was supposed to happen. A reasonable precaution a legitimate claimant might make. If you would skip all of the drama, all the proof you would need would look like:

Charlie Lee's proof of being Litecoin's creator

However, if the claimant would still insist on a big reveal or otherwise keeping his identity rather secret, /u/emansipater came up with quite a clever way to create a deniable proof of being Satoshi. Simplified:

1. Verifier creates a random phrase, number or whatever with sufficient enough entropy
2. They encrypt the message with Satoshi's public key
3. They send the encrypted message to the claimant
4. The claimant then proceeds to decrypt the message and return it unencrypted

This proves that the claimant is indeed in the possession of the private key (otherwise they wouldn't be able to decrypt anything), but at the same time the proof is completely deniable as it relies on the negative - the claimant NOT knowing what the random phrase is. As you cannot at any point prove the secret was NOT shared with anyone before being decrypted, the proof only works for you - you know you haven't released the secret, but you can't prove that.

This simple challenge would be enough to allow Gavin to have a strong proof of whether or not Craig was Satoshi, and it would allow Craig to be able to deny any leaks before doing a proper reveal. However, as his intent didn't appear to be to create a proof, but rather to deceive, obviously this wouldn't be the approach taken.

Conclusions

It is possible to create a deniable proof of owning a particular private key. Any future claims to someone being Satoshi or not should first pass through at least such a filter before they are given any credibility. Alternatively, you could just expect Satoshi to flat-out publish his proof for anyone to verify and possibly falsify without any drama.

Perhaps verifiers could also require some moderate BTC deposit (perhaps 50BTC?) before any claims are verified, to be returned if the claimant reveals themselves to be Satoshi within a certain amount of time. The deposit could either stay with the verifier, or be deposited at some Bitcoin charity.

EDIT:

The original wording of the article implied a personal attack on Gavin. It was not intentional. The sentence has been rephrased.

Death of Satoshi

In the recent months, the Bitcoin community is discussing probably the most controversial issue the project has faced thus far - whether or not to increase the block size. This debate is hastened more and more by various "stress tests" that involve spamming the Bitcoin network. Among some of the arguments for and against the proposed changes you can hear people repeatedly mentioning "Satoshi's vision" (1, 2, 3) as a justification for their position. Is it perhaps time for us to stop appealing to the authority and start to forge our own path forwards?

What Would Satoshi Do?

Satoshi "Cyberchrist" Nakamoto

It seems that a lot of people have set out to save all of Satoshi's posts and quotes. The day he left his last post is remembered. Despite being gone from the Bitcoin community for almost 5 years, Satoshi's ideas seem to carry a lot of weight. This looks like early stages of religion with a gospel, rather than a technology revolution.

Satoshi was (most likely) a single person. As it goes with all people, nobody knows everything, nor can foresee exactly how the future will unfold. Trying to discern whether we should or shouldn't increase the block size can be viewed akin to divination.

Satoshi might've been visionary to create Bitcoin and code it, but lets not forget all the other developers that followed in his footsteps and took over when he left.

The "other" developers

The Bitcoin Core software has been developed over the years by a group of about 5 core developers, depending on how you count, and over 300 contributors. There are many talented developers and cryptographers working on the Bitcoin and related technologies, such as Vitalik Buterin or David Schwartz.

A famous photo of some of the top people involved in Bitcoin. Some speculate one of them might be Satoshi. More info.

To belittle their contribution to the project and the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole in favour of someone that has been gone for a majority of Bitcoin's history by now is a major disservice. Even if we assume Satoshi was the smartest, most talented and most experienced developer to contribute to Bitcoin, he is still just one person.

The Death of Satoshi

In literature, one can set out to interpret a given text in two ways. First, by the intent of the works' author and what they themselves ascribe to the piece they created, and second, by reading the text on its own without considering who the author was or what they intended the text to be about. The latter is known as "The Death of the Author".

Perhaps when discussing how the Bitcoin software should be developed, we should assume the death of the author and move forward forging our own path?

I know this view might be hard for some people, after all, constitution worship and apologetics seem to be quite prevalent in some of the top countries using Bitcoin and it would be all too easy to use the same approach for Bitcoin. However, as we move forward into the future, Satoshi's posts and views will be more and more out of touch with the present day and we can't constantly go back and try to interpret meanings from them to solve all of our problems...

Conclusions

While Satoshi was a smart person for having came up with the idea of Bitcoin, we have to sooner or later move on to plan for the road ahead, rather than constantly look backwards.