In the infamous "leak" published by gizmodo and supposedly outing Craig Wright as Satoshi, there is an email that - if true - would be a real bomb.
it is dated march 12th 2008 and it reads:
I need your help editing a paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin...
You are always there for me Dave. I want you to be part of it all.
I cannot release it as me. GMX, Vistomail and Tor. I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me.
Craig
( https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/knlyk7dpjqucpmiojhs8.png )
This mail wants to show that the early idea of bitcoin came from Wright to Kleiman, and not the other way around.
Needless to say, it is extremely suspect.
One thing I have found is that not only it is suspect, but it is provably false.
The domain information-defense.com from which this email supposedly originates (the sender is craig.wright@information-defense.com ) was only registered by Wright on jan 23rd 2009, when he registered the Australian company "Information Defense PTY".
BTW, this was just a couple weeks after the blockchain started, and this company is somehow the predecessor of the similarly named American company "W & K Info Defence Ltd" controlled by Kleiman and later passed back to Wright.
The fact is, I believe "Information Defense PTY" is indeed related to bitcoin mining, but I think it's pretty likely that Wright forged that email in order to establish a priority over Kleiman.
That domain wasn't his in march 2008.
Gizmodo explains the problem saying:
pointing to the likelihood that its registration lapsed and was later renewed, which would explain the discrepancy
( https://gizmodo.com/the-mystery-of-craig-wright-and-bitcoin-isnt-solved-yet-1747576675 )
but this just does not hold, in light of an historical whois search
On Aug 25, 2007 the registrant was a "John W#####ck, 26 New Lane S####n, NY 11784-3304 US" and expiry date was 15-Mar-2008. (edited to protect privacy of previous owner)
On may 27th, 2008 the domain was listed in a list of domains in pending-delete state: https://web.archive.org/web/20151226101620/http://www.expire.cc/2008/05/27
The domain probably expired, and on Jun 1, 2008 the domain owner was "eNom, Inc. on behalf of eNom, Inc. Customer TBD eNom Customer TBD eNom Customer (legal@enom.com)"
Enom is a registrar, who had a "back-ordering" service for expired domains" this appears to be an ownership used by Enom for "domain tasting" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting )
Only on jan 23rd 2009 the domain was bought by Wright (presumably he got it from eNom) and shortly later archive.org shows a site for the first time: https://web.archive.org/web/20090216141126/http://information-defense.com:80/
So, I think that email is a provable forgery.
For the skepticals: the historical whois of the domain can be ordered for $49 from domaintools.com . I am not going to publish the report's PDF because its copyright status is unclear.
EDIT ######
Someone is saying "Wright MAYBE ad access to that address even if the domain wasn't in his name"
Please note that subject of that email: "Defamation and the diffculties of law on the Internet."
This subject comes from a thread that was taking place in those days on the "Security basics" mailing list, where Wright and Kleiman were interacting
A message from Wright: http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/144
Kleiman's reply to him: http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/147 (it's an interesting read, it tells a lot about the relationship between the two)
As you'll notice, in that very thread Wright was using his usual address @bdo.com.au
How likely is it he'd use a different address for an email with the same subject in the very same day?
Submitted February 27, 2018 at 04:03AM by fbonomi http://bit.ly/2BVTHrI
No comments :
Post a Comment