[nullc]

Hi Mike. Please provide the complete enclosing headers of the email in question, along with their DKIM signature. The header trace will help dispel any allegations that the messages were delayed for technical reasons or were otherwise corrupted.

[midmagico]

Most people have no way to more-deeply authenticate those emails because you didn't provide headers. Many people, myself included, would love some way to better-rule-out whether parts of the messages had been elided, for example. A DKIM signature would have been a perfect integrity check of the message. It's just good protocol.

As a result of timestamping emails with their DKIM into Bitcoin, now even rotated, broken, or released keys can be used to partially authenticate e.g. Google messages. You can see this for example in this project here:

https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim

And in particular, here:

https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim/pull/5

So you see, even historical DKIM signatures can act as strong authentication.

[mike_hearn]

Satoshi's email provider didn't use DKIM. Even if they had the keys would have long since been rotated.

That's OK though - you're the only one insinuating that I faked the emails, nobody else ever has. You won't come out and say it directly of course, because if you had to spell out this theory explicitly it would sound obviously idiotic.

[nullc]

This is a standard request. I find your response confusing. Every other party that produced messages from Satoshi produced the headers without being asked or on request. Particularly when people are assigning a lot of significance to the timestamps the headers are quite interesting.

As far as key rotation goes, never to miss an XKCD386 opportunity: It's often pretty easy to go find historic keys and them confirm that they the correct ones by testing against contemporaneous messages received by other parties from the same domains or which got captured in places like public email archives.

[mike_hearn]

Which part of "there are no signatures" did you not understand Gregory? And stop replying to yourself with sock puppets, it's unseemly, we know Midnight Magic and variants is you.

[alchemist1e9]

It’s curious that nullc is simultaneously arguing that people shouldn’t imply Hal is Satoshi and insinuating your email timestamp alibi for Hal is questionable.

The position of petertodd, Adam Back, and nullc appears to be that investigating the identity of Satoshi is pointless and shouldn’t be encouraged.

If you have the time you might be interested in a discussion I’ve been having with him about identifying Satoshi. Thank you for your time on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41803918

They are also arguing debug.log IP leak is questionable, retep was an unknown pseudonym not known handle for peter, they both are bad C++ devs in 2008. As a relative outside to your community, yet technically knowledgeable, it looks all very odd.

[nullc]

I don't have a position on the email timestamp stuff: I can't have one because no one has ever seen the headers, and you shouldn't either.

I don't think there is anything curious about the fact that I'm unwilling to lie or intentionally exaggerate my beliefs simply because it would further another preference of mine. -- The request for the headers on that message goes back long before anyone ever suggested any interaction with Hal.

Rather, I think it would be "curious" and show a lack of integrity if I were to just stop asking a question after a situation was created where my request was no longer in the interest of my other arguments.

[alchemist1e9]

I agree we should see headers. I support your request for email headers with or without DKIM signatures.

I suspect we actually agree on many items.

I also support your question about the debug.log IP leak. I hope to study that in the next few days. That IP leak if real is probably the strongest lead we have on Satoshi.

Do you support unmasking Satoshi if it is possible?

[nullc]

Please provide the headers for the message rather than deflecting with personal attacks and shameful false accusations. Also please withdraw the maliciously false accusation regarding midnight, you can't possibly believe that is true (considering that midnight was a pillar of the bitcoin IRC spaces long predating me).

All this drama is completely unnecessary. I made a complete regular and uncontroversial request. You could have just responded in kind.

[midmagico]

I'm not gmax, mike, which you definitely knew on IRC when you offered to help me deal with criminal harassment on IRC by handing me +o status in the channels where they were harassing people in your name.

(edit) I'm also not answering gmax; I'm answering you, with concrete specifics and an actual example, to inform you about the utility of DKIM even if Satoshi's email provider didn't use them, which you clearly didn't already know.