Git commit allegedly from Satoshi embedded inside a Bitcoin transaction

[jbaudanza]

Here is the text of the commit:

    From a3a61fef43309b9fb23225df7910b03afc5465b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
    From: Satoshi Nakamoto <[email protected]>
    Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:28:02 -0200
    Subject: [PATCH] Remove (SINGLE|DOUBLE)BYTE

    I removed this from Bitcoin in f1e1fb4bdef878c8fc1564fa418d44e7541a7e83
    in Sept 7 2010, almost three years ago. Be warned that I have not
    actually tested this patch.
    ---
     backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py |    8 +-------
     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

    diff --git a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
    index 6620583..89b9b1b 100644
    --- a/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
    +++ b/backends/bitcoind/deserialize.py
    @@ -280,10 +280,8 @@ opcodes = Enumeration("Opcodes", [
         "OP_WITHIN", "OP_RIPEMD160", "OP_SHA1", "OP_SHA256", "OP_HASH160",
         "OP_HASH256", "OP_CODESEPARATOR", "OP_CHECKSIG", "OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY", "OP_CHECKMULTISIG",
         "OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY",
    -    ("OP_SINGLEBYTE_END", 0xF0),
    -    ("OP_DOUBLEBYTE_BEGIN", 0xF000),
         "OP_PUBKEY", "OP_PUBKEYHASH",
    -    ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFFFF),
    +    ("OP_INVALIDOPCODE", 0xFF),
     ])


    @@ -293,10 +291,6 @@ def script_GetOp(bytes):
             vch = None
             opcode = ord(bytes[i])
             i += 1
    -        if opcode >= opcodes.OP_SINGLEBYTE_END and i < len(bytes):
    -            opcode <<= 8
    -            opcode |= ord(bytes[i])
    -            i += 1

             if opcode <= opcodes.OP_PUSHDATA4:
                 nSize = opcode
    -- 
    1.7.9.4

[LoonyPandora]

To be able to see this information on the linked page, click on "Advanced: Enable" at the bottom of the screen. Then you'll see the "Output Scripts" section where this info is contained.

[officialjunk]

there appear to be 3 transactions in total, related to this https://blockchain.info/address/1Lsc297azMbCDXKREnUuQWwMwKVE...

the output of the second transaction is: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 d9fc6bc120342fc43b2296876562e1d4c6536fda OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG

[mmahemoff]

How did you get from the linked page to that?

[v64]

If you look at the output scripts of the transaction, this is a patch for the bug that was used to embed the patch in the transaction in the first place. Clever.

[orblivion]

Pulled a Homakov.

[jbaudanza]

That's very interesting. But is that enough to get the tx mined into the blockchain? Isn't it still a non-standard tx?

[NowhereMan]

The problem here is that Satoshi has a GPG key, and this message is not signed with it.

http://bitcoin.org/satoshinakamoto.asc

[adulau]

Regarding his PGP, it's interesting to see who (at least which key) signed his public key:

http://pgp.circl.lu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5EC948A1&f...

I assume none of the key verified his identity before signing it ;-)

[saraid216]

Which would be bigger news? That someone who isn't Satoshi managed to do this, or that Satoshi has reappeared after years of silence?

[tocomment]

Can anyone explain this like I'm 5? I'm really not following what's going on here.

[jbaudanza]

You're not supposed to be able to embed messages inside of bitcoin transactions. But this person who claims to be Satoshi did just that. He/she/them embedded a git commit that fixes a bug in the Electrum server. This bug is perhaps what allowed the non-standard transaction to slip through.

Hope this helps.

[rajivtiru]

Summary after reading all the comments:

To actually see the message click the link "Show scripts & coinbase"

This is a non-standard transaction. This type of transaction burns bitcoins(bitcoins don't go anywhere.)

This transaction was first mined by the pool called Eligius. The Eligius pool allows non standard transactions if the transation is relayed to it directly.

The message is also not signed(PGP) correctly by Satoshi(Bitcoin creator).

[scott_karana]

To add to jbaudanza's comment: Satoshi is the creator of Bitcoin, and hasn't been publicly active in a few years.

[jbaudanza]

I'm very curious as to how this non-standard transaction made it into the blockchain. I have two guesses:

1) Whoever did this has access to enough hashing power to mine their own non-standard transactions into blocks.

2) $0.43 is unusually high for a transaction fee. Perhaps this is high enough to incentivize miners to include the tx in a block.

[sirsar]

Is there a signature anywhere to prove that it was authored by Satoshi?

[jbaudanza]

No. So take it with a big grain of salt.

[jbaudanza]

But regardless, it's still an interesting transaction.

[maaku]

Maybe. Where did the inputs come from?

[dmix]

How was this discovered? What does the commit change? Who was the transaction with? etc

[awayand]

I dont get it

[ChuckMcM]

Satoshi, the "Creator" of BitCoin went 'dark' and nobody knows who or where he is. So any "hint" of his existence is big news in the Bitcoin forums and elsewhere. While its an imperfect analogy it is sort of like having an image of the Virgin Mary appear on the toasted side of a bagel.

[darkstar999]

Same. Can someone explain the context/significance of this?

[cyanbane]

Sorry I am not up on all the code intricacies with bit coin, but is this a way to publish a batch of text anonymously? Is that what the author is trying to show (a new communications channel) or is that something already known to the bitcoin community?

[wmf]

It's definitely known, although I think most nodes drop transactions with weird stuff in them to prevent bloating the block chain with child porn.

[nwh]

Seeing as the author messed up and made the transaction unspendable, it's clearly not Satoshi actually authoring the patch. Just somebody playing around.

[nullc]

It's intentionally non-spendable, by doing so it keeps that data from having to be stored forever in the dataset used for block validation.

[ronaldx]

Why is creation conflated with omnipotence?

[jlebrech]

You could technically encode an message within the 8 decimal places.