Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by 8ig8 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

8ig8

Mirrored screenshots here:

http://i.imgur.com/McgiZwb.png

http://i.imgur.com/lfCJeBI.png

Edit: To respond to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8288579

Looks like "Phone 31x" under the email address, which is consistent with St Louis area code of 314.

View on HN

It's fascinating to see that the account seems to be active, if we are to trust the "replied" icons to G.M. (Bitcoin developer?) and R.M. (Wired reporter that wrote the article on this leak?).

EDIT: From the Wired article, it seems like the hacker corresponded with the Wired reporter via the email address (to prove authenticity?) and may have done the same with the Bitcoin developer as well, judging from timestamps.

I believe gmaxwell mentioned on #bitcoin-dev that he was emailed.

So we're looking at the gmx.com account being legitimately hacked -- but Satoshi had good enough opsec to not leak anything interesting from the account.

The hacker gained access to the gmx.com mailbox - resets all of the third party accounts and still comes out with nothing of value?!!

1) So he has to fake an invoice to gain media buzz? I don't buy it.

2) What's in the outbox?

> but Satoshi had good enough opsec to not leak anything interesting from the account.

Except is St Louis Missouri street address and telephone number.

Could be some scammer buying something and leaving a fake email.

The "Lancelot" (line item from order) manual?

https://www.cardreaderfactory.com/download/documentation/lan...

That guy did a really bad job of blacking out sensitive information. It probably nails the receiver down to only a couple of hundred people.

Assuming it's not doctored, I'm very surprised he would order something from a random company to his real name/address using his Satoshi e-mail...presumably he has other e-mails, and that seems like pretty horrendous op sec. Unless he bought it for a friend?

edit: the item he ordered was a FPGA in mid 2013. He's really bothering with a single $400 miner in 2013...? He doesn't have enough BTC?

> FPGA in mid 2013

That's further evidence that someone placed an order on his email with a fake address for giggles.

With a bit of levels adjustment and http://i.imgur.com/y0Ee8cl.png

We're being lied to. This is fake. The street address doesn't match the post code.

My assessment: The hacker created the order himself, with fake ID, fake address and doctored the timestamp.

I agree. The email in the screenshot smells like a hoax (assuming your level stuff is legitimate; I haven't played with the source image in GIMP myself).

63101 is the downtown area (right by the Arch) – not really a place most people live, but the kind of place you might get if you Googled "St Louis zip code".

Also amusingly, "198 Bruce Ave" (not Street as in the email) is right in the center of the area Google labels Ferguson, MO.

Or somebody created the order and used that email address as a joke. Most online stores don't make you confirm an email address when you place an order.

Now, after this much time since that order, that person will be the star of the next Newsweek article because they didn't want to use their real address when buying a miner.

The hacker probably thought it was real. That website lets you pay cash (locally in China). You can enter any name/address/email/phone number you want, there is zero validation, and you can submit as 'cash', so no payment required at that time. You will get a confirmation e-mail like Satoshi did. So someone was probably just messing around and submitted a fake order in 2013, for whatever reason.

> With a bit of levels adjustment

Care to explain?

Bumping the shadows/black levels so that they are brighter. Literally just moving a single slider all the way to the right in photoshop or lightroom. Just google 'levels', or here's a decent intro: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm

The first email in that screenshot has a date of "12/6/22".

Perhaps a date parsing error?

No. Probably the date was set wrong by the sender.

YY/MM/DD (June 22, 2012) ?

That's the chinese date format (GB/T 7408-2005), so the GMX web mail client probably doesn't convert it into a uniform format.

So, a date parsing error?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com