Topic: 12 years ago this man was accused to be Satoshi (Read 548 times)

Yeah, first time to heard and see this guy.

The way I'm seeing the nature of everything right now the Monday accused to be a satoshi I believe that the man is not a supposed to because if satoshi she'll come to forum bank many people who were there during the creation of this platform we know santoshi and satoshi will also go back to eat old account and reactivate it to be functioning again so all those people claiming that there are satoshi are fake one

The true identity of Satoshi isn't known, so anyone claiming themselves as Satoshi should provide the right source to prove him to be Satoshi. Here Micheal have denied that he isn't Satoshi. Many have claimed themselves to be Satoshi. For that they weren't targeted, because people know they aren't the real one.

Claiming to be Satoshi wouldn't get anyone a lot of money, people say Satoshi has a lot of bitcoins to his name, so anyone claiming to be Satoshi is rich in the eyes of everyone, and therefore a target of any kind of harm you can think about because of the money he is believed to have. Claiming to be Satoshi even makes you lose a lot of money to lawsuits and attempts to cover up the truth like CSW is doing, i don't know why people even believe it is an admirable position to be in as an impostor, it is not, denying such accusations is the easier option to take in my humble opinion.

Maybe they are not even there anymore, maybe they passed away, we do not know. Plus, I feel like it doesn't even matter, we shouldn't really look for satoshi because in the end satoshi doesn't even matter, I personally believe that the best thing he ever did was to remove himself from the calculation, that allowed him to continue existing without caring about what could happen to him, and allowed us to not be worried about the owner doing something silly.

Even satoshi "saying" something bad, would cause bitcoin to crash, it has nothing to do with bitcoin itself, but just because he is the creator, that would be bad. Hence, it's best we do not know who they are.

He is really an honest person, anyone in his place would have agreed immediately because just claiming that he is a Satoshi would make him a very famous person and he would get a lot of interviews and money, but on the other hand claiming being a Satoshi is not easy because he needs to provide a lot of evidence and proof and from It could get him in trouble with governments as well, so I think this guy made the right decision.

Being Satoshi doesn't just depend on that name and authority alone but will have some strings attached.  He saw it as not being famous but has to save his ass, government will have him on deck if he has accepted.

I believe you're right. If it's coming from you it might cause some drama, and some pointless noise in Bitcoin Land. They will put words in your mouth with headlines that will be, "Gregory Maxwell has strong lead on the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, inventor of Bitcoin". Hahaha.

"No, it was just a forum post answering a stupid pleb, stop following me".

There are many candidates and most of them have self portrayed them to the world they are original creator of bitcoin but didn't have any valid evidence to prove themselves against their fake claims so in my opinion we should not look for some connections and disturb the personal life of people and making them in whole media coverage if they deny the fact and let this mystery as it is because we all are satoshi in the end.

I think it doesn't matter-- the whole innovation in Bitcoin was finding a way to make whomever created it not matter, and so it's disrespectful to both the invention and the creator to speculate.   Also, it's potentially really harmful to the target of speculation and their families.

I don't think it conflicts with the above to point out that the vast majority of the people that people speculate about have zero chance of being Bitcoin's creator based on my expertise and direct experience.

I will gladly oblige such status, not because I'm introverted or want to become one but because the narrative of bitcoin is going to change from being a decentralised value to a centralized cult and the belief of bitcoin will reduce including the soldiers surrounding and defending it over the years.
Aside from looking at the ways to protect the reputation of bitcoin, I wouldn't want to become the target and prone to the world, the governments will be hunting you, the CIA, the FBI, and the SEC and do you know why? They will all want to probe him for bringing freedom to the people and also want to have a share of that 1 million bitcoin in his custody.

Gmaxwell, I hope you don't mind being asked this question, but who would he your No.1 candidate to be Satoshi Nakamoto? Would he be someone from within the Cypherpunk mailing list? Or an outsider?

Tin-foil hats on but I believe it was someone who pretended to be an outsider, but was actually a regular.

Who were the first people in that mailing list who became intruiged by the "concept/idea" of Bitcoin? One of those people might be Satoshi.

Claiming other people are claiming you are Satoshi is a way that some fakers promote their fakery.  But in this case, I weakly recognized the name and 10 seconds on the forum search confirm that people have indeed claimed as much, so I'm confident that the denial was not just a sideways way of claiming to be Satoshi.

It's really terrible to be falsely accused of being Satoshi when you're not (and when you're not planning on scamming anyone using it):  Satoshi's identity is far far more interesting to mentally ill people than it is to ordinary people, as ordinary people usually only find it a mild curiosity at most-- after all Bitcoin was designed so that the identity of its creator wouldn't matter-- but there are more than a few mentally ill people who are utterly obsessed with it.  Obsessed crazies have been known to murder famous people in order to make themselves memorable to history.

Satoshi's identity is also far more interesting to kidnappers and robbers, for obvious reasons: he's alleged to control a large amount of Bitcoin.   You really don't want a bunch of crazy or criminal people making you a target of their adventures, esp because the cost of security against these sorts of threats is quite substantial, limiting your exposure in public stinks, etc.

Often celebrities have significant incomes that can pay for security costs as a cost of doing business-- that isn't the case for people falsely accused of being Satoshi.


One thing folks may be missing when they note that they haven't heard of him is that the view from the driver's seat of someone's life is very different from the sidelines.  As someone who has probably received more than a typical amount of harassment and abuse, I've occasional commented to a friend about to hear back "oh, I've seen that but it wasn't really much was it?"   only to have me bring them over to the computer and show them from my perspective -- "holy shit!".

Even if you were following a person, what percentage of the messages and mentions to and of them do you think you see?  1%?   If you're not following them maybe a tiny tiny percentage 0.0001%?   You can't even see meatspace or private interactions at all.  So anything you see you could imagine that being multiplied by 100 or 1000 times.   There seems to be a weird effect where nice comments tend to get made in public while nasty/stalky/invasive comments are made more often in private, further exacerbating the effect.

So to me it's quite credible that someone you've never heard of could still have received a troubling amount of unwelcome or concerning contact.  (Doubly so in that the headline article here was published in 2013... plenty of time for people to forget about him ).

That just means you've fallen for Wright's story (abstraction v1).  There is nothing to support Kleiman here,  and Bitcoin is a mismatch of his skills: he was an IT admin guy, plugging PC parts and editing the windows registry.  There is no evidence that kleiman had substantive programming expertise (the only 'programming' he has ever been shown to have done is a trivial Visual Basic windows registry checker), nor any particular expertise in cryptography.  If Kleiman had any real experience programming it would have been brought out as evidence in the florida trial.

The only reason kleiman has ever been mentioned here is because Wright knew/feared that many would be able to tell that he obviously didn't create Bitcoin, but it would be fine for Wright's purposes (getting money predicated on access to Satoshi's coins) if people suspected that Wright was lying but still thought he had access to the coins.

There weren't any viable options (e.g. available in openssl) which were later found to be compromised.

If this story is true the guy did the best to come out open and say he is not the real satoshi. If it were to be one of these scammers it would  have been an opportunity to scam people to make money from this claim. It just good to be real and nobody else, claiming to be Satoshi has a lot of bad effect, if the real satoshi is not the kind of person that is private I think it would have cause something bad to him. Government would have have been is biggest enemy to bring him down.

Similar to others also not have heard about this ever brought up in the list of satoshis and don't why people always run behind these things linking up the fake connections to provide new drama in market.He is clearly stating that he has not invented btc so why run behind him like dorian nakamoto? You would never take the open responsibility to claim something that is not yours because government and media will surround you with lot of enquiries and put pressure on you.

Famous yet we never heard him before. Lol

This is actually the first time I hear or seen that face over the entire years of me staying on this forum and it just popped up out of nowhere. Where is he when Craig Wright trying to own Bitcoin but can't show a proof? I guess he just made the right choice since everyone was asking to open or show a signed message of his first wallet who has tons of BTC.

And if I would have to choose I wouldn't accept it too since first of all it's hard to stay hot in the public eyes plus the authority that might want to push the centralized system for Bitcoin.

Lots had been claiming that they are Satoshi nakamoto but we know that there's only one thing that they could prove it out which is to move those funds into those known satoshi nakamoto wallets.

We could really point out fingers on those presume or assumed Satoshi excluding CSW which is totally a psycho and trying hard to claim to be SN but the community isnt that dumb to believe with those claims.

Just looking on the thing he had invented then it would be safe to say that he isnt someone that would expose himself into the public and boasting on the project/thing that he had created.

I imagine the nature of Satoshi Nakamoto should he or she be an individual to be a very humble person. To have thought and created something so useful in our world today today yet chose to stay anonymous on his invention and have no desire to use it in extorting the public is just something Craig Wright will never be. Same reason why his going to court over any objection to his claims is the same for which someone outrightly rejects. So humble and that's the Satoshi/crypto nature in him. His Satoshi alright, we are all Satoshi for choosing to stay anonymous, take no credit in the aids we render through cryptocurrency, our teachings in the forum and staying true to the pioneers invention.

I still have David Kleiman as the #1 Satoshi candidate.

He is the only candidate considered a world class security expert. Which would have been necessary to adopt elliptic curve signatures over other encryption standards which were later found to be compromised.

Kleiman unfortunately passed away in 2013. Which would explain everything about Satoshi's absence. And the inability of other Satoshi candidates to provide private keys for early BTC mined by Satoshi.

Nick Szabo could be the #2 Satoshi candidate. But I think he lacks the technical and programming skills to create something like bitcoin. He lacks the engineering and security credentials.

You said famous till date but for most here including me, this is the first time that I've heard that name.

I guess his surname is already saying that he isn't Satoshi because it's very "clear" that he is not and why somebody would claim them to be Satoshi. Only a crazy man like Craig Wright can do it because he's crazy .

Now to answer the question, I will decline it immediately and for sure many others would because of security purposes and I'm thinking even though the real Satoshi will decline the accusation even he/they know inside that they is/are Satoshi.