Topic: [Debunked] Definitive proof that Satoshi Nakamoto is James A. Donald. - page 4. (Read 7166 times)

Perhaps you are Satoshi since you are very much against us making progress on his identity.

I'm 99% sure it's Nick Szabo

I've just checked the mail archive at metzdowd.com (http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/).
The timestamps there are the same as the ones shown in the mit.edu archive. Looks like the mail-archive.com timestamps are bogus.

Just forget it. These timestamps don't prove anything, as they are not the times from original mails.
Of course this does not prove the opposite either, but I don't think that the search for truth works by conjuring up arbitrary assertions and then asking for negative proof.

Onkel Paul

OR... it was text snippet Satoshi already had prepared a while before because he was already anticipating questions like those.

I am more interested in the fact about Gaving being the founder/CTO of Wasabi Systems Inc

OR... the two parties discussed this privately before agreeing to post the question and answer publicly. If James was anything but certain about the validity of his concern, discussing it privately removes the possibility of publicly looking like an idiot.

OR... the timestamps are updated when an edit is made.

Satoshi is an Aussie

Satoshi is a white male, whom likes anime and Manga.

Prove me wrong

This isn't definitive proof whatsoever. Feel free to edit your thread name to something less sensationalist

The second E-Mail was written at 17:55:45, the third was written at 17:56:27.

Phinnaeus Gage claims that Satoshi can not have read the second E-Mail and answered it in 42 seconds. There for the third must have been prepared before the second was even send.

I say, the timestamps are just wrong.

I think James A. Donald was not included in the recent linguistic study:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/111179/what_s_in_a_name_linguistic_study_identifies_nick_szabo_as_the_real_satoshi_nakamoto

It would be interesting to see how close he is to Satoshi compared to Nick Szabo.

Sorry but I am not seeing proof - I am seeing two emails between two different people.

Can some one please explain like I am five? 

What IS up with Wasabi Systems?

April 2009:
http://tech.nifelheim.info/2009/04/whats-up-with-wasabi-systems-inc/

"Just got off the phone with the former Director of Support Services who worked at Wasabi until July of last year.
Wasabi was indeed a venture capital backed company, and went through a number of ’rounds’ of funding.
Recently my contact received a resume from a former employee of his asking about available openings at his current employer. This was a programmer who worked directly on the ip-san kernel.
Also the phone number 757-248-9601 now leads directly to Mr Frank Logan’s voicemail. Frank is / was the President / CEO of Wasabi.
All points I’ve researched show Wasabi to be shuttered.
Anyone have any other clues?"

"It seems they were taken to court (or subpoenad?) recently for patent violation, along with some other storage system vendors:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/04/05/New_Complaints.htm"

"The shoe dropped on 3/13. I don’t know about senior management, but everyone else had zero notice. On 3/12, Ian E. had no idea. AFAIK all the physical stuff in the office was liquidated, so Wasabi’s really gone. I don’t know what happened to the IP; I think Frank L. was trying to find buyers for it.
Most of the survivors are on linkedin, and many are still looking for work. I’m sure at least some of us would be willing to take contract work."



At least this guy's got an impressive resumé:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/fglogan

Looks like J.A. may have been stirring the wrong pot: http://marc.info/?l=cryptography-randombit&m=137849729602738&w=2

If you look up the same mail dialogue at other archives you'll see different timestamps:
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.general/month=20081101
http://diswww.mit.edu/bloom-picayune/crypto/136763

Without being able to look at the original headers, I don't know what the exact sending times could be.
The mit.edu archive has header lines that look plausible and might be from the original mails:

As you see, these timestamps claim different timezones, and are almost 2 hours apart, which is perfectly reasonable. Whether they are correct is another question, +1000 is in use in Eastern Australia and Siberia, while +0800 would be used in Western Australia and China. These do not necessarily indicate the actual location of mail users, of course.

Onkel Paul

Exactly 42 seconds. No added minute.

17:56:27 - 17:55:45 = :42

That's my timestamp, and I'm sticking to it.

http://www.metzdowd.com/



https://www.linkedin.com/pub/perry-metzger/4/71a/159



https://www.linkedin.com/pub/gavin-andresen/1/797/698

Well spotted, although could it be due to a regional daylight savings time difference which changes around Oct/Nov and the timespan 1:00:42?

Who is James A. Donald by the way ? I just found a wikipedia editor of this name, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_A._Donald, but no wikipedia entry !!!

People let Santa Claus mess with their children every Christmas so no, not really. "Sit in my lap and whisper what you want in my ear and I'll give you candy." Really?

Anyways, now let's wait for a new message to pop up like the last one about the other Satoshi, "I am not James A. Donald."

I think Satoshi Nakamoto does not exist!