Topic: Do you think Satoshi worked for the NSA? (Read 719 times)

you are doubling down again. saying you never said X.. but then saying it.. X could be a classified experiment
i again correct you that bitcoin is code and code that can be read..

its like you are trying to say magnesium is not the classified experiment but the experiment of magnesium is the classified experiment
(facepalm)

you are still (analogy) trying to insinuate magnesium is part of a conspiracy, so still doubling down and saying there is some classified stuff related to bitcoin. and i keep saying.. just read the code. read the conversations
you then rebutt that the technical/discussion/conversations of satoshi in public are meaningless conjecture so you start suggesting to ignore the stuff he did say just so you can push a fantasy 'what if'

the issue is that these fantasies, end up going viral and start causing idiots like CSW to come out of the woodwork, or other people forming cults and believing silly fantasy of admiring idols.. rather than sticking to facts. and we have seen over the years how these idiocies manifest and turn out

[4 people out of 30 think satoshi worked for nsa(facepalm)]

---

the thing is bitcoin does not use NISTS already compiled dependency files.. people actually went out of their way to re-write ECDSA and libsecp256k1 to be open source, so that people can review, scrutinise and compile clean code...
alot of people looked into why the curve formulae y² = x³ + 7 was chosen too

so all the talk about back doors becomes moot points due to 15 years of bug testing, review, and even battle testing the code


with that said people need to review the code periodically, especially even now with devs making changes, to highlight and scrutinise if devs now create weaknesses in the code, softening the ruleset, backdoors, exploits, bugs and such. we should not just be aimlessly saying 'well it was peer reviewed in 2009-2011, and was clean' to then think we should turn to religion and belief and trust that its still clean now and in the future, based on trust of dev gold idolisms

..
reality is.. instead of fantasy stories of 'what if 15years ago' (which has been debunked by many actually doing research, review).. but instead look at the now of reality..
bitcoin had 15 years of review to show the lack of backdoor in the original code. but that should not then be used to suggest it will always be clean code due to old review.. nor should it be suggested if new code found now/future is dirty, to then suggest blaming someone 15 years ago was part of conspiracy..
its highly more likely the funding of devs today could be put into a more plausible conspiracy context

---

ulbricht didnt get prison time for using bitcoin. bitcoin was not his crime
he got prison time for facilitating drug deals and profiting from it.. oh and organising 'hits' on people
much the same as any 'cottaging' (drug den) where a house thats used to do drug deals. if the house owner knows and ALLOWS and facilitates and take fee's from every deal done in the drug house.. they would get same punishment, no matter the currency used

using a different currency does not change the laws..
bitcoin does not obfuscate/immunise people from crimes/laws..

One could ask the same thing about Satoshi in that case. Where is he/she? Why aren't they showing up to claim the praises. They decided long time ago they wouldn't. Them being either one person or multiple.

Depends on the type of backdoor. A backdoor could be recognized in the code if said code is open-source and verifiable. In case of some vulnerable algorithms in the past, this wasn't the case. So it was all about trust, and it turned out to be wrong. A good programmer might be able to recognize a weak algorithm based on the technical description of how it works and with an exact copy of the code to inspect. But no one would be able to know that a company that has developed a certain encryption is cooperating with a third-party and supplying them with information on how to decrypt sensitive data. If there isn't a whistle blower, everyone remains in the dark.

I never said Bitcoin is classified.

Bitcoin could be a classified experiment.  Classified EXPERIMENT.  As in not Bitcoin is what is classified but the experiment itself.  It may have drifted way off their planned experiment and turned into a monster they can not hold back any more.

I can further sustain my theory by how much hatred and how many arrows were thrown at Bitcoin ever since it started to bloom.  This could very well be an attempt to put Bitcoin back on the rails of the experiment and stop its excessive growth.  If this is the truth then they probably never expected some body to start an actual Exchange for Bitcoins.  They probably never expected Bitcoin to go underground and become a Tor friendly Currency that was later used on Onion pages and Markets too.

Remember Three Letter Agencies helped funding Tor.  Are Three Letter Agencies working on Classified projects or not?  Tor is Open Source.  How do you explain this funding?

One more point to make.  Ulbricht and the extreme punishment he received.  That could be an attempt to push Bitcoin back to its initial tracks too.

You keep explaining the public records of Satoshi and their history.  This is so ironic and funny to me.  I and any body can pretty much speculate any thing on the identity of Satoshi due to the anonymous nature of this identity.  Satoshi could very well be a Russian group of programmers.  Posts written by Satoshi show a British tendency of writing.  Well.  What if Satoshi was a group of Russian programmers who later on brought a British guy abroad particularly for writing posts.

Considering how Anonymous Satoshi tended to keep their identity, nothing would surprise me.  But it is funny to see some body so frustrated at a speculative Thread.

Even non Anonymous identities can be speculated on.  Do you never speculate on what the real intentions of politicians or Presidents you do not like are?  Are you seriously taking every thing at face value because what is said on the big screen is always real and the truth?

World Economic Forum at first glance seems like such a well behaving and good intended institution.  Am I allowed to speculate on their REAL motives and purposes, Franky?

You need to watch the full video to understand better, and I posted full link above.
His theory is that Satoshi was possibly working in NSA as programmer so he knew a lot more than people outside, but he didn't agree with many things government and banks were doing.
That is why he was very careful not to expose himself, and that is why he stopped posting right after Gavin Andresen told him that he is going to talk with cia.
No amount of skills will tell if you some RNG have government backdoors, it doesn't matter if it's certified or not, online someone from the inside could know that.

Highly unlikely.

Judging by his early Bitcointalk messages alone he was an anarchist, libertarian, old school cypherpunk .

Bitcoin contains a mixture of old technologies - that have been thoroughly tested/used. They work.

I think they're lying about everything. I think it's all one big conspiracy. However, I don't think Satoshi is/was part of the club.

This will trigger a few people. I think Bitcoin has been infiltrated - hodl culture is same get rich BS as fiat. Wallets, miners, exchanges are coming down hard on surveillance. Regardless of the benefits, I think restricting the blocksize will only raise fees & make it unusable to the average person. I hope lightning is the solution however I've only lost confidence over the last few years. I tried to adopt it. I had so many issues with payments, nodes etc. I don't have confidence in it's privacy yet. I hope this changes, I really do.

I don't think they've infiltrated Bitcoin enough to gain actual control. There's lots of individual miners and node operators. You can self custody and run a node quite easily. Coinjoin is effective (if done right).

In summary, l still think Bitcoin is for the people, I think Satoshi was genuine. However Satoshi's original vision looks more like Monero. And that's why I'm hedging my bets because the digital surveillance prison is quickly coming online.

I think Satoshi was a very good programmer to begin with, before I even talk of how visionary he must have been in the case that he brought up this idea and executed it to the latter.
Although, Some may have said the name Satoshi is just a psuedonym or represents the name of the team that worked to make Bitcoin a reality and not a real name of an original founder.
Whatever be the case, I doubt the real Satoshi would have been working for the NSA because it's quite obvious with all the regulatory agencies formed because of Bitcoin and a host of court cases that has met many involved in the running of the Bitcoin core program, as well as the scrutiny and backlash the government has delt it, that it is anti government and a threat to the legal fiat, hence the scrutiny.

There are some psychological questions about this theory that Bitcoin was created by a team, where are the other members, is no alive, even after a massive success more than even Microsoft and so-called tech brands why they are not showing up themselves?

Well these are some silly questions I know, but the higher chances that stoshi was only involved in the idea of Bitcoin and further it was established by the community members.

i don't know whether he is an employee of the nsa or another secret organization, but what is certain is that he is very intelligent to be able to design a payment system like bitcoin. he is able to predict people's needs and how to meet the challenges of today's centralized financial system. and he was even able to predict that bitcoin would be used by more people globally.

whoever he is and wherever he is, many people and including me want to thank him because he was able to create the best digital assets like bitcoin for many people.

now moving on from the "is satoshi..." to now discuss "is there a back door" topic..

here is the thing.
when ANYONE releases compiled dependency files, complete executables that perform functions where the source code is not available but the dependency file/executable mentions being certified.. be cautious.. especially if its being certified by a small dev group that also wrote it.. as that is not true independent peer review/proof of clean code

when there is a open source which you can review and compile yourself, thats better, especially if there is NO drama about independent reviewers getting moderated out of technical discussion for scrutinising central group of devs work

by bitcoin having a open source codebase for even things like ecdsa and libsecp256k1 its helpful because for decade+ we have all had chance to review the code

but with all that said
we should also not just trust it now due to X years ago they had things clean. we need to regularly review the code to look for changes

..
this even goes for your devices too, like your windows PC or your apple/samsung phone

the default factory OS might have been clean and their 'service agreement' terms might be clean. but when there are updates/patches/fixes asking you to update/agree to new terms, .. im also sceptical when devices some with service agreements people need to agree to just to use a device..
its best to review the changes, even of the agreement terms and not accept them on trust due to experience X years ago of clean data, especially if they offer lame "certification" filehash checks, certified by the same group that coded the changes/clean terms years ago

I have seen that short clip where he talks about backdoored Random Number Generators as well. I posted it under sources in my OP. It's the reddit link at the top. That's where I first saw it. It could all be a coincidence, but I guess we will never find out.

It's worth mentioning that if someone distrusts their government, the monetary system, fights for privacy, and doesn't want to use any standards they apply, then why would they trust what the government deems a certified RNG? That someone is more likely to pick something the government doesn't recommend as safe if they have the skills to verify it. 

I saw this speculation recently posted by OG bitcoiner Davinci Jeremie, and it's not impossible scenario, this is not the first time someone said that Satoshi worked for some government agency.
Chances for Satoshi creating Bitcoin with one random cryptography that doesn't have backdoor access is very low, because at the time nobody knew that all other have backdoors.
Here is the short clip from one of Davinci interviews he gave recently for London Real, and Snowden is a part of that story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA0hUwO9oTQ&t=8

Full interview:
https://londonreal.tv/davinci-jeremie-bitcoin-etf-wins-sec-approval-how-to-profit-in-the-crypto-bull-run/

I'm usually sceptical toward things that sound like conspiracy theories, and that's probably why I don't think Satoshi is/was an NSA agent. I don't doubt that the NSA is working on decrypting various things and on trying to find ways of monitoring conversations, but I don't think it has anything to do with Satoshi and Bitcoin. So I'm with the op on this one. I believe Satoshi just did some research, was a knowledgeable specialist, and tried to create a secure system, not because of any insider knowledge. It's nice to see that the majority agree with this.

I self-moderated the thread to be able to delete spam on my own without having to wait for the mods to do it. It's not self-moderated to control the narrative or attempt to steer the conversation in one particular way. It doesn't matter to me one bit if the community believes satoshi was NSA or not. I am not suppressing one side in favor of the other. Have I suppressed your opinions? Have I deleted your posts despite your criticisms of my thread and me as a poster and person? I believe I haven't.

I deleted two posts from a user who suggested that Satoshi was an alien or an ancient deity. To me, that is spam and off-topic, which doesn't belong here. There was also that one post that I deleted by mistake when I wanted to quote it, but I explained that in the thread. You can always see the stats under the subject of any self-moderated thread, plus there are sources like Ninjastic.space. "3 posts by 2+ users deleted."   

there is enough ass-kissery already.. you have to note people already heard about bitcoin to even then come seeking this forum.. they didnt come here to hear the whimsical flattering snake oil positive spin PR campaigns. they came hear to learn the more critical factual detail.. to do due diligence and learn
.. so when idiots spin up another speculative nonsense piece which can lead to a new cult group orchestrating they are part of some other origin story of bitcoin for fame or whatever lame reason.. these things need to be quashed quick before they accumulate a fanbase, as it then takes years to unravel

i admit im not here to be the boyscout super hero wearing red underwear on the outside, playing the good guy.. but im not the villain.. i just speak my mind without the boyscout ass kiss persona.. and it is a refreshing insight compared to the silly nonsense also seen here

the funny part is. instead of just posting a nonsense topic of "do you think...." a bit of research would answer the question to not need to even ask, to not even speculate nor trigger people to start believing in the possibility of the topic

and if you did want to make this topic just to be speculative or not official details.. there are other categories your topic would fit into, such as off-topic / speculation / politics

---

side note..
when topics cover a detail correctly, and are informative there is no need for me to add anything to a topic.. so yes when you see me post something its usually to add content, context, more detail or correct the silly narratives posted..

and yes
"It's a public forum where anyone can discuss anything they want. It's my choice if I want to be part of that discussion or not."
and that does include when people set a topic as self-mod to try to control the narrative. which i find more revealing about the topic writer when they do such

so instead of avoiding the evidence that has debunked even the notion of your topic.. to then still start a topic thats been debunked and then want to moderate it to control the narrative.. try making better topics instead of getting upset about what people write in a topic you started

in short if you dont want me invading your topic correcting things, make a better topic
im not suggesting stop posting, or change you personality, im suggesting put a lil more effort into it

my view of open source-ness of bitcoin has changed over the years, and now more akin to an analogy of a newspaper
its free and open to read... but trying to get recruited to be an editor for the newspaper to change things at editorial(not spellcheck level) in future releases is not so open-door policy as it used to be

plus with the changes made by core to soften bitcoins previous hard consensus, i never said the current version of bitcoin core has no exploits/backdoors that allow core to throw in new features without network readiness, because truth is.. core can, have and do now
much has changed since bitcoins invention.
things are less 'open-door + open-source' compared to earlier years. core devs have admitted to closed door meetings and voting of direction bitcoin shall go in the future

As a brit and a older one i can say i am 99% sure satoshi is a brit or from the uk.
Just reading the emails you can get that british sense of talk.

The only thing I know about Satoshi, are we stuck with our own logic?

The data provided is not convincing enough, or is just a way to create doubt in speculation. Up to now I still do not believe that it is an individual (simply a representative of a collection), I do not like the doubt about who Satoshi is? What have you been doing? alive, dead?

But honestly, issues like this bring more thrill than the detective movie I just watched yesterday, everyone's debate is fun.

Suppose Satoshi is watching a movie of people discussing Satoshi, not sure what Satoshi's feelings will be because everyone still can't be sure of anything?

No one knows exactly what efforts were made but something would be leaked or someone would be frightened, those who had contact or some kind of communication with him
.
The number of people who were online and more specifically, were programmers and had deep knowledge of computer, were pretty limited back in 2008. Besides that, Satoshi was active on this forum for about a year. He had GMX email, he was also active on sourceforge. I mean, this man would be easy to find back then if they wanted.
Satoshi is a top level mystery, guy disappeared out of nowhere and doesn't ever return. I just can't believe the existence of this level of mystery and disappearance.

Just because something is open-source, it doesn't mean the code is clean and written with good intentions. Open-source code can be vulnerable and backdoored, with the developers hoping o one will ever notice it. One does not exclude the other.

You are so full of negativity, like all the time. It's a public forum where anyone can discuss anything they want. It's your choice if you want to be part of that discussion or not.

Who knows what efforts were made, if any. And why would you believe someone who told you, yes, I was contacted by (insert three letter agency) or no, they never contacted me?

But I am very surprised that governments didn't try to find him earlier because it's impossible to not see the threat of Bitcoin for governments...[/quote] Satoshi disappeared quite early. Bitcoin was still a geek invention that computer geeks and cypherpunk used. No one could predict how big of a popularity it would gain.

so you think bitcoin was less likely due to the banking crisis.. but more likely an NSA plot
..
might want to check the genesis block "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks."
suggests his motives were related to the crisis of 2008.. he didnt quote