Topic: Do you think Satoshi worked for the NSA? (Read 722 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

I am no conspiracy theorist by any means, and I try to think about things as critically as I can without being as pessimistic as I feel, BUT I've always had a suspicion about Satoshi and the creation of bitcoin--specifically, I've always thought he's not an individual but a group of people, and in either case he or they work for some government agency.  The NSA is possible, but there are so many branches of the government that might be interested in creating a form of money like bitcoin that it's hard to say.

Bitcoin was launched in 2009, which was right around the time that the entire economy was in jeopardy because of the housing/banking crisis.  That could be a coincidence, but combined with the fact that Satoshi just vanished and nobody anywhere has been able to figure out who he is....yeah, that leaves me suspicious.

Well said, he may not have a direct connection with the NSA but he has been around with them or having a direct or indirect links that connects them in the past from research and technology findings they all must have shared in the past, we can get more about this we we closely read through the history of bitcoin and who Satoshi Nakamoto is.

Development of TOR was heavily funded by the United States Navy. TOR is used by government assets all around the world to ensure secure communication in areas where it may be dangerous to do so. The initial goal of the project was to develop a technology that could protect government communications and intelligence information from being intercepted or traced back by adversaries.

While Tor had its roots in military-funded research, its evolution into a widely-used privacy tool is the result of collaboration and contributions from the global community, emphasizing the broader applications of the technology beyond its original military context.

If the utilization of TOR were exclusively restricted to government assets, it would be plausible for adversaries to infer that a connection made through TOR originates from a foreign government. Hence, the imperative arose to disseminate this technology publicly, thereby rendering the associated network traffic indiscernible from that of an ordinary citizen.

I just have a question, what did the US government do to find Satoshi Nakamoto? Did they contact people who were in touch with Satoshi? Did they contact to Theymos, Sirius or Cobra? Satoshi is a very mysterious for me. I have a feeling like government isn't interested in him, probably? 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 in financial system but I am also surprised that Tor project exist. Their existence doesn't make sense for me in a world where governments want control.

We can't say anything about Satoshi because he is very unknown person. We can say that he is a single individual and back it up with arguments but we can also say that there was a team behind Satoshi and we can back it up too. We can say that Bitcoin is a project with the aim to gain financial independence but on another hand, there are enough arguments to say that Bitcoin is the project of certain government because its blockchain gives you the possibility to track everyone if you are advanced enough (which the creator could be).

Name one guy you know that works for the NSA !
See how easy is for them to keep being anonymous?  


Or maybe some guys from the NSA are reading this now and they are high-fiving each other while congratulating, hey, we fooled another one!  


20-2, denial is strong in this crowd!  

But I think that the results are not really what people think and more what they wish it would be like, the halvening is near, the price has skyrocketed, everyone is pouring money into it, there is absolutely nothing negative around I've heard in months, not one tiny thing and now imagine Haugh comes in front of the congress with a signed message with Satoshi's key saying yeah, it was us all along!


I always love these "secret" meetings where there is a guy taking photos and everyone is smiling at the camera for a picture nobody was supposed to see...

classified.. open source.. .. sounds like a contradiction...
open source debunks the classified notion, by the very essence of open source.. and debunks the back-door notion of the early versions of bitcoin

anyways
when this topic was made by a user that has had years to look at all the communication records.. but then doesnt use that information.. to then pretend theres an opening for speculation... and then the annoying part is when cultish idiots then want to subtly hint/introduce a notion that other people invented bitcoin.. its almost like the stupidity of CSW drama

when people have had years to look at things but still then ask stuff hoping to cause speculation.. it shows they have not done their research and so are trying to open up a conversation that needs not open.. especially when there are idiots on this forum that use any opening to promote their preferred cult leader as the real satoshi...

its annoying because all the communications information is available in a quick google search, something that takes a person less time to research(should they dare), than it takes to write a post pretending there is speculation to be had, to then wait for responses to then cause more speculation
which has in the past attempts at doing this, spiralled into stupid games and claims of other people being satoshi
which then require months of un-spiralling the drama by having to then spoonfeed idiots the information the idiots chose to ignore in the first place

Your examples didn't match the criteria for working independently, Elon Musk has help from a lot of people and most of them are working on a company and they've got a resource to back them up so technically, they're not even working independently if they've got a funding, Satoshi's the only one that's building something from scratch and got no backing or something, maybe help from the codes and forging connections but that's all there is to his help. Regarding him working for the NSA, I think that it's plausible that he could be because we've seen a glimpse of what the NSA does with the Snowden leaks on the NSA spying on every American citizen with their phones and computers but I don't think that he's created bitcoin without the clearance to create bitcoin from the NSA, most likely a side project that got too big and somewhere along the way, Satoshi probably quit the office and focused on bitcoin.

I don't thing we will ever hear that from whoever was behind the pseudonym satoshi. Maybe another party reveals something we never knew or saw before, but I don't think satoshi will. I don't even see a reason why they would reveal their identity now after so many years. Doing so can only cause problems, confusion, and maybe even fear if it was an invention by someone the community dislikes. Bitcoin has come a long way without the community and general public knowing who satoshi is, and I see no reason to change that. 

This is the story we all know.  This thread was meant to provoke speculation on the subject.

It is like you are explaining to me what the Government said about a classified project.  Most likely they are only sharing a very small portion of the truth, if any of it.  The story we all know is that Satoshi was one person, but do you have proof of it.  I could say any thing, you could as well.  Does not mean it is automatically the truth.

What if Bitcoin was a classified experiment about which we will only hear after decades?

Anyway.  I am not sure why you seem annoyed at this Thread, it is just a speculative matter for which no body has any proof other than what Satoshi ever said on the Forum or through the Emails.

-----

I hope not.  I really hope the truth never comes out.  No matter if Satoshi was a person or a group, an institution or what ever, the best thing they could do is present themselves as a NEUTRAL identity.  If some body comes public about it then things can change drastically for Bitcoin.  Not to even mention the safety of that person which would be under serious danger.

But if Satoshi comes out and reveals their identity.  If they have a history of being particularly Democrat sided then things would change.  If they were Republican things would change.  If they were from Iran things would change.  Why do this, the best thing that happened was that he never had a side.  The only side Satoshi ever showed was that their purpose was to free the people.

I am pretty sure he works independently. I think he is just like Elon, Jack, Jeff, Gates, and every single person who invented something that went success. I hope that one day Satoshi will reveal his identity so we know who's behind the Bitcoin. Only time will tell, we will just wait and wait for his revelation. We all have our opinion and theory about who's behind the Bitcoin and we we're just lucky that we know how this work.

the pseudonym was used by 1 person

satoshi got inspired to make digital money from the cypherpunks but never teamed up with them and never interacted with them as a team before releasing bitcoin..
IE when people like nick szabo, wei dai, adam back and such first heard about bitcoin(first contact) via white paper. their conversations were NEVER "oh yea we talked before, i remember, that thing we teamed up on" it was ALWAYS, from all those cited (not verbatim) basically "this guy popped up and cited us in our paper and asked permission if we were ok to be cited, and we said fine, no problem" like it was a surprise first contact

because they admitted they never heard of it before..
.. some were sceptical, some brushed it off as probably not going to work, some forgot about the whitepaper/first contact till years later, and some got intrigued and wanted to learn more about it for the first time.. all of which were after the first contact of the white paper release, where by only afterwards they started asking questions about it, some days later, some months some years later.. none before and no released communications even hint, suggest, insinuate or subtly suggest pre involvement

and yes you if you care to look at all publicly released stuff easily available to find via google of the many sites that collated all early interactions, you too can read it all and come to the same conclusions

yes satoshi got inspired by many things but those things do not mean those cited actually wrote code for bitcoin pre january 2009
even hashcash didnt end up in core code, even hals rpow didnt.. yes inspired, but satoshi changed things and patched things together and used inspirations in a different way than the intended use of the inspired usecase.. and thats what made bitcoin so unique and un-thought of before.. hense why its an invention and not a copy of someones previous work

No need to worry, Pmalek.  I will repost the message below.

I agree, if it was a Secret Agency member then they were probably some body with intentions similar to Snowden.  If it was a GROUP who was part of a Secret Agency then I would be more skeptical about the intentions.

However I really doubt there was any malicious intention behind this experiment, because after all Bitcoin was initially just an experiment.  If they intended to do any thing malicious then they very likely failed their scopes by downplaying how big Bitcoin could grow with the right community.  Like I said though.  Very unlikely.  Look at pretty much any well known and deep rooted person like politicians or institutions and how they talk about Bitcoin.  They all have no clue what this is all about, even one decade and a half later.  If they are pretending, they need an Oscar award for how well they handled it so far.

-----

Well.  Since there is no evidence for any thing about Satoshi other than that he was very likely an English man.  There are many things to speculate on and about.

I sometimes wonder whether Satoshi was the pseudonym for one single person or for a group of people.  Or maybe he was one person who initiated what we know today as Bitcoin but was helped for the most part by many programmers who wanted to build this kind of payment system.

Then you can also speculate on the subject more conspiracy ish.  What if Satoshi and Bitcoin were experiment project code names and we were the test subjects.  What if we still are.  If there is one thing I am almost entirely sure about, it is that if Satoshi is just one person then they are a VERY intelligent person.  It is pretty hard to invent all of this all on your own with no external help.  If they are a group then I rather not know who they are and live my life believing they wanted our best, not our worst.

I do not know what to believe.  Due to how complex Bitcoin is and how well made it was from the start I tend to think it is NOT a single person.  If it is, then it is likely they were part of a Three Letter Agency and decided to part ways and give us an option to Freedom knowing what was coming for all of us and for our Privacy.

Best answer is that I am sincerely confused.  He may be an agent of NSA.  It may be NSA themselves.  Or maybe not.

After all.  We are all Satoshi, right!

If he worked for a secret agency, it might have been on something completely unrelated, but he had the needed clearances to discover and learn the information he needed to know about weak encryption algorithms. Something like Snowden who had access to plenty of information because it was required for the systems he worked on.   


I deleted PrivacyG post by mistake and informed the user via PM. I didn't pay attention and clicked on the wrong button. Feel free to post it again mate.
Here is the whole post in quotes:

Please don't quote an entire OP when replying in someone's thread. It looks bad and is completely unnecessary. You can quote a part of it it if your reply is directed to a specific part of the text. Otherwise, just write a standard new post like anyone else. I would appreciate if you go back and edit the post and remove the quoted OP. Thanks!

These voices mean nothing, because these are the opinions of people (based on guesses) who don't have reliable (complete) insider information about what organization (if he worked) Satoshi worked for.

Personally, I don’t know whether  Satoshi worked for the NSA. My vote was NO, which also doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

The question of this topic remains (perhaps forever) classified as “unknown”.

Let's say bitcoin is a project created by the NSA or some government services. Are you interested in the historical aspect (getting to the bottom of the truth) or are you worried about the future of the BTC-project?

These are all wild unfounded speculations. Even if he worked for NSA, he was obviously a rebel. He did not create Bitcoin because his NSA overlords financed its creation or issued commands to him. And he could be reading your post here and laughing out loud LOL!

yes adam back done hashcash, but even that is not the first utilisation of proof of work
and adams hashcash proof of work is not in bitcoin

satoshi used it as a inspiration but not a direct implementation
you have been via years of your post history been cult scripting core which is a brand name founded by blockstream team CEO adam back

seems i can join the dots of history more then you can

i see you edited post to lean to sound less adam back wishfull candidate
you still foolishly think satoshi didnt invent bitcoin...(facepalm)

for clarity:
Wei Dai's did not write code for first version of bitcoin nor wrote the whitepaper
Adam Back did not write code for first version of bitcoin nor wrote the whitepaper
Nick Szabo's did not write code for first version of bitcoin nor wrote the whitepaper
hal finney did not write code for first version of bitcoin nor wrote the whitepaper
they were partial inspirations, but satoshi took parts, changed things and patched things together into a novel(new) invention none of the other people came up with independently nor collectively before satoshi.. satoshi invented bitcoin. end of story

a caveman did not create the first Ford car.. henry Ford did,, yes a car has wheels, but not the same type as caveman wheels
cavemen did not invent or collaborate to create the Ford car

Did I say Adam Back invented anything apart from Hashcash Proof-of-Work? I know you're brain dead, but at least try to interpret before insulting.

backhatcoiner wants to make his core god(core brand name (blockstream administrerd: adam back)) be the inventor not satoshi (facepalm)

satoshi was one person who used the satoshi name = satoshi is 1 person
satoshi wrote the first version, adam back did not
adam back did not write any code for bitcoin 0_AD-200X_AD

and here is an analogy
if a caveman invented the wheel does not mean a caveman invented the first car
if a Egyptian's invented glass does not mean Egyptian's invented the first car

also adam backs hashcash is not the exact same as bitcoins PoW

satoshi took inspiration and idea's from many things and tweaked them, emphasis: changed them
..and brought them together in his(satoshis) unique way to fit together as something new..
thus a new invention(much like a wheel is not a car)(much like a rubber and metal wheel is not a stone wheel)
 
thus satoshi invented bitcoin and
adam backs idea is inspired, but not actually in it. not one line of code wrote by adam back of hashcash was in bitcoin.
hashcash used a different SHA, different way to churn nonce.
the data content being hashed is not about email
the end result requirement is different format and requirement and length

directly to blackhatcoiner and acolytes that sound like him:
stop imagining core founder adam back as your god.. he did not invent bitcoin. he was not even coding bitcoin when the first versions of bitcoin were released.
you will not get rich by showing core devotion.. you infact decided to leave this forum when your mixer junk spam adverts stopped financing you, but came back trying to get a pay day by now spam adverts of gambling

if you need to earn via sigspam, wise up that years of cultish ass kissing didnt pay, they didnt even message you in this forum asking/demanding you stay. they let you leave or didnt realise you left.. wake up to those facts.. years of blind cultish loyalty did not reap you any rewards

you really have been brainwashed into a cult.. try to escape it or you will become as bad as the CSW believers

It is pretty infeasible, actually. Satoshi did not invent Bitcoin, he implemented it (he sort of invented some internal parts of it though, don't get me wrong). The core ideas behind Bitcoin were already presented before 2009. Wei Dai's b-money demonstrated the public ledger, the use of digital signatures between pseudonymous entities, even smart contracts. Adam Back came up with Proof-of-Work. Finally, Nick Szabo's bit gold was presented as a model that would eliminate trusted third parties, and talked about precious metals and their disadvantage on transferals (which was even implemented with the help of Hal Finney's RPOW).

Bitcoin is the killing combination of these polymaths. I refuse to believe that one person came up with all of these; especially when they were publicly available for any hobbyist interested to read.

15 votes, all no. That makes it clear and by the documents that have been leaked recently, it's clear that he was a single developer on the project. And no, I don't think so he worked for NSA or any organization however his whole project was just motivation by the b-money proposal by Wei Dai. That seems to be something that increased his interest. And thanks to the wonderful open source devs like Hal who spent their time making it a greatest invention.

I recently posted about this based off this article I came across.  I have seen this photo long ago, but never this article. 

If you read the article you can easily tell it's very opinionated.  There's no proof that Nick Szabo was satoshi (despite thinking he and Hal are).

Anyways it goes on to say this is the btc core team and that it's all under NSA.  Most of these cypherpunks despite government/NSA etc.  No way these freedom fighters would be willing to work with the goverment, the exact reason bitcoin was created..go= not to be trusted

https://www.experiencelab.info/2018/06/unveiling-bitcoin-team-led-by-nick.html?m=1

 

The creation of secp256k1 took place in 2000, whereas Dual_EC_DRBG in 2006 and it was withdrawn right after in 2014. Yet, secp256k1 is in more public scrutiny than ever, and still no weaknesses have been found. I don't feel as if it is backdoored.

That being said, I don't see how that would convince someone Satoshi knew it beforehand. Sounds like a wild conspiracy to believe he worked for the NSA apart from simply... selecting cryptographic algorithms that weren't proved to be backdoored. There are other people who've selected such algorithms (beyond secp256k1) that are still not evidently backdoored, but we don't blame them for working with the NSA. 

Sure, you can't prove a negative, but the default position for an anonymous user is to be one. If I don't know anything beyond the pseudonym "Pmalek", my default stance is that you're one person. That's what you've shown, and what I naturally interpret. There is no strong enough evidence he was more than one person (only one supports they were both Nick Szabo and Len Sassaman?).

I'm with you on this idea, Satoshi didn't created Bitcoin alone, the code was so good at the start to be made just by one person. But it's just my point of view.

And if Satoshi worked for the NSA i think it would be harder for him to hide his identity, because NSA should have a record to his previous work, and it could be easily linked to his real identity.

But OP has some good points there, maybe it was true and Satoshi was a gob agent before disappeared, no one knows.

You can't know that for a fact unless you know Satoshi which I don't think you do. It might have been one person sending those early emails and being active in the mailing list, but multiple people working together from one location with Satoshi being their 'leader' and the only one communicating with the public. Who knows.

My mention of backdoors was never in connection to Bitcoin. It was to other randomizers that were intentionally weakened as Snowden revealed.

---

Poll results so far showing 10 users voting NO and nobody voting YES!

moses(leez) and do some research, CSW is not the inventor..
CSW is a scammer, conman, fraudster and no one should like CSW, even you should dislike him

the actual satoshi disappeared in 2010(here)-2011(completely) and never returned. so there is no emotion about someone that has no bearing on bitcoin today
i respect what the actual bitcoin inventor done for bitcoin. but you keep thinking a active scammer today is satoshi.. you have no clue and should research or move on

I don’t think Satoshi was in NSA plainly because i think it would be hard to be famous but at the same time anonymous when you are working for a government agency. maybe satoshi had worked before and knew some things from the inside however it is quite unlikely since for sure the agency keeps their secrets close.


Is satoshi even his real name? There is a huge possibility that satoshi nakamoto is nothing but a pseudonym and if asked around, no one will be able to actually tell you who he is or what he looks like. I think he’s just someone rlly smart and had access to a lot of equally smart people hence the birth of bitcoin.

I can see where that comes from…

’HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH
Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas
National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology
Cryptology Division
18 June 1996’

The beginning of internet e-commerce? I guess it’s okay to have a healthy paranoia, especially as the stakes in the field are too high. I suppose that behavior is default among cryptographers. I even remember Bruce Schneier saying something like, ‘Some research done by institutions like the NSA will become somebody else’s Ph.D. thesis in ten years’ time.’”

satoshi was one person
however satoshi as evidenced if you research. did belong to the libertarian cypherpunks and used their mailing list and gathered idea's from others and patch worked those idea's of old together in a unique way and he cemented them together using his own methods to create bitcoin...
he even cites references to inspirations he had in his white paper
as soon as he released his first version code he was working remotely with the help of other devs like hal finney, sirius, gavin and others until he disappeared

its no secret

..
as for the nonsense of NSA backdoors
bitcoin is open source.. go look for a NSA back door that existed from the satoshi days


well now bitcoin is in core control the front door now is moderated and core opened a 'wide backward compatible' door for their own soft updates.. but thats for another discussion

I don't think that Satoshi Nakamoto work for the NSA even if someone argue that Satoshi really did work for nsa then proving the claim won't be an easy task when someone ask to provide the proof to support the claim. I also agree with icalical about the Bitcoin's source code being open for public but there's also a possibility that bitcoin source code may have not been the complete work where some important parts are hidden or not being open for public and i5t's like in the movie where a master is teaching his students about the skills he have mastered but didn't teach his student everything the master knows (it's like the master is only giving his students a piece of a pie and in this case is Bitcoin's source code.

Did Satoshi work for the NSA?

That's very possible. Even if not this one, they probably at some point worked for a high profile security organization and picked up some skills and knowledge from them.

Did the NSA or any other centralized organization create Bitcoin through Satoshi?

I'll say No. And anybody's guess would be as good as mine cause there is no solid proof to point at who Satoshi was or who they worked for. The majority of bitcoiners who believe Bitcoin to be freedom also think not, otherwise they would not use it.

You do know the difference between the NSA and NASA, right?

I don't think that many people believe that Bitcoin was created by the NSA. But, a slightly larger number think that Satoshi was perhaps an ex-NSA operative because of their choice of non-backdoored RNG algorithm. If the NSA was behind Bitcoin, they would have coupled it with a weaker encryption technology that they could break.

I don't think there is enough connection to even assume that Satoshi has anything to do with government or even part of NSA. If Satoshi and Bitcoin is a product of NSA the Bitcoin's source code, wouldn't be completely open source. All that being said, I don't have a concrete evidence if US (or other) government doesn't have anything to do with the making and emerging of Bitcoin, but in the development of it, Bitcoin development path has been decided by people so far.

Seems to me Satoshi may very well be the US government itself. The code for bitcoin was perhaps never meant to be public knowledge, but was leaked anonymously by someone in the NSA working on the project with the title you mentioned. That could very well explain why Satoshi wishes to remain forever anonymous for obvious reasons. I don't think the US government takes kindly to its workers releasing top secret information and he would be brought up on serious charges if discovered.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that there's no point in talking about this, sure this is entirely random and speculation at best but we have to keep pumping out theories that hopefully sheds some light into what bitcoin is, I think that people that want to know who Satoshi is should and always have some pastime so they don't end up going insane about who's behind the enigma.

That's just a random idea. There is as much evidence to back that random idea as their is other random ideas people have put out like Elon Musk is Satoshi lol. Not really any point in having a discussion on a completely random idea that has no evidence. You could come up with a thousand different ideas of who Satoshi was. Nothing special about this one.

Right now I do not know what to think. In 1996 the NSA were already experimenting with cryptocurrencies. They published a report as at that time with the title, “How to Make a Mint: The Cryptography of Electronic Cash. In the paper as they report about cryptography, Public-Key Cryptographic Tools, A Simplified Electronic Cash Protocol, Untraceable Electronic Payments, A Basic Electronic Cash Protocol. Interestingly, 12 years later Satoshi founded bitcoin which solved some of the issues they raised in the paper. There is a possible that Satoshi worked for the NSA but we can't tell. They may be mere speculations but we know that both ideas were similar.

I am tuned into the idea Satoshi possibly did not work alone, but was part of a team. Could it have been a friendly team of "radical libertarians?" The truth is we do not currently know, and might never find out.

Satoshi might not have been in NSA, but I'm sure satoshi was one that had many connections and must have known this, satoshi had meetings with many persons before the creation of bitcoin like Adam strange, so he must have also had some idea about those backdoor and weak algorithms, what I think is that the person of satoshi might not have been that of just a technical person but also someone influential in a way and if satoshi really had some insider knowledge about nasa's algorithm then he must have been a person of some kind of status.

Why I really think this might be true, satoshi really knew how to keep himself anonymous and could arrange some meetings and this persons did not ever reveal his person at anytime, there should be a certain level of control or power in his hands, so satoshi must have not been the average person but a person of status in a way, if I'm right then he surely must have had some insider knowledge, or he was way ahead of NSA in knowledge as to beat them without even having any information but why I'll doubt is that, for the amount of accuracy put in building the blockchain either a lot of thinkers and specialist involved or this guy must have been a person of some status, high status I mean.

The question of whether Bitcoin was created by the NSA has popped up several times. Some believe that Satoshi was an NSA agent.

We know that the secret documents Edward Snowden made public made interesting revelations. Among them are the backdoors the NSA inserted in Pseudorandom Number Generators. PRNGs can be intentionally weakened to allow backdoor access, enabling an entity with knowledge of the backdoors to predict the outputs of weak generators. Any system relying on such PRNGs would thus be insecure.

The NSA has looked for ways to decrypt encrypted data to gain access to it. They managed to do that by compromising the Dual EC DRBG algorithm, which was thought to be secure. In a different example, the NSA reportedly paid $10 million to the encryption company RSA to use a weak encryption algorithm, which the NSA had a backdoor to. It was for a protocol that was certified in the US by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

We know from other sources that the NSA and the UK's GCHQ have the tools to decrypt emails, online banking accounts, etc. A US program paid tech companies millions to favor their weak RNGs and insert intentional weaknesses that the government can exploit. The agencies also cooperate with ISPs and telecommunication companies.

The NSA has also exploited internet cable taps and tried to find ways to decrypt data from Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. Security agencies have ways to break the encryption of fiber-optic internet cables.

---

When Satoshi created Bitcoin, they could have used a certified method to achieve randomness. One of those that turned out later to be backdoored and weak. Instead, they used an uncertified method in ECDSA and secp256k1 for key generation.

One might wonder if this was just a coincidence or a choice made by someone who knew about the backdoors in certified RNGs. Did Satoshi have insider knowledge about potentially vulnerable algorithms, or did they make their own conclusions that certified encryption wasn't safe based on their programming and cryptographic knowledge?

Insecurities in certain certified systems were already found as early as 2007/2008. It could well be that Satoshi knew about this and had nothing to do with the NSA.

---

I don't think Bitcoin was created by the NSA or a similar agency. I also don't think Satoshi was an NSA operative in any form. I believe he thoroughly studied encryption algorithms and cryptography before choosing what key generation method to adopt for Bitcoin.

But it’s an interesting idea. What do you think? Was Satoshi in the NSA or just a knowledgeable programmer who appeared at the right time?


Sources and further reading:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1alb982/saw_this_video_was_wondering_what_you_guys_think/
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/documents-reveal-nsa-campaign-against-encryption.html
https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-million-for-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security