Topic: I "Think" that I found Satoshi Nakamoto - page 7. (Read 10827 times)

it would be awesome if nakamoto put a bounty on himself that anyone on this forum figured out who he is
he`ll give a decent amount of btc who ever find him.  the research is interesting, but im not done reading it yet im still at chapter 4.

http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2014/april/researchers-uncover-likely-author-of-original-bitcoin-paper/

first, they did the research on the wrong "original" paper! satoshi may have asked Nick Szabo to rewrite the paper.




second, satoshi_main (code) may not be on the list of candidates in the article above. (my personal view he is not on the list)



third, if you ask somebody if he/she is satoshi he/she can easily deny it in case in the satoshi creation process were at least two persons involved. (following the distributed approach WE instead of ME)

e.g. satoshi_main (code), satoshi_2 (paper improvement peer), satoshi_3 (code improvement peer), satoshi_4 (public awareness establishing peer)


example where this happened to satoshi_2 (paper improvement peer):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-enigma-of-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-birth-of-bitcoin.html

What is that ? Is it a kind of short whitepaper produced by Satoshi to explain quickly what Bitcoin is ?

Por que no los dos?

Detailed research but doesn't really prove anything..it's a directionless and never-ending debate..

I don't understand why people are after his identity instead of enjoying the power of bitcoin. It's pointless.

So the idea was invented by Japanese scholars and integrated by a polish student?  And to show the respect to the original creator, he used a combination of their names   That's really decentralization

I am going with Pawel the student based on comments by Gavin.

 “Satoshi was a brilliant programmer,” Andresen said. “But he didn’t have a deep understanding of all the cutting edge crypto research that’s going on.”


Sebastian is an established cryptographer and knows in and out.

http://crypto.rd.francetelecom.com/people/Canard


https://youtu.be/rtI52BcFUoo?t=1929

Oh, okay!  I get it now.  The left version was Satoshi's original abstract (not published) and the right version is the edited published version.  I was trying to figure out how the left version could be associated with the Polish cryptographer.  I get it now.  Thanks...

It just seemed to me that the thought processes in Satoshi's paper were more similar to the processes published in this paper rather than the ideas published in this paper.

The left abstract comes from Wei's email. Satoshi send email to Wei asking about citation and with a draft of the Satoshi's abstract in the email:

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto#emails

The full draft version of the bitcoin paper was here (link dead now): http://www.upload.ae/file/6157/ecash-pdf.html

The draft of the abstract from the email is the only thing left now, or at least made public.

I don't get it???  Where was the paper on the left found?  

I found this paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2007/216.pdf

But, it doesn't match this paper:  https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Am I missing something, or is this another poke at humor?


EDIT:  Nevermind, I get it now.

based on my reading about him, it looks like he's not alone maybe its a group of Pokemon Fan Hahaha.

Hey, G, just wanted to let you know earlier today I viewed two YouTube videos of you (presenter; panelist) and enjoyed both your presentations.

This paper is completely unrelated to bitcoin other than using the word's digital cash. It it is typical for contemporary digital cash papers.

Both documents are the same with the second one (on right) being more grammatically correct, coupled with subtle changes for clarity. I was alluding to the left doc composed by a Pole well-versed in the English language but still missing the mark due to English not being his native tongue in spite of being highly schooled. Pawel either corrected the doc upon subsequent reads or another party making up Team Satoshi Nakamoto helped in cleaning up the prose while still maintaining the spirit of the original white paper. Some time between the two revisions, the term Bitcoin was coin with its domain name registered prior to the official release of the newly titled white paper.

Sadly, we don't have access to the complete original to see what else was 'doctored' (not nefariously), thus, perhaps, cementing or dismissing the notice.

There's no reason satoshi has to be a group of people. 

We know about Wei Dai, Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Hal Finney, and all the people who contributed to cryptography, public key cryptography, hashing algorithms - all of these people contributed to the ideas behind Bitcoin.  Even the guy who created Bittorrent helped pave the way for P2P networking.  There are countless people whose work made Bitcoin possible.

But none of those people kept their identities secret.  Why would they suddenly all agree to start making their work anonymous?

It's possible that satoshi put together their work into something new, without their direct involvement.  And based on the small number of people mining after launch, it couldn't have been a very large group of people.  There definitely weren't a large number of computers involved, which means it was probably just a few normal people with regular cheap computers and not a lot of money, resources, or connections to help get this project going. 

Hal Finney was probably the closest thing satoshi had to a partner, and his role was mostly limited to testing the first transaction.  He only mined a few blocks.  So if satoshi's choice for the first transaction recipient wouldn't even run a computer to help maintain the network, then where was this supposed group of people working together?

If you think it would take lots of people to help refine the code, then you are correct.  Lots of people from Bitcointalk have been contributing code for years.  Bitcoin was far from a finished product when satoshi released it, and it's still not finished.  So if it was designed by an elite group of geniuses, why have they needed so much constant outside help? 

There's no proof either way;  some people think the evidence suggests a group of people, but the evidence can also point to a single person.
[/quote]

Very valid points.

1. It doesn't need a group to come up with an algorithm that is unique and never done before

2. Every concept was already available. All Satoshi has to do is join them together. (hashcash, p2p, merkle, timestamp)

3. It doesn't need a group to mine genesis block, few PC's and resources would do.

4. If it was a group, for the kind of fame "Satoshi" have got today and with the kind of money involved, Someone in the group would come up by now to claim it for sure.

It was always a SINGLE person IMHO.

Adam Back was one of the first persons satoshi had contact. he went slience after first contact and appeared back in 2013. currently he is one of the most involved people into Bitcoin. story to be continued.

Satoshi sends email directly to Adam and then Adam refers Wei. Both Adam and Wei gets citations on the paper. Story ends there.

Very compelling with the comparison between the two documents.
Clearly either the same individual or someone plagiarized his work.

I suppose the question is now, if Pawel indeed wrote both documents, why would he use a fake name on the "Bitcoin" version?
What would be the purpose of that? Especially if the first version was published in 2007.

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

There's no reason satoshi has to be a group of people. 

We know about Wei Dai, Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Hal Finney, and all the people who contributed to cryptography, public key cryptography, hashing algorithms - all of these people contributed to the ideas behind Bitcoin.  Even the guy who created Bittorrent helped pave the way for P2P networking.  There are countless people whose work made Bitcoin possible.

But none of those people kept their identities secret.  Why would they suddenly all agree to start making their work anonymous?

It's possible that satoshi put together their work into something new, without their direct involvement.  And based on the small number of people mining after launch, it couldn't have been a very large group of people.  There definitely weren't a large number of computers involved, which means it was probably just a few normal people with regular cheap computers and not a lot of money, resources, or connections to help get this project going. 

Hal Finney was probably the closest thing satoshi had to a partner, and his role was mostly limited to testing the first transaction.  He only mined a few blocks.  So if satoshi's choice for the first transaction recipient wouldn't even run a computer to help maintain the network, then where was this supposed group of people working together?

If you think it would take lots of people to help refine the code, then you are correct.  Lots of people from Bitcointalk have been contributing code for years.  Bitcoin was far from a finished product when satoshi released it, and it's still not finished.  So if it was designed by an elite group of geniuses, why have they needed so much constant outside help? 

There's no proof either way;  some people think the evidence suggests a group of people, but the evidence can also point to a single person.