Topic: Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL - page 2. (Read 3950 times)

Just watched the HBO documentary. Kinda cool to reminisce some important event on Bitcoin creation, and some of the people involved with that. Quite astonishing that Adam Black, Peter Todd and some, cooperated with the HBO to make this possible though seen also Gmaxwell being flagged on some scene and explanation. If those evidences find are just a trap from Satoshi to lead them to people whom the HBO personnel think Satoshi was then he/them is truly a genius to hide or planned that this could turn out to this.

Sometime I believe you worked on FTPcoin between 2005-2008 before wallet become in BitTorrent helping Hal Finley to mine secret keys in collors pallettes of CWAD or WAD textures files format and you also helped for the creation of FileZila

I kown BITLEN death is a drama and the Hal Finney death is a drama to ...

If im true, sorry 4 the lost of your friends.

Your teams was very kool!

You are my idols I love you cause you helped me thx.

Everyone here(the knowledgable members of the forum at least) knows about Bitcoin and the blockchain as much as the next guy. We only know what we've seen and what we have witnessed. Though, of course, there may have been certain things that have been kept from the light but I got to admit, you make statements as if you know something we don't... Of course, you could be just trolling, how would I know what you truly mean by what you post?

You mention how we have no knowledge of who "Satoshi" is. You're right. You're 100%, no a 1000% right with that claim. But the thing is, what makes you different? Your claim that "government agents and 'Bitcoin community leaders' persecute 'him'" contradicts your other statement that we don't know who Satoshi is.
And as everyone else who've posted on this thread have mentioned, there is no 'Bitcoin community leaders'... If there were, wouldn't it be known to us, as a forum? This is a decentralized system, there is no "leader" here.

True story? Or just another story that makes absurd claims like the recent HBO documentary? As you (should) know, there have been countless, and I mean countless, claims to "reveal the true story" on "blah blah, 20XX". To which no surprise, doesn't even tell anything of relevance.

As much as this is a "crazy" step forward for the eccentric theorists of this forum, it's nothing different than another rubbish post to the average member of this forum.

There are more reasons than that. For example: Satoshi really thought about a model, where all old inputs and outputs are kept, as they were, and where new inputs and outputs can be added, to increase the fee.

For example: you can have this transaction:
And then, Peter Todd thought about this case:
But note, that in this case, you can lose some anonymity, by revealing, which output has less coins than before, and which coin is a potential change (or: you would then force a recipient to pay for increased fees, which is a bad idea).

Instead, what Satoshi thought about, was something like this:
Note that in the latest version, you can actually do that, if you use anchors, for example: https://mempool.space/testnet4/address/tb1pfees9rn5nz

I guess Satoshi is still alive and does not want to show himself to create a huge scene on because imagine you are still anonymous and one day you show up for sure it will take a week and months to issue about the question to him so I guess he okay what he has right now. HBO seems to accumulate a large amount of money on that movie and also create a hype for people which is really on time after the halving they release the movie and now people getting more curious about the bitcoin and recently the bitcoin came with the golden movement of the moving average which is now the price sitting with the 68k. I just wonder until when the price will goes up.

If his still alive. Maybe his watching from Heaven already we dont know.

I think the idea of Satoshi would always have their curiosity out of him. Even me, but what can we do? We all wanted to know his true identity for variety of reason. I didnt watch yet the documentary since Im busy but will likely check it out for my entertainment and maybe scan their proofs.

The more we try to know who Satoshi is, the more we mistake him for someone else. I think it will be better if people give up trying to know Satoshi is because they can never know him so far as he didn't open up on his privacy.

 Satoshi has done very well for giving us bitcoin which is good for us to focus more on it and benefit from it. Since bitcoin have been existing different people do come up with different identity claiming to be Satoshi. Trying to get the identity of Satoshi is just as the more you look the less you see, let's just put that energy in investing bitcoin, with this one can earn value.

I think the ONLY way for anything about Satoshi to make any semblance of sense is to go ahead and assume that cat has (at the very least) the capability of stretching their consciousness across time, if not their physicality too but that is much more difficult, and I would expect a person as brilliant as them to exercise the utmost laziocity (the degree of laziness used while planning to ensure maximal efficiency and righteousness) when putting together a project such as replacing the entire world's financial system and getting every banker fired simultaneously (sort of, nevermind, less simultaneously and more two birds one stonesy)

The person that this description best fits would be that of The Sovereign Lord and Creator, God.   Best bet to make if you're trying to put a wager on who's Satosh

I am not their subscriber, and I watched the documentary like most people who will always find an alternative way. So I don't think they profited from that documentary nearly as much as some people think.

Yeah. Even - if - (and that's a big if) he would be revealed to the public, that wouldn't change much.
But the buzz around the event was there, and HBO may try to do it again in the far future.

He will forever remain anonymous. If he were alive and maybe had the chance to watch the HBO documentary that was released, he would smile and even laugh at all of this.

This is one of the possibilities, because with everything we know, Bitcoin was not created in one year or a shorter period, but apparently it was created over several years, using as a base all those earlier projects that tried something similar. Those projects failed because they had their flaws, but they or whoever designed BTC obviously got the best out of each of those projects and that's where the idea for BTC was born.

These people are without any doubt above average intelligence and they knew that they had to come up with a plan to get such a project online and at the same time remain anonymous. Therefore, I think that if one of them does not one day admit and prove without a doubt who the people behind that project are, the real truth will never be known - which is probably the best.

I don't think there's much evidence to prove it was a group of people. If anything, I think it was just a single person.

Satoshi himself posted about how he was working on it for about a year or so, without mentioning others. Also here's another quote that points towards him just being one person:


Basically he wanted to include the rest of the people, but it seems pretty clear that the project started with only Satoshi as one person.

Satoshi is obviously a made up figure, made up by the first Bitcoin developers. Knowing this the big blockers made up their own Satoshi (Craig Wright) in order to win the Block Size War

The early Satoshi coins are very likely less of a threat than many think.

About 250,000 to one million Bitcoins are traded on exchanges (those tracked at Coingecko and friends) each day. Of course that includes a lot of wash trade and short term speculation, and it includes Bitcoin <-> altcoin exchanges.

But the experience with the BKA coins (called "German Government coins" by some) and the MtGox coins in July/August this year lets me conclude that even if Satoshi sold everything at once (in a few weeks, for example), which is extremely unlikely, the dip could be short and deep but recovery probably would be fast. Neither BKA nor MtGox coins had probably really a lasting influence on Bitcoin's price, the deep 15% dip in August was instead caused by panic after the Nikkei crash. "Many Bitcoiners panicking" is thus much more dangerous (for bulls) than one entity selling.

So I would absolutely be not worried by the Patoshi coins (those suspected to be from Satoshi) moving. It would be even better in the mid to long term if at least some of them move eventually. Bitcoin should circulate and be distributed. And as we know that some people will panic if Satoshi moves their coins, the earlier this happens, the better - so a potential "Damocles sword" is removed from Bitcoin.

Of course we don't know if the coins will be moved or if they are lost. So the best thing for Bitcoiners is just to relax if some of these coins move eventually. And cease to be obsessed with them (and thus with Satoshi's identity). They are not different from other early miners' coins.

Yes, if it was a crew or a group project as you say, it would explain why Craig Wright is so confident and arrogant when he claims to be Satoshi Nakomoto, he knows it was a team, and he belonged to it one day, or he considers having fully been part of it at least, and thus being one of the several Satoshi Nakamoto existing. IMO Hal Finney was the main author of the white paper but he wasn't able to code, to test and to market it alone, so he asked some people to help him for free, against IOU or just cash money.

even suggesting that doing forks due to one entity is silly. as it opens a never ending precedence that not all UTXO's can be trusted to be viable, EG coinbase deposits being destroyed because some dev group decides coinbase/blackrocks custodian has too many..

also with many years of being in the bitcoin community and your opinion is that finding satoshi is about coin stealing.. yet this forum alone has hundreds of posts wanting to know who satoshi is.. to interview him about his opinions, reasons and attitudes towards bitcoins development, not to coerce him into moving the coin

yes there is a viable threat to anyone with a hoard, that someone will try to blackmail them. but to think that its the main reason is just silly.
most people with criminal motives dont want/need names/home addresses, they would want IP addresses of the node

you yourself are a publicly known figure and have received more bitcoin than radio-ham QSL cards, yet we dont see you being blackmailed by the community at your front door with a $5 hammer. most just want to ask you technical questions, even scammer CSW is not trying a $5 hammer attack on your personal residence, so your own experience shows you dont have terrorists at your door hounding you night and day trying to steal your PC or threaten your family

also you should know by now about bitcoin economics. if the coins did move and cause market price impact, that impact is short lived once the coins have moved as the underlying economics then return, in short, it becomes a short discount period.. to suggest a fork that opens up a never ending impact vs a short lived discount period.. id go with the suggestion to just let satoshi move his coins, other people get discount and then the price recovers.. no need for a fork to destroy coin, and it should not even be a suggestion

Doing the same thing by doxing a person and then harassing or threatening them is equivalent or even worse.    My point isn't to advocate for that but to highlight that if you're not okay with undermining Bitcoin's properties by confiscating their coins you really ought not be comfortable with the hunt for their identity to threaten their life to confiscate their coins.

It is like a dox against Satoshi Nakamoto too.

Should speculation about satoshi's identity be subject to doxxing rules?

People outside bitcointalk forum can try to find Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and publish their findings but in the forum, by rules I think we need to obey rules and avoid this action, personal doxxing.

On HN I left a reply that I thought might be worth repeating here,

> Do you support unmasking Satoshi if it is possible?

No.

The only argument I've heard to justify this which is at all credible is that the ownership of a particular pool very early coins may be a matter of significant public concern. I'm dubious of this argument given that it's a couple percent of the total and people seem to not care at all about other similar consolidations in Bitcoin. And it's normal for very wealthy people to be largely unknown e.g. in the US we have absolutely no idea who most billionaires are, a lot of the supposed lists are just speculation and nonsense. (a fun related story )

But for the purpose of this discussion I'll accept that ownership of those coins matters. (I don't think we'd make any progress on debating that)

But if the motivation is those coins, we're not even sure they belong to Satoshi. And to the extent there is a concern it's a concern that their use could be disruptive to the economy, their identity alone is unlikely to help -- like why would Adam Back vs Petertodd matter for that question?

So what I think is that if we think carefully about what all this means and we're honest about it-- this demand for their identity is so that the public can use coercion to make them destroy their coins. The author of the documentary said the quiet part out loud in a surprisingly extortionary sounding tweet: "Satoshi, if you have access, you could burn the stash. Bring an end to this. Protect yourself, protect the network."
I think that kind of coercion would be immoral. But worse than immoral it would be unnecessary:

If the users of Bitcoin feel so threatened by these unmoved early coins that they're willing to ungratefully violate privacy of Bitcoin's creator, a person who might not even own those coins, in an act which might harm the creator seriously but not even address the concern ... they could instead just adopt a fork that makes those early unmoved coins forever inaccessible. -- and perhaps let whomever owns them come out to argue against it.

(Heck, people have already created such forks though that wasn't their motivation-- some forks have diverted all not-recently moved coins to the forks creators, as a kind of premine).

The fact that they haven't indicates that they don't feel that way. To summarize, I think trying to pursue Satoshi's identity is:

An ungrateful attack on someone who gifted the world with something new and interesting and whom wronged no one, motivated by fear of some trove of coins that may not even belong to the target, a fear which would not be addressed by merely knowing their identity (even assuming the coins were theirs), and if it does address it-- it would probably be through coercively depriving them of their coins by subjecting Satoshi to threat and attack... when all along the people supposedly being protected could, if they cared about it enough, simply neutralize "the threat" themselves by adopting a version that didn't have it, or by just not using Bitcoin at all. Clearly they don't feel that strongly.

But attacking someone elses privacy and safety is something many people don't consider much of a cost, I guess.

I just don't buy it.

If it sounds like I've made up my mind on the issue, remember that I've had some 14 years to think about this question.

And because I answered elsewhere on HN:  The petertodd claim is unjustified, grasping at unsurprising coincidences.  I'm personally pretty confident that Peter isn't Satoshi, as much as it's possible to be without knowing who Satoshi is. I've never heard *any* credible claim or rumor that *anyone* knows.  And because Satoshi was clearly trying to conceal their identity and clearly pretty good at it I think it's likely we'll never know.  The issue is that any bit of information you find might be real, it might just be a coincidence, or it could be a false signal Satoshi left to mask their identity.  Because of this we know practically nothing about Satoshi other than that they were able to do the things we know they did at roughly (not even exactly) the times they were done.   Because of this there are probably hundreds of thousands of people who could be Satoshi or more, most of whom we've never heard of, and so confirmation bias and coincidences will utterly dominate any attempt at reasoning it out.

Especially with crypto-related kidnappings and torture on the rise, speculating about Satoshi's identity could get the targets killed.  Even if you reject my above argument against identifying Satoshi, any kind of argument for there being a public interest in the subject only applies when when actually know who Satoshi is.  It doesn't apply for people who kinda sorta may be because there is some weak sauce evidence that only seems like something at all given the almost total lack of actual evidence.  And having your privacy invaded *sucks* even when it doesn't immediately cause you or your family to get kidnapped and extorted.