Topic: Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL - page 3. (Read 3950 times)

Its hot topic since imagine finally Satoshi identity will be revealed and its like HBO have huge confidence to show it since its like they are really sure towards their investigation made. It didn't end up well as they really didn't unveil the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto since people are not convince with their findings and the person they point out to be the real creator strongly denies their claims.

I guess the search for the Identity of Satoshi doesn't end yet, But maybe people like them should respect if the person behind Satoshi Nakamoto want to remain unknown.

During the week, the idea of revealing the identify of Satoshi nakamoto was really a big topic around the social medias, specially on X(formally known as Twitter), Aside HBO' documentary on the subject, there were several other platforms that tried to speculate on who Satoshi nakamoto really is, some popular figures were mentioned and some even accused of being the Satoshi the whole world was looking for, those accused came out to debunk the idea and deassociate themselves from being the creator of bitcoin.

Let's just say that sometimes, people get bored, and to alleviate the boredom, they take up a new task, one they are sure that will capture the attention of a lot of people in the industry, and so far, it's working for HBO, I personally see all of this as nothing but a way for them to get more popular and gain more followers as well.

Please, could you tell why do you think that? Thanks.

It's just so funny how HBO came up with a name (Peter Todd) and fake Documentary to convince the world into believing he's Satoshi, what I think is that if Satoshi wanted to be known he won't or the group of people behind that name won't had made themselves anonymous, why i said group of people is because I think it's relating to the CIA based on how secretive the person behind the name seems to be and they being the CIA would've figured out who he is but then they care less. HBO is clueless and only came up with the documentary just to gain more subscribers, they're fully aware that everyone's really anxious of knowing the person behind the name (Satoshi) and creating a documentary, even though it's too good to be true would attract more people, they played a smart one but I don't believe that thrash documentary. Like you said, what I care more about is building my Portfolio and owning lots of Bitcoins.

Thanks for the correction, I didn't check online and apparently got it wrong while watching the documentary. All things considered, Peter Todd had quite enough time to "invent" Bitcoin, especially if he had an experienced mentor like Adam Back as an advisor.

Still, maybe it's better that Peter Todd isn't Satoshi, the more you dig into his past, the more unpleasant things you find.

Satoshi is Jesus Christ’s second coming.

Nobody has seen him but we all know he did exist. It is because we have proof. We have his forum posts which are actually the pages of the crypto bible and the bitcoin whitepaper is… the holiest of all texts.

Satoshi the prophet, delivered us bitcoin like Prometheus gave us fire.

Who gives a damn about his real identity anyway, What really matters is what he said.

Ultimately, the true meaning of this story is that nobody should care about who Satoshi is or was.
He wanted to disappear, and we must respect his privacy, even stopping the speculation of people who made a choice.

We should focus on Bitcoin, not Satoshi, whose discovery was by far more important than his identity.
We should all focus on learning about Bitcoin instead of learning who Satoshi was.

Satoshi wanted Diaspora invites so created a new account (why would he create it with his real name?) and you want me to believe (with a coffee cup in your hand casually sipping coffee in rain ) that you had this so-called realization which connects every dot.
I do not believe for a nanosecond that the man who pulled off Bitcoin, below the nose of so many 3-letter agencies, used his real name on this forum and was careless enough to not pay attention to which account he logged in. Cool story, bro!
Regarding Peter mentioning Bitcoin sacrifice, it does not mean anything as this statement was made after the interview and IMHO he was just messing with your little brain because he knows you would be tracking all of his posts and he just gave you a rope
And why Satoshi did not reply to his super technical post, there could be thousands of reasons but for your super retarded brain: he was just a newbie with one post history so Satoshi might have thought of not engaging with him.
HBO, you really disappoint me this time. It's better that you put all your energy and imagination into 'Game of Thrones' next season, but I have to admit even there you are lagging behind.

Peter Todd is not Satoshi.
Adam Back is not Satoshi.
Hal Finney is not Satoshi.
Nick Szabo is not Satoshi.
Craig Wright is definitely not Satoshi.
Elon Musk is not Satoshi.
Vitalik Buterin is too young to be Satoshi.
From 2009 to 2011, Edward Snowden was in Tokyo studying Japanese. Snowden is not Satoshi.
(here you can put anyone you can think of on the list who has an alibi.)
They were, or are, part of it. Satoshi was a group project, probably involving a lot of caffeine.  

You got that a bit wrong. Peter was 15 years old when he wrote to Adam in 2001. Bitcoin was invented in 2009 when Peter was 23 years old. Looks like they both are Satoshi

Somebody asked me to send the link of the film but that is not possible.
All I can do is send the trailer from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVLCs0qUI4

The other one which was from a broadcasting company is made available from their youtube channel which is named the exactly same as the docufilm I watched from an independent filmmaker:
trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdoT2ipYTvE

I think that Hal Finney is a good candidate to be Satoshi but I remember that a few month ago some users were arguing how he couldn't be Satoshi. I can't find those posts but I also read on internet that on April 18, 2009 at 8 AM, while Finney was running, Satoshi was doing some activities.
By the way, what increases his chance of being Satoshi is that Satoshi's Bitcoin addresses have been untouched and at the same time, Satoshis identity hasn't been revealed. Is it possible to not touch billions of dollars and stay anonymous when the whole world is chasing you? It's impossible to my mind and that's why I think, there is a high chance that Hal Finney is Satoshi but at the same time that running event ruins this theory, so I'm very confused.

By the way, there is also a very high chance that it can be a CIA project and I'll explain why: The CIA recently stated that it is looking for people living in Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. The CIA wants to hire people as spies in these countries. Did you guys notice that? CIA has been hiring spies for decades but as the world advances, so are advancing tracking methods and so is it becoming hard to break regulations.
So, here is CIA that hires people and has to pay to them. The CIA has payment options like bank transfer, instant money transfer, etc but none of them are the best method to send and receive money anonymously, so the CIA had to do something and they invented Bitcoin, a pseudoanonymous currency. Now you might ask me, why didn't CIA invent something similar to Monero? Because the CIA needed a currency that would be good for adoption. No government is going to adopt Monero because it's extremely anonymous but Bitcoin is a little soft but still anonymous in right hands. Overall, Bitcoin with it's structure, was an ideal candidate. So, they created it, created a myth of Satoshi who then disappeared and CIA left a currency that the society thinks is a really decentralized because Satoshi is dead and it has no owner.

There is still so much left to write about it but I'm leave it as it is, long story short.

What was in their mind? You are one of the best candidate for any crypto related interview, especially for this one. They included a snapshot from Bitcointalk on their documentary and didn't contact you? That's very dumb

Thanks for the suggestion, appreciated nevertheless.
Todd, as Lucius said, probably was in agreement, so he is rather just a target to be discussed, that's the main point of this hype all around this film after all

I watched the documentary, so I will try to briefly describe what it is about and write some of my impressions.

First of all, the documentary is not exclusively about the search for Satoshi, but mostly deals with some basic things and examines only the role that BTC has played since its inception until today. There, of course, you can see people like Jamie Dimon or Warren Buffett with their famous statements, claims that BTC is only good for selling drugs online (Silk Road) up to the mention of the famous blockchain wars over the size of blocks with comments from who else but Roger Ver Bitcoin Judas who in the documentary plays the role of a saint who tried to save BTC from people like Adam Back or Peter Todd.

Furthermore, we also have Gavin Andersen's statements about how he is convinced that CW Faketoshi is the real Satoshi. There was also one of the Tether Boys (Samson Mow) who was accompanied by a failed Serbian prince who should make the world aware of the need to accept Bitcoin

What is of most interest to everyone is that the author apparently had an agreement with Adam Back and Peter Todd who voluntarily participate in this documentary and I think that any lawsuits by Peter Todd are out of the question considering that he apparently approved the publication of this documentary.

I have to admit that the author has on several occasions quite upset Peter Todd with some questions, especially with the thesis about that famous post which the author claims is the result of Peter Todd mistakenly logging in with his own account and not with Satoshi's account and that actually completed the thought from the previous post - and that Peter Todd at one point deleted a lot of his online history, including one comment in which he claims that he allegedly deleted a lot of BTC, to which the author suggests that this is about Peter Todd actually deleting private keys that are associated with Satoshi mined coins.

For me personally, there is nothing in the whole story that was not already known before, because in the end all the so-called evidence are just assumptions. In my opinion, Adam Back is a much bigger candidate for Satoshi than Peter Todd, who was around 15 years old when Bitcoin was invented.


The documentary is not actually shown on HBO Max (as far as I know), but on HBO programs that are a separate part of their service.

This does not solve anything and just falsely accused someone who adamantly denies being that individual.

I would suggest watching Searching for Satoshi - either one.

Just finished watching the one made a year ago and it was more educational of who is not Satoshi.

He could use cryptographic signatures or timestamped documents to demonstrate that his work history doesn't align with Satoshi's activities. He could request a thorough investigation to clear his name and demand transparency from media outlets reporting these allegations. Legal measures could also be taken to address defamation if the claims negatively impact his reputation. However, by doing so, he might unintentionally attract more attention from intelligence agencies. The media, including Bloomberg, are now widely covering this issue, creating a very awkward and potentially dangerous situation for him. That's why no one who was involved with Bitcoin in its early days gives interviews easily. 

As far as I understand, Peter Todd was set up. First, he was interviewed by a journalist. Then he re-edited, cut out unnecessary parts of the video footage and inserted parts of the video into a documentary.

At the same time, Peter Todd said on camera something like - "I am Satoshi!" This is the standard cry of all cypherpunks. "I am Satoshi! You are Satoshi! We are all Satoshi!"

Life was greatly complicated for Peter Todd, because now he could be hunted by international gangsters and intelligence agencies of different countries. Unfortunately, in our time, you can ruin a person's reputation with impunity by linking his real identity to a digital avatar of a completely different person.

Satoshi Nakamoto was obsessed with maintaining anonymity and privacy. How will Peter Todd now prove that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto?

He plays a role in the documentary with about 20-25 minutes of screen time. He was probably paid by HBO for his appearance. I just watched the documentary.



Yes, it’s a very strange situation. I’m not sure if this was someone else's script or his own. Perhaps he didn’t realize how things would turn out in the end. Very odd...

I downloaded the documentary (torrent) My understanding of the documentary is that Peter Todd invented (created) Satoshi Nakamoto just as he invented (created) John Dillon.

Peter Todd is in a very difficult situation. It is difficult to refute absolutely senseless and unsubstantiated accusations.

If Peter Todd starts making excuses now or organizes a big lawsuit, he may not convey the truth to most people. Ordinary people are not inclined to analyze the facts of the case, they will simply remember that Peter Todd is considered Satoshi Nakamoto by some people (respected and authoritative journalists). Therefore, people will assume that Peter Todd is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Peter Todd probably idolized the real Satoshi Nakamoto (the creator of the legendary Bitcoin) and tried to earn his approval. That is why Peter made this strange post on the forum. Satoshi Nakamoto might not have liked the excessive enthusiasm of young Peter Todd, since Satoshi was probably an introvert and valued his anonymity and privacy above all else. Satoshi did not want unnecessary attention to himself. That is why he did not respond to Peter Todd's post. 

Or maybe it was something else - maybe Satoshi was very busy at the time, or maybe he just thought the question had already been answered in detail and there was no point in discussing it further.