Anyone have watched the documentary? Can anyone share a brief synopsis of the program. Not finding some on internet or any upload site of the documentary.
I check on HBO phil but I wasnt seeing it there or not in the new list of stuff to watch.
Im waiting for someone to upload on social media to chefk what those guys cooking for this satoshi reveal drama.
Topic: Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL - page 4. (Read 3950 times)
Fun fact.. Satoshi is in this picture but it’s not Peter Todd.
I've missed the hype about that pic, can you give me a link or more info?
He didn't want to be know and was the master of not revealing anything inregards to giving up their identity.
So any of those in the picture even if they were, wouldn't be stupid enough to make a mistake such as writing from an alternate account or giving any clues in the code they wrote.
Todd was.
So he definitely couldn't be Satoshi.
Satoshi was Hal...
There’s no hard evidence to support the claim that Hal Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto. While Hal was deeply involved in early Bitcoin development and even received the first Bitcoin transaction from Satoshi, this doesn’t necessarily make him the creator.There are legal and ethical complexities to consider in this scenario. If Satoshi left a will or instructions, that could be handled by a lawyer. A scenario where a lawyer is instructed to burn Bitcoin, leaving a portion to the family, is feasible but purely hypothetical. However, there's no indication that this has happened, and no credible evidence of any such plan exists. The narrative that he left a hidden message or orchestrated things before his death is speculative at best. Moreover, there is no record of Hal ever admitting to being Satoshi.
I'm not so sure why everyone is still looking for Satoshi, it's quite obvious he's gone and has been gone. Why? Because he is dead and has been now for more than 10 years. He is gone, he is dead. I know first hand who Satoshi is, it was not really a mystery. He's dead. It was Hal Finney, and he made sure before he died to leave this message located here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2479328
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, he knew what he was doing and played a game with everyone, he was having fun, he knew his time was limited so why not.
Don't bother harassing Hal's family either, they have already cashed out the bitcoin's that Hal left them.
Satoshi was Hal, and the logins may have been shared with others, however Satoshi was Hal, and that is it.
Satoshi is not Craig Wright
Satoshi is not Peter Todd
Satoshi was Hal
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2479328
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, he knew what he was doing and played a game with everyone, he was having fun, he knew his time was limited so why not.
Don't bother harassing Hal's family either, they have already cashed out the bitcoin's that Hal left them.
Satoshi was Hal, and the logins may have been shared with others, however Satoshi was Hal, and that is it.
Satoshi is not Craig Wright
Satoshi is not Peter Todd
Satoshi was Hal
The only reason I believe that those posts were not written by the same person are the dates - the time between Satoshi's post and Peter Todd's post. It's one day apart. If it was a continuation of Satoshi's thoughts posted mistakenly using another account, then it would have been mere minutes apart, no?
todd isnt satoshi nor is he carrying on with his own conversation.. but.. it was 1hour 27 minutes apart, not one day
11:59pm 1:28am
i read it as he was answering satoshi.. of course
I read it like that too, but I could understand why an "investigative journalist" would create theories and hypotheticals around that post, especially that it was Peter Todd's second post in BitcoinTalk.
Plus didn't he get his first recognition in the forum for debating Gavin Andresen on why unlimited block sizes are stupid? That probably would make everyone wonder "What if".
Quote
..
the way i view the documentary is that its a sales pitch for blockstream(a.back&s.mow) and pointing that a.back is 2nd inline as satoshi candidate(facepalm)
so when the todd claim is debunked, it leaves people thinking it must then be a.back.. and boom a.back gets new investors in his company.. its like csw but in a different style
Laughable. Adam Back was already one of the cryptographers that some people believe to be Satoshi. He didn't need the HBO show for that.
Dogecoin Founder Reveals Who He Believes Is Satoshi Nakamoto
The Bitcoin Mystery,” which aired on October 8, has ignited intense debate within the crypto community. The film suggests that Canadian Bitcoin developer Peter Todd is Satoshi Nakamoto. However, Todd himself has publicly denied this identification.
Among those refuting the claims is Billy Marcus, co-founder of Dogecoin and known online as Shibetoshi Nakamoto. Of X, Marcus said, "It's not Peter Todd's brother."
A user asked Marcus "Who's Peter?", Marcus replied, "Not Satoshi unless you're an idiot. He's one of the more OG core gods but not the creator." Another user pressed further, asking, "So who is Satoshi?" "Anyone who isn't alive," replied Marcus cryptically.
These hints fueled speculation in the community. Famous Dogecoin community member Doge Whisperer (@TDogewhisperer) also asked, "If you had to make an educated guess, who would it be?" Marcus replied casually, "Hal Finny and friends."
https://bitcoinist.com/dogecoin-founder-who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/
The Bitcoin Mystery,” which aired on October 8, has ignited intense debate within the crypto community. The film suggests that Canadian Bitcoin developer Peter Todd is Satoshi Nakamoto. However, Todd himself has publicly denied this identification.
Among those refuting the claims is Billy Marcus, co-founder of Dogecoin and known online as Shibetoshi Nakamoto. Of X, Marcus said, "It's not Peter Todd's brother."
A user asked Marcus "Who's Peter?", Marcus replied, "Not Satoshi unless you're an idiot. He's one of the more OG core gods but not the creator." Another user pressed further, asking, "So who is Satoshi?" "Anyone who isn't alive," replied Marcus cryptically.
These hints fueled speculation in the community. Famous Dogecoin community member Doge Whisperer (@TDogewhisperer) also asked, "If you had to make an educated guess, who would it be?" Marcus replied casually, "Hal Finny and friends."
https://bitcoinist.com/dogecoin-founder-who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/
Fun fact.. Satoshi is in this picture but it’s not Peter Todd. 
I've missed the hype about that pic, can you give me a link or more info?Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1589018988046283&set=pb.100057798469586.-2207520000
From left to right, starting with Matt Green, who took the picture at Princeton’s Prospect House:
Matt Green
Ittay Eyal
Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn
Andrew Miller
Nick Szabo
Peter Todd
Greg Maxwell
Arvind Narayanan
Sarah Meikeljohn
Emin Gün Sirer
Rainer Böhme
Joe Bonneau
Sergio Demian Lerner
Gavin Andresen
Steven Goldfeder
Ed Felten
Josh Kroll
Nicolas Christin
Ian Miers
Christina Garman
Jeremy Clark
And nobody said that Bitcoin invented money laundering (and all of the rest), but it certainly provided a streamlined mechanism--which the CIA/NSA could believe would be a good honeypot for such activity.
At least for large amounts it's not really a streamlined process. You still need to trust somebody to exchange the stolen funds for fiat, or cash out step by step, like you would do with stolen bank accounts. I believe crypto is much more useful for small fishes in the criminal world actually. Those who don't have the money to set up shell companies or open shady businesses for example.Only advantage in such cases is that you (as the criminal) have more time, if you're operating with banks then you'll have to be fast, while so you can move the coins around a bit. But time also runs against you, as it gives time to the prosecutors to analyze the blockchain and reach out to exchanges to freeze funds. You'll have thus to do complex mixing/privacy coin operations which are not much less complex than movements with cash. In the end, I believe there are some advantages but also disadvantages.
The theory that some government agency could have created both Bitcoin and sites like Silk Road to hunt these small fishes would be more convincing thus for me. But as you wrote this would be quite counterproductive as it would be working only for some time before the criminals know about the honeypot.
There are some special cases, for example a government agency of an openly criminal and corrupt state like North Korea could have indeed incentives to create such a currency, but not to catch criminals but because they do have the means to launder the money stolen via crypto convincingly and in a streamlined process.
And far from being some kind master plan, I could totally see this being some kind of brain fart by a single CIA/NSA employ screwing around that got out of control.
Yes, as I wrote, that's not impossible. But I still believe it is not enough to convince me that a government agency would be a really important part in the "Satoshi puzzle". In my opinion the likelihood for government involvement is far less than 10%. It's much more likely for me that Satoshi came out of the same cypherpunk community as Todd, Back, Maxwell, Chaum and so on.Fun fact.. Satoshi is in this picture but it’s not Peter Todd.
I've missed the hype about that pic, can you give me a link or more info? I really feel bad for Peter. Hopefully people forget about this soon, and he doesn't get a bunch of stalkers obsessing about him for years. What a ridiculous, reckless "journalist".
This sort of thing is why I hardly ever deal with journalists: most of the time, they're far more interested in telling an interesting story than they are in telling an accurate story.
Might as well ask ChatGPT who they thought was Satoshi.This sort of thing is why I hardly ever deal with journalists: most of the time, they're far more interested in telling an interesting story than they are in telling an accurate story.
Wait, maybe the film's maker Cullen Hoback did this for their storyline.
Kidding aside,
This shows what well-known bitcoiners and those who have influence in the bitcoin space (good or bad) had to say about this so-called reveal of Satoshi:
https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2024/10/09/how-crypto-reacted-to-hbos-big-satoshi-reveal
Peter should take some legal actions against HBO because the damage is done, and there is no way back.
I was expecting more from HBO and their journalists, but what they did is to affect directly a bitcoin developer, and that is a terrible move.
Im really disapointed, what can I say...
One very simple thing to avoid that, would be to explain why he posted that message in such a way. He was trying to make a joke by simulating a failed impersonation? There had been a bug within the forum? Another post has been deleted and is missing? I wonder why Satoshi didn't reply to his post tbh? Why he didn't make a comment about the oddness of his wording? Why he didn't even approve his addition or thank him? Personally, I find that a bit thought-provoking. Some people claim that Satoshi wasn't a single person but a crew actually, they are maybe right after all. I was expecting more from HBO and their journalists, but what they did is to affect directly a bitcoin developer, and that is a terrible move.
Im really disapointed, what can I say...
I, for example, could be Satoshi, since I decided to write this in British English using double spaces. If one considers only this fact, it may indeed raise suspicions about my identity.
Fun fact.. Satoshi is in this picture but it’s not Peter Todd.
This sort of thing is why I hardly ever deal with journalists: most of the time, they're far more interested in telling an interesting story than they are in telling an accurate story.
Except that Cullen Hoback is not a journalist or true investigator and more a filmmaker, that's why his former "documentary" was more about making a mystery movie than actually hunting for the guys behind Q, he loved the intrigues and the conspiracies just as much as his targets.
But in the end, funny enough, despite everyone calling this a failure, a disappointment, that HBO should look into making different things, as a movie it was a success, everyone talked about it, everyone was curious about the outcome, people will dissect it for years while $44,341,926 was the volume on polymarket, on a bet that didn't even feature Todd!
Peter should take some legal actions against HBO because the damage is done, and there is no way back.
I second this. Whether or not he wins is beside the point: the publicity from the lawsuit is the only thing that will clear Peter's name. HBO needs to be taken to task over this.
Peter should take some legal actions against HBO because the damage is done, and there is no way back.
I was expecting more from HBO and their journalists, but what they did is to affect directly a bitcoin developer, and that is a terrible move.
Im really disapointed, what can I say...
I was expecting more from HBO and their journalists, but what they did is to affect directly a bitcoin developer, and that is a terrible move.
Im really disapointed, what can I say...
<...>
I guess the damage of this story will hardly vanish over the years.
No matter how inaccurate the story is, HBO exposed Peter (I call him like this as I met him personally a few years ago, even if he doesn't remember me, hopefully) to enormous personal risks.
You are correct regarding the journalists, and it is a good thing they didn't contact you for this documentary.
No matter what you could have told them, they would have fabricated the most intriguing story to serve their scope.
I really feel bad for Peter. Hopefully people forget about this soon, and he doesn't get a bunch of stalkers obsessing about him for years. What a ridiculous, reckless "journalist".
This sort of thing is why I hardly ever deal with journalists: most of the time, they're far more interested in telling an interesting story than they are in telling an accurate story.
This sort of thing is why I hardly ever deal with journalists: most of the time, they're far more interested in telling an interesting story than they are in telling an accurate story.
In fact it's the exact opposite: the CIA or NSA could have easily, as a small side project by one full time employee, invented Bitcoin. They could have done this as an experiment, and then it got out of control.
Of course this is possible, it's just not really convincing for me. My point is that the components of Bitcoin were already discussed in academic circles, and "electronic internet cash" was a hot idea in the 90s and 2000s, so there is no need for a government in the puzzle.I think that actually supports the theory better: some random employee of the NSA isn't going to be an original thinker in the software space, but rather just a hacker with a random idea based on existing ideas floating around.
Crypto has been used to invent an entire new class of crimes. Before crypto, terrorists did not shut down a hospital and then demand several hundred pounds of paper bills. That would simply not be practical. Crypto has made cyberextortion possible and practical, to say nothing of money laundering, tax evasion, and other crimes Bitcoin enabled (at least initially, until chain analysis became common).
Cyberextortion was already popular before Bitcoin, with methods like prepaid cards. And that Bitcoin "enabled" money laundering is also complete bullshit. Money laundering was done with cash, techniques involving various bank accounts, precious goods/metals, art etc. etc. for centuries. And cryptocurrencies are only useful for a part of the "task" of money laundering, because you can obfuscate payment paths but you won't get "clean money" out of the system easily.You can't get $millions using prepaid credit cards. Get real.
And nobody said that Bitcoin invented money laundering (and all of the rest), but it certainly provided a streamlined mechanism--which the CIA/NSA could believe would be a good honeypot for such activity.
Quote
In addition I don't know what's your point about a possible goal of the involved government: it could have created Bitcoin to "enable" a new crime class, i.e. to lure existing criminal groups into a new business, with the intention to later control it via chain analysis? Not a convincing hypothesis for me as I see only advantage for prosecution if this would lead to more convicted criminals, but for me it looks like a zero-sum game.
In order for this theory to work, you'd have to believe that the CIA/NSA would only want to have used it for very special cases, not all crimes generally, as that would diminish its usefulness as a honeypot. In other words, they wouldn't just go after every tax evader hiding a few million away from the IRS because that would pretty instantly blow its cover.
And far from being some kind master plan, I could totally see this being some kind of brain fart by a single CIA/NSA employ screwing around that got out of control.
Quote
Satoshi Nakamoto wrote code that was not usual. He had many quirks. We can find him by comparing his code with others, but no one did that yet.
When I first saw their code, I thought "Satoshi is not a programmer" because of how weird it was. He didn't follow normal code practices that were modern at that time.
He made big use of locks when it was out of fashion. He used Hungarian notation which was no longer used. He made spaghetti function recursion and never used objects to encapsulate processes. He also targeted Windows.
All of this indicate an older person, possibly not a software dev but from a close domain like engineering or physics. His whitepaper hinted at a background with a practical focus but not a mathematician.
The code was highly idiosyncratic and personal including the style itself. Analysis of the code will tell us everything.
You can even compare the code from 2008 with the code in 2010, and the way Satoshi writes code doesn't change. You can actually see the change from proof of concept to hacked up Satoshi node.
Whenever anyone says X is Satoshi, my first response is always "show me the code". This should be our default position.
But no Bitcoin coder (including myself) cares enough to do this. We're all so busy with real work. And I guess we also respect Satoshi-kun's wishes. Even writing this post showing how we can find him feels almost like a betrayal.
To be fair to Peter Todd, he handled it well and didn't try to claim undue credit.
When I first saw their code, I thought "Satoshi is not a programmer" because of how weird it was. He didn't follow normal code practices that were modern at that time.
He made big use of locks when it was out of fashion. He used Hungarian notation which was no longer used. He made spaghetti function recursion and never used objects to encapsulate processes. He also targeted Windows.
All of this indicate an older person, possibly not a software dev but from a close domain like engineering or physics. His whitepaper hinted at a background with a practical focus but not a mathematician.
The code was highly idiosyncratic and personal including the style itself. Analysis of the code will tell us everything.
You can even compare the code from 2008 with the code in 2010, and the way Satoshi writes code doesn't change. You can actually see the change from proof of concept to hacked up Satoshi node.
Whenever anyone says X is Satoshi, my first response is always "show me the code". This should be our default position.
But no Bitcoin coder (including myself) cares enough to do this. We're all so busy with real work. And I guess we also respect Satoshi-kun's wishes. Even writing this post showing how we can find him feels almost like a betrayal.
To be fair to Peter Todd, he handled it well and didn't try to claim undue credit.
Source: https://x.com/Narodism/status/1844017533336142025
I have nothing to add to this... And even this much that has been written is too much.
I personally would be ok if the person HBO "identified" had been Satoshi. And the "mistake" to reveal the RBF mechanism at Bitcointalk under the Satoshi nick, commenting it under the real name, and then 4 years later introducing it under the real name is at least a plausible assumption.
However, evidence is quite weak in my opinion. If Satoshi and Todd are different persons, then the behaviour would be perfectly explainable: Todd was aware of the RBF idea already in 2010 due to discussions with Satoshi, and it became an important feature once fees began to rise, so every participant in the threads about "early RBF ideas" which still were around in 2014 in the Bitcoin community would be a good candidate to later publish/implement the final RBF concept.
In addition I don't know what's your point about a possible goal of the involved government: it could have created Bitcoin to "enable" a new crime class, i.e. to lure existing criminal groups into a new business, with the intention to later control it via chain analysis? Not a convincing hypothesis for me as I see only advantage for prosecution if this would lead to more convicted criminals, but for me it looks like a zero-sum game.
However, evidence is quite weak in my opinion. If Satoshi and Todd are different persons, then the behaviour would be perfectly explainable: Todd was aware of the RBF idea already in 2010 due to discussions with Satoshi, and it became an important feature once fees began to rise, so every participant in the threads about "early RBF ideas" which still were around in 2014 in the Bitcoin community would be a good candidate to later publish/implement the final RBF concept.
In fact it's the exact opposite: the CIA or NSA could have easily, as a small side project by one full time employee, invented Bitcoin. They could have done this as an experiment, and then it got out of control.
Of course this is possible, it's just not really convincing for me. My point is that the components of Bitcoin were already discussed in academic circles, and "electronic internet cash" was a hot idea in the 90s and 2000s, so there is no need for a government in the puzzle.Crypto has been used to invent an entire new class of crimes. Before crypto, terrorists did not shut down a hospital and then demand several hundred pounds of paper bills. That would simply not be practical. Crypto has made cyberextortion possible and practical, to say nothing of money laundering, tax evasion, and other crimes Bitcoin enabled (at least initially, until chain analysis became common).
Cyberextortion was already popular before Bitcoin, with methods like prepaid cards. And that Bitcoin "enabled" money laundering is also complete bullshit. Money laundering was done with cash, techniques involving various bank accounts, precious goods/metals, art etc. etc. for centuries. And cryptocurrencies are only useful for a part of the "task" of money laundering, because you can obfuscate payment paths but you won't get "clean money" out of the system easily.In addition I don't know what's your point about a possible goal of the involved government: it could have created Bitcoin to "enable" a new crime class, i.e. to lure existing criminal groups into a new business, with the intention to later control it via chain analysis? Not a convincing hypothesis for me as I see only advantage for prosecution if this would lead to more convicted criminals, but for me it looks like a zero-sum game.
Peter Todd is not Satoshi Nakamoto because if he was, he'd have invented Bitcoin just to troll us all by pretending he didn’t. Plus, if Peter were Satoshi, he’d probably have added an edit button to the Bitcoin blockchain by now, just for fun. Everyone knows that the real Satoshi has been hiding on a deserted island, working on Bitcoin 2.0: now with cats. If Peter were Satoshi, the Bitcoin whitepaper would have at least one footnote about coffee preferences. Also, Peter can’t be Satoshi because he didn’t invent a secret handshake for Bitcoin developers. I mean, if you had $65 billion, you wouldn’t be hanging out on Twitter so much, right?
Honestly, if Peter was Satoshi, Bitcoin would have a built-in “verify your identity” option by now, just to mess with us. The only thing more secretive than Satoshi’s identity is the location of my car keys, and Peter doesn’t know that either. Peter doesn’t even like being called Satoshi—now, that’s the most un-Satoshi thing ever. If I were Peter, I’d claim to be Satoshi just for the free lunches.
If Satoshi was actually Peter, I’m pretty sure he would have added memes to the Bitcoin protocol. And let’s be real—if Peter Todd were Satoshi, we'd all be paying for our groceries in Bitcoins and dad jokes by now. So no, Peter Todd isn’t Satoshi, unless we’re also willing to believe my cat invented Ethereum.
Honestly, if Peter was Satoshi, Bitcoin would have a built-in “verify your identity” option by now, just to mess with us. The only thing more secretive than Satoshi’s identity is the location of my car keys, and Peter doesn’t know that either. Peter doesn’t even like being called Satoshi—now, that’s the most un-Satoshi thing ever. If I were Peter, I’d claim to be Satoshi just for the free lunches.
If Satoshi was actually Peter, I’m pretty sure he would have added memes to the Bitcoin protocol. And let’s be real—if Peter Todd were Satoshi, we'd all be paying for our groceries in Bitcoins and dad jokes by now. So no, Peter Todd isn’t Satoshi, unless we’re also willing to believe my cat invented Ethereum.
Jump to: