Topic: Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL - page 4. (Read 4148 times)

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.

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.

When I look at that all I see is this:

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.

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

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".




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/

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

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.

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.

I've missed the hype about that pic, can you give me a link or more info?

Might as well ask ChatGPT who they thought was Satoshi.

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

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.

Fun fact.. Satoshi is in this picture but it’s not Peter Todd.   

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!

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 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.