Topic: Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL - page 5. (Read 3950 times)

Yes, I agree. But we're just throwing out theories here with as much information as HBO had .

I don't think that's the best line of thought. Of course, it might be the most likely one. If Satoshi was not a three-letter agency, he doesn't necessarily need to be dead.  

The maximum supply of 21 million might be related to the blocks, but what if he actually wanted it to be 20 million? Would that be too foolish?  Instead of building an entirely different use case, one could simply stick with the original idea and implement a supply control of 1 million, effectively "burning" the excess.  

If that's not the case, a suicide is highly probable in the event of losing the keys, for instance.  

Determining the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto with absolute certainty is impossible.  While various theories exist, we cannot definitively assert who he is—or whether he represents a group of individuals. 

In my view, the documentary presents compelling arguments within its context and portrays Peter Todd in a noteworthy manner.  However, I believe it is unlikely that he is Satoshi.  The arguments supporting this claim are strong within the proposed framework.  Yet, when we analyse the narrative in a strictly linear fashion, Todd may indeed appear to be the genuine Satoshi Nakamoto.  However, we must recognise that such an approach overlooks the broader context.  Ignoring external factors is not a viable way to assess the situation. 

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. 

But it is indeed suspicious that Peter was reacting so oddly when confronted in that manner.  Why would he lie about his ability to code in C++?  I also think that the argument the narrator uses is somewhat valid; how and why would Peter remember that post so clearly in his mind? 

One thing I dislike is that the documentary mentions Peter's emails to Adam back in 2001, but it does not explore this aspect at any given moment.  Perhaps it didn't contain anything interesting. 

So on one side the argument there is a Bitcointalk.org post where Todd appeared to have made a sock puppet mistake with the Satoshi account. This isn't conclusive evidence, but it's a tiny bit more than absolute zero.

On the other side of the argument is the fact that is somebody has $65 billion in Bitcoin, we would know how they were because you can't hide that sort of thing.

And there is no significant reason this guy would want to hide this. None.

If Satoshi were not dead (or, alternately, if Satoshi was not a front for the CIA/NSA/etc.), then they obviously they would have revealed themselves 10+ years ago.

I'm all for looking at the evidence and weighing the facts, but the facts here are absurdly in favor of it not being Todd, and it's absolute fraud that HBO is asserting this (and I look forward to seeing Todd win $millions in his libel suit against HBO).

I started to watch the documentary last night when I turned on HBO and saw this sitting in y que ( I put it in there the second it became available to do so).  I will watch just about anything bitcoin related, especially if it something like this on a major network, but I have a good feeling that I'm just going to be let down and that it's probably just all a bunch of nonsense. We shall see I supposed.

As I watched a little part of the film, I got that impression too, and he laughed about it pretty much all the way going forward

And those are the type who believe Peter Todd is Satoshi after watching this:
Those who didn't even know the bitcointalk forums existed and where Satoshi first posted his ideas too.

Which I didn't begin watching until the book three section of this glamorized HBO special on bitcoin.

He doesn't even think so

https://x.com/boldleonidas/status/1843891616039493944

With all due respect to Martin Shkreli, he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about. He's had zero historical involvement with cryptocurrency.

Even Martin Shkreli believes it is Todd.
https://x.com/MartinShkreli/status/1843848001007300629

This is from defenders of Sam Bankman Fried actions who believed Roger Ver is Bitcoin Jesus yet got arrested in Spain for tax evasion in the States.

"Following Tuesday night's release, former Bitcoin Core developer Gregory Maxwell pointed out an overlooked detail undermining filmmaker Cullen Hoback's case that Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator is another early Bitcoin developer, Peter Todd."
source: https://www.theblock.co/post/320241/hbo-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-peter-todd

Along with the narrative of Satoshi 'mistake of posting from PeterTodd's account' theory.
There was this cryptic message from Todd's chat log once decyphered having their writing styles to be similar could be evidence enough to deem them the same person? I will have to disagree.


https://x.com/Cointelegraph/status/1843910047103103388

Named as Peter Todd... but Todd denies he's Nakamoto.

Its like they are just getting those details online without verifying if its true or not then present something like suspense content to create curiosity and lure viewers to watch their documentary.
 
But they prove anything with those claims? I think not since its like they are just placing pure assumptions in that video and still Satoshi Nakamoto's real identity has not been revealed.

More Satoshi Identity discussion to come since this case has not been close yet. Todd denies what HBO says about it so more controversy or curiosity would build up thru those thing they made. Maybe those people should respect the decision of bitcoin creator to remain unknown or anonymous because I think its more better to remain like that to avoid any possible issues.

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

..
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

That just shows what can be achieved by some twirly jesting of real facts. It's like with theories about UFOs - they are cool, funny, ridiculous - but nobody takes them seriously.

@ABCbits, obviously, today anyone can record a documentary and construct a story, no matter how absurd it may be, for an average viewer who will not question what he saw and heard, a story constructed in this way can still have a certain weight. I don't know how much sense a lawsuit makes at this moment, but if a man's life turns into a nightmare, he might resort to a lawsuit.

I haven't seen the documentary, but it seems that everything boils down to the old saying "The hills shake, a mouse is born".

The documentary falsely claims that Todd's reply regarding inputs and outputs matching is super technical—it's not. However, it is quite interesting that it's literally the second post by Todd on the forum, and it's phrased in an interesting manner.


Hmmm.

It's a hype train and HBO is riding it Journalism nowadays usually tends to go down that path, unfortunately. Polymarket blew up from such a turn, I imagine.

As expected, HBO nominated someone with very weak proof. It reminds me of Newsweek which did similar thing with Dorian Nakamoto. So at this point, i wonder whether Peter Todd will follow Dorian's steps[1] to sue HBO due to sharing false information which affect his daily life.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/dorian-nakamoto-fingered-as-bitcoin-creator-wants-to-sue-newsweek/

This is just sloppy journalism. Sensationalism. Crafting narratives that lack any real evidence. It’s an attempt to draw connections where none exist, cobbling together theories from irrelevant details and presenting them as facts.

 🤔

Although, Peter Todd posted like he was continuing his own point.

This is the link to Satoshi's post. It's a one page thread which is already locked.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28729

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?

Lmao liberalism at its finest, "everything you say is a conspiracy", *cobbles together unhinged theories without even the slightest smidge of evidence and asserts it as fact* .

It’s interesting to observe the small, often overlooked details in Satoshi Nakamoto’s writing style. One notable feature is that after every period, Satoshi consistently leaves two spaces before starting the next sentence. This double space after periods is not just a stylistic choice—it reflects the typographical norms of earlier times when typewriters were more common, as they tended to create uneven spacing between characters.

In the context of modern digital communication, most people now use a single space after periods.  However, Satoshi's use of two spaces might stand out today as something unique and deliberate.   (like this)

Peter Todd use a single space after periods