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.
Topic: Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL - page 5. (Read 4148 times)
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.
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 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.
If that's not the case, a suicide is highly probable in the event of losing the keys, for instance.
Yes, I agree. But we're just throwing out theories here with as much information as HBO had
.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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
If it was a continuation of Satoshi's thoughts posted mistakenly using another account, then it would have been mere minutes apart, no?
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.
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 with their writing styles to be similar can be evidence enough to deem them the same person? I would disagree.
https://x.com/Cointelegraph/status/1843910047103103388
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.
If it was a continuation of Satoshi's thoughts posted mistakenly using another account, then it would have been mere minutes apart, no?
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.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.
It seems like HBO has run out of ideas for presenting quality series. This documentary leads into an investigation with the aim of showing evidence of Satoshi's identity, then do they think this will work? I think the effort is just a waste of time and will eventually damage their own reputation. After years of Satoshi successfully hiding his true identity, how could HBO reveal his identity so easily, This is simply unreasonable.
As is known, Satoshi has so many wallets containing Bitcoins in different amounts, the only wallet known to belong to Satoshi is the Genesis address, the first blockchain address with 50 Bitcoins that cannot be spent at any time. I think anyone claiming to be Satoshi should show a private key that allows access to one of those wallets and move a small portion of the Bitcoins in it to prove its authenticity.
As is known, Satoshi has so many wallets containing Bitcoins in different amounts, the only wallet known to belong to Satoshi is the Genesis address, the first blockchain address with 50 Bitcoins that cannot be spent at any time. I think anyone claiming to be Satoshi should show a private key that allows access to one of those wallets and move a small portion of the Bitcoins in it to prove its authenticity.
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.
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
..
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
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.
Hmmm.
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".
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.
Hmmm.
Jump to: