Topic: Satoshi's real name revealed - page 2. (Read 4505 times)

hahaha.  looks about 10 inches?

she's hot, and seems fairly easily impressed, looking at her hands...

Nick Szabo has been posting on cypherpunks mailing-list for ages. If he was Satoshi he would probably avoid drawing attention to the cypherpunks movement and mailing-list. Doing otherwise would make as much sense as using his real name as a pseudonym.

Saint-Toshi ain't Szabo!

Reminds me of the film "Mask of Zorro" where tens of people step forward claiming to be Zorro. 

Your statement is not necessarily correct, but you are correct about not enough proof to say it is 100% Szabo. A lot of history and education about Bitcoin can be learned by asking questions and researching where it came from. A person should be able to ask questions and research all things involving ones own life with being cencered. We should not discourage people from free thinking and using their minds to access history and make educated decisions for themselves.

2007 Szabo applies BitGold and his "Scarce Object" theory to Zookos p2p hard drive project.
"One possible answer to central mint vulnerability is bit gold -- a currency the value of which does not depend on any particular trusted third party. Another alternative is (an object barter economy"Scarce Objects")."
http://web.archive.org/web/20070625154046/http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/20070618142414/http://szabo.best.vwh.net/scarce.html

Scarce Objects =  finite supply of coins(Like Bitcoin)

This is a lot more than 10%......

On the subject of conversations:

Hal had told Satoshi about Szabo and BitGold and even though Satoshi answered everything else in that email he ignored the Szabo/BitGold subject completely like Hal never stated it.
Hal:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09975.html
Satoshi:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09980.html

If Szabo=Satoshi, we have to be careful about taking anything in Satoshi sources at face value. However, I am still fairly
optimistic: Szabo's history indicates someone who practice information denial, but not disinformation. I haven't been able to find any instances where he actively lies or deceives on a major scale.

*Szabo’s post for assistance:
“Bitgold would greatly benefit from a demonstration, an experimental market (with e.g. a trusted third party substituted for the complex security that would be needed for a real system). Anybody want to help me code one up?”
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09975.html

*Ray Dillenger (Bear) quote: “Look, (Satoshi) was a construction made explicitly for the purpose of launching Bitcoin……That purpose is fulfilled.  The person who created (Satoshi) has no further need for him.  Thus ends the story”.

The reason Bitcoin had to be released anonymous:

Tim May: “Anyone contemplating building such a system, or entity, or cybercorporation, should think long and hard about the wisdom of ever having an identifiable nexus of attack. Money must be collected in untraceable ways. This is what I meant about it being time to rethink the theory of the corporation.”
"Where once a corporation existed to both protect the rights of shareholders (against lawsuits and partners having to pay for losses) and to enable the group participation of many workers, corporations for the things Cypherpunks think are interesting is just a bad idea. And given the growing trend toward trying to prosecute the V.P of Yahoo-Europe because some bit of Nazi history was sold to some German citizen, etc., corporations are becoming a liability in cyberspace”.
"The answer is to vanish into cyberspace. Not an easy task, maybe, given the state of today’s tools, but the long term trend".

The first credit to Bitcoin in the white paper was a citation for Wei Dai’s “bmoney”.
The first paragraph of “bmoney”: (read carefully)

“I am fascinated by Tim May’s crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word “anarchy”, in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It’s a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations”.

And yes he did use other people's ideas and theory:

Szabo, and apparently Satoshi, had figured out that Hal Finneys “RPOW” could be used to solve the Byzantine General’s Problem, a problem in ordinary computing that demonstrates through “game theory” how a group of potential co-operators can come to the best consensus even with the possibility of having malicious operators among them. This was the final piece to the BitGold/Bitcoin puzzle.
http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm

* Ray Dillenger (Bear) quote: “Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be.  Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply.  Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world’s M1 money supply at that time was”.
"We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure".

Szabo “came up” with the technology that will become ethereum including smart contracts which was solely contingent on Satoshi’s work that Szabo never knew would be produced?

Smart contracts come about because Bitcoin is the beginning of the completion of a “Kula Ring”, a unifying solution that bridges among other things, game theory, encryption, economics, finance, programming, and law… there are not multiple random people capable of this…..

This still is not enough evidence. It never will be. It was designed that was a long time ago.

Not your cat. Schrödinger's cat is Satoshi, and he stopped posting because somebody opened the box.

This is your first post on this forum..? can't tell if you asked that in a sarcastic manner or you were serious.. ! and btw you'll find thousands of satoshi on this forum..

Not this again. Everyone and their mother should know by now that Dorian is the real name.

Can you show a proof?

Would all of you please shut up.
I am satoshi and em serious,really!                                                                                                                                                                             

Hi Satoshi :-)

Nah ... even if you are Satoshi nobody will believe you till the moment in which you will move coins from Satoshi addresses :-)



We don't need to know.  And we will not know :-)

Why we must know who is really Satoshi? The mystery make all!

So they are wrong?

To me the only reliable lead is Nick, but as Franky1 mentions there is no proof and lots of people have investigated and got nowhere.  Its just a lead and not anything more.  Nobody has any real proof that can solidly connect the two other than the obvious evidence that anybody can see by visiting Nick's blog.  That blog has been there for a long time.  Surely Newsweek must have investigated it before they outed Dorian.  Also, other journalists have looked into it. 

While many people want Satoshi to remain anonymous.  There are a ton of reporters that would consider it their big break if they could just find out who Satoshi is, and probably get a nice bonus too.  If those well funded and trained researchers haven't found him, some hacks fighting on BTT and making Youtube videos surely haven't miraculously figured it out. 

nick szabo is not satoshi. it has been investigated and accused atleast a dozen times. the only evidence people find is that parts of bitcoin is made using nicks theoris. but if you actually look at conversation history you will see that satoshi mentions nicks theory aswell as hal finneys theory and a few other peoples theory.

satoshi brought together many peoples theories into one seamless protocol. so just because 10% of code was inspired by nick, does not mean nick was satoshi.
give it 2 weeks and people will start accusing hal finney of being satoshi and say that hal's code was in bitcoin protocol and then speculate that hal's health decline was the cause of satoshi's disappearance.

then in 4 weeks time a guy named serius will be accused because he was one of the early guys that was playing with the code, accusing him of being satoshi and accidentally using his serius username when coding instead of satoshi username,.

it is weak investigation to grab at a single straw, it has been tried many times with smarter people trying to investigate the identity. yet many people cant even be bothered to search the forums to see the investigations have already occurred and dismissed certain people

Drop your addy, I'll send you satoshi.

These threads get funnier and funnier

btw my cat is satoshi. And I don't even have a cat.

Yeah as I've seen posted before he can sign the genesis block any other evidence given by these shitty journalists just isn't credible.

We will never know who satochi actually is unless he reveal himself and that's not gonna happen