Topic: Serious Question - Nullc, are you Satoshi? - page 4. (Read 4290 times)

I'm talking about Sergio's analysis of the Genesis block itself, not of the early blocks. And I'm not going to question what Sergio said, and that's not what he said. Someone linked the thread above, so, as usual Frankys, your BS is hanging right out. Your arrogance and straw-manning knows no bounds :/


Edit: turns out Mr. Felt was linking something else entirely.



Here's what I've found so far: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1834775


Unfortunately, I can't find the actual thread as of yet.

Suffice to say, Franky is full of shit (who is honestly surprised?): Sergio Demian Lerner did work out (well, estimated using reasonable assumptions) how much hardware Satoshi used to mine the Genesis Block, although my memory of it being several machines may be wrong. Looking for the thread Sergio refers to in the quote above.

lol how much fail.

firstly.. there is no data before the genesis block. only data AFTER the genesis block.
and what sergio found was that over the year of 2009-2010 he could look at the nonces and extra nonces and work out who was mining what
(different colours=different people, yep he even found gavin and haal and a few others)


he then looked at the nonces and extra nonces of the first <12 hours of bitcoin mining (before hal started) to know which one was satoshi's
and then extracted just the satoshi nonces and ignored the other people (hal gavin serius etc)


and guess what. it was one machine.
sergio even went to discover that at the start satoshi would stop mining, recompile an updated client and mine again like clockwork every 5 days, but later it then become less predictable when other users/devs started to link him their bug fixes more randomly.

serio even went on to discover that every 5 months starting from may2009 satoshi reduced the amount of CPU power he dedicated to his virtual machine as a predictable tailing off of hashrate due to satoshi not wanting to dominate the hashing network. eventually stopping completely in may 2010

all of which would not be possible if satoshi was using multiple machines of different cpu power.
and ofcourse my first point. lets all laugh at the fact that the genesis block is the genesis block and there was no data before the genesis block to even prove that satoshi "threw away thousands of blocks before he settled on the one he liked"

"That's right Scott, let me taste your tears *slurp*"

This thread makes me want to laugh, then cry. 

See some of Nullc's comments about the computer (on Reddit) he's used to test things recently - its pretty balls-to-wall.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12803522

Typical behaviour from the Frankys; nonsense assertions with no actual proof, just a skim through some real events that prove no such thing, but could easily fool someone ignorant/immature into believing.


Satoshi did acknowledge people like Wei Dei, Adam Back and David Chaum in the white paper. Nothing to do with how many people constitute Satoshi, the events are isolated.

Satoshi did get help from Hal, Pieter Wuille, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Gavin etc very soon after releasing the white paper. Nothing to do with how many people constitute Satoshi, the events are isolated.




One interesting aspect of the Satoshi story is what Sergio Demian Lerner discovered with his analysis of the evidence about Satoshi in the Genesis block. Sergio figured out how many 2009 PCs Satoshi must have used, and how long for, to produce the exact block he wanted (i.e. he rejected thousands of blocks before settling on the one he bootstrapped the Bitcoin network with).

Satoshi (apparently) must have been using over a dozen high-end PCs, hashing away constantly, to get his preferred Genesis block. Highly amusing fact: it took 6 days. On the 7th day, he rested .

Yes, absolutely.  See the last part of the article. Satoshi could be multiple people or one person among a group or a lone wolf (including an org). 

At the moment, I think there are a handful of really good Satoshi candidates, some or more of which could have been working together at the time of the white paper (on bitcoin, or maybe just professionally in another capacity - perhaps Satoshi went rogue from the org). Today, I think Greg gets included in a very elite group of suspects that pass the laugh-test.  I think the guy is crazy smart, generally a pretty good human being, but pretty firm in what he knows or believes - I don't think this is atypical for those w/ exceptional intelligence. 

the pseudonym satoshi was ONE guy.

but he did indeed have help. he grabbed idea's from many people (Wei Dai, etc) and he had the mindset to patch the idea's together into what is now known as bitcoin, with many quoting satoshi's creation as the elegant patchwork of so many idea's that come together to solve a problem perfectly.

he(again single person) had help from a few people to code bitcoin, notable names of early 2009 are hal finney and a few others.
as the months passed of 2009-2010 the number of names helping out increased.
and then he vanished

no way Greg Maxwell is Satoshi.  

Greg makes even simple communications difficult.
Satoshi was simple and clear in his writing.

Also I'm pretty sure Satoshi would not start
a centralized corporation to try to control
bitcoin development.

Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Greg Maxwell, Peter Wiulle... they are all top dogs in the Bitcoin game and therefore they are all realistic Satoshi Nakamoto candidates.

Too bad we will never know at this point. Even if someone came up with Satoshi's keys and moved coins, it would just mean he owns those coins, it doesn't demonstrate that the code was written the person owning the private keys for Satoshi's coins in that particular time.


We can't never know. Satoshi most likely used a VPN or TOR and his writing style doesn't show any concluding information on him being 1 guy or 5.

Okay so maybe the whitepaper and the Bitcoin protocol were created by a group of people but what I am asking now is: was the Satoshi account on this forum controlled by this group or was it a single writing account?
If I was to reply I'd say the satoshi account seems clearly controlled by a single person.

I guess that I haven't read that post, but it doesn't matter since you've made a fair point. I guess it is only rational to say that there's a possibility of this even though it is quite slim. I also agree with the second sentence.

Well, we've had a lot of candidates now, ring from Nick Szabo, Gavin, Peter Todd, to the "self-proclaimed" C.Wright. Maxwell is a decent candidate indeed.

I'd definitely like to see the results of those tests in the case that you do end up doing them. This could help your investigation.

If you're serious, unfortunately there's something wrong with your comprehension skills.

There's a well-known precedent for what you're describing: French mathematicians in the 1950's published a pure maths text under a single name, without any acknowledgement of the multiple authors in the book itself. Not for the same reason Satoshi hid his/her/their identity (they were worried that separate works would get ignored, as they were feeling outgunned by mathematicians of non-French nationality), but I can't help thinking that Satoshi may have been influenced by that group's MO.

At this point it is very clear the western world will execute anyone who can prove they are satoshi,  I doubt the east will be kind with them either.

Wow, very convincing article. I told everybody when craig 'came out' as being satosshi I was 95% sure, now, after reading that, 99% sure craig AKA midmagic is our Satoshi.

You ever considered that we jumping from one guy to the next, because it's not just a single person... but rather a group of people? Something as brilliant as Bitcoin, cannot just be the fruit of one persons mind.

We regularly have brainstorming sessions at work, and we usually come up with fairly good suggestions, when their is good interaction. I think this is the same thing... A group of guys met online and they had

the same interest and at one stage they got together and discussed this in person. They formulated the White Paper for this idea together, but it was written by one person to create confusion. I still believe that

Satoshi was just the leader of a group of people and not a single person.  

if it was a subconscious effect due to social interactions, then the regional variations would be consistent and would be visible in gregs 'chatter' too.

True.  Its just a fun topic to bounce around.  Clearly, no direct evidence here - just speculation (and this type is much safer than speculating on shitcoins).

No one knows who's satoshi. Because he/she can used a codename like satoshi. Satoshi is anonymous. So we cannot find or identify satoshi. But that's not a good idea to identify who make a coins in this computer the important of all. He create a coins that he can convert a real money. If satoshi is they identify or the took the police. Maybe bitcoir or satoshi is godn.

@Lauda - I empathize w/ Greg now.  Go through some of my recent posts here, I listed Greg as preferred Satoshi candidate of mine.

You [edit - I think I meant Franky here] are correct about not having linked writing styles conclusively - although I'm not sure even the best stylometry software can do that.  I haven't run the software yet b/c IRL duties; when I made the post last night, it was really late. I will also agree w/ you that my initial post is just a musing - I'm not betting Greg is Satoshi one way or another.  I just think it would make sense if he were and that it is plausible.

About explaining this past year - 2015 and 2016  have had the scaling debate front and center to the extent main stream news has covered it.  There have been intense debates.  I think if Greg were Satoshi, I'd have a lot to reflect on especially from 2015 and 2016.  Remember when Greg got called out for claiming credit for some of Satoshi's commits on Github?  Remember how Gavin came to the rescue to explain that away? Such blips from the recent past take on new meaning if Greg is Satoshi.  

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4550sl/greg_maxwell_unullc_given_your_valid_interest_in/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/
http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

via @Midmagic, these tweets are interesting if Greg is Satoshi (and midnightmagic):
https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/674514614772563968 (http://archive.is/R0R4j)
https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/76112785175617536 (http://archive.is/jsdlW)
https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/139822645301616640 (http://archive.is/TkuGg)
http://bitcoinvox.com/article/1041/satoshi-asked-wikileaks-to-avoid-bitcoin-in-2010
https://twitter.com/midmagic/status/22863783508 <--- One of the most interesting to me, tons of reading + Jstor dump maybe offers insight into how Satoshi found an obscure 1968 article on transit networks (http://archive.is/esGvo)


@Franky

If Satoshi was worried about being discovered from the beginning, its very possible he wrote in a way that would make author attribution analysis very difficult (i.e., mixing up spelling, punctuation, word choice).  Its not that hard to copy and paste american english text into a translator that converts it into Aussie or Brit english. You can even make the text take on a pirate dialect. argh. People also take on words used by their friends.  So, for example, if Greg were talking to a lot folks in the UK via ham radio, I could easily see him picking up British words:

http://www.interceptradio.com/ham.php?call=NT4TN
https://wdtn.co.uk/2014/09/14/nt4tn-launch-event/

Ham radios are very John Galt-ish, by the way.