Topic: Some hard truth about Satoshi's identity - page 3. (Read 2526 times)

great idea of locating what is his nationality, but i wouldnt count 4 words on his 575 post as a hard proof of his nationality, but i think youre on to something here.
great work.

In my opinion, Satoshi is not just a person, it is a team of person partnered together privately without others knowing. The bitcoin maybe also owned by the partners but every one of the partners own a part private keys only. Even if you found one of the partners, you will unable to open the wallet. The reason Satoshi is still anonymous is because we do not have about information about it. Is it just a person, or a group, or even an AI surpassed the technology at that time created the bitcoin(although it is absurd.)

Well, that does it!  We need to call in an expert to find out where this guy is from.  Will somebody get Noam Chomsky on the line please.  We have questions that need answers....LOL

I don't know if an analysis of spelling on browser based forums could accurately reach a conclusion in this matter due to that little red line that changes UK spellings to US spellings in the browsers.  We could, however, probably pin point a geographical origin thru linguistics....as opposed to spelling.

Satoshi may be the mastermind behind bitcoin but even then thats not to say that his spelling might be poor. Its a good idea looking into spelling as clues but even people i know from the uk get confused with spelling and use us versions over uk ones . Probably not conclusive proof.

That's some real detective stuff. However do note that Satoshi is intelligent. And he could pleace fake clues so people can believe that and that

What if Satoshi was from he UK but used American-English vocabulary to decieve the Internet detectives?

I don't know if i really want to know who satoshi is.
He wants to stay anonymous and ta is clear for me.
I only hope his baby will continue to grow.
Speculations about his identity can be dangerous, especially about his stash..

Great question. It's good to see some logical analysis of these results. I did consider lots of various possibilities, and other countries but UK and US has always been the main contenders. So, it seemed much more probable that someone who uses US grammar throught most of his work, if not all, would have been from somewhere within North America.

Great job. So you were tryna localise where the bloke was from based on his writing habits, found 4 grammatically localised spellings out of hundreds of posts and you jumped to a conclusion. That's ace.

Protip for next time: I'm not Australian, mate.

 We was so proud that Satoshi was probably from the UK. But it seems not.

The hard truth is that Satoshi is "North American, " if that's still in question.

We took some time to analyse, simple grammatical structures used, in his various 575 variants of informal posts. Here what we found.

'"-disablesafemode",' - post 1. English (UK) version - "-disablesafemode, "

"realized" - post 15. English (UK) version - "realised"

"criticized" - post 20. English (UK) version - "criticised"

"minimized" - post 525. English (UK) version - "minimised"

I'm certain we could use this same trick to triangulate his location, but, that task is for someone else to accomplish - if at all necessary.

Edit...


From bitcoin.pdf at bitcoin. org

"realizes" — English (UK) version — "realises"

"characterized"— English (UK) version — "characterised"

'"tape",' — English (UK) version — "tape,"

"we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed" - use of we (group of people)

"we propose begins with a timestamp server" - use of we (group of people)

"we will need to use a proof-of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6]," - use of we (group of people)

"we don't care about later attempts to double-spend" - use of we (group of people)

"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures." - use of we (group of people)

We did not find any evidence of the letter I; The final references on the white paper suggests someone else "we, " was involved in the research and documentation of this paper — at least someone that seems to be from UK.