The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Visionary and Genious - page 4.

Remember remember the 5th of November

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1011

Reverse engineer from time to time

Quote from: Sergio_Demian_Lerner on April 17, 2013, 03:30:17 PM

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 12:52:18 PM

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 12:45:00 PM

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

Why?

Because, at the lowest level, there is always conflict between those who create history and the historians who make an effort to document it.

I will make it simple. If I did not uncovered this data set yesterday, some else would have done it, surrounded by much worse descriptive words. What I did is not ingenious. Is the most evident method of data mining. The data was there at plain sight.

I put all my effort in my blog post to calm the market showing the truth: that Satoshi or whoever mined them had not used the coins to distort the market, and I succeed, since the BTC price increased afterwards.

Can you imagine how yellow journalism would have handled this information to discredit the coin ?

So please stop blaming me for having uncovered Satoshi or whoever fortune: it was already uncovered.

That's not the impression I got from the blog post, I thought you meant that satoshi DID spend money.

Also, Satoshi's coins may now be valued at 100 million USD, however if Bitcoin hits mainstream where 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000351(and this is very inaccurate example) is your salary, imagine what having a million bitcoins would mean. It would mean he would have money enough to buy a continent and he could control the world.

But by then, the majority of people will agree that at least 75% of Satoshi's coins have to be blocked from being valid in the chain.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 555

Merit: 654

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 12:52:18 PM

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 12:45:00 PM

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

Why?

Because, at the lowest level, there is always conflict between those who create history and the historians who make an effort to document it.

I will make it simple. If I did not uncovered this data set yesterday, some else would have done it, surrounded by much worse descriptive words. What I did is not ingenious. Is the most evident method of data mining. The data was there at plain sight.

I put all my effort in my blog post to calm the market showing the truth: that Satoshi or whoever mined them had not used the coins to distort the market, and I succeed, since the BTC price increased afterwards.

Can you imagine how yellow journalism would have handled this information to discredit the coin ?

So please stop blaming me for having uncovered Satoshi or whoever fortune: it was already uncovered.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

If you have bitcoins, you don't need much education or voting any more.

hobbes

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 107

So instead of a hand full of rich cypherpunks there is one filthy rich genius. Valued in dollar at current market price he owns about 0.15% of what Bill Gates owns.

What are the implications of this...

- There exists a single person that most likely has access to ~10% of all coins currently in existence.
- A single guy will potentially spend all those coins slower than several persons.
- Should it really be Satoshi he will be extra careful not to hurt his lifework.
- ?

And if the Bitcoin price should rise much further - I can only imagine what good for the world a genius could do with that kind of dough. What is next after freeing money - freeing education? Freeing voting?

spiccioli

legendary

Activity: 1379

Merit: 1003

nec sine labore

Quote from: deepceleron on April 17, 2013, 10:07:41 AM

There is one scenario where I think this makes sense: Satoshi created a special "network-supporting" miner. This special always-on miner with it's own code base may have never created permanent keys or had a wallet - in that NOTHING appears spent from it's mining.

Without an always-on miner for people to try out the currency and keep confirmations rolling (and another node for them to connect to), the money would just plain not work. This miner runs different code than the release others are running, evidenced by the identical slopes of everyone else. This may be the "x" IRC username connecting over Tor - it would listen for IP addresses to connect to but normal bitcoins couldn't get it's IP address from IRC.

It seems to me the best explanation so far.

He wrote a proof of concept, bitcoin gui 0.1.0, and then hacked it up to have something generating a block every ten minutes, and maybe throw away faster blocks, just to be able to have transactions happening.

This proof of concept received a lackluster acceptance and there is a quote of him saying that he chose a very low difficulty and he did so, IMHO, to make it easier to have a regular and evenly spaced flow of blocks which were required to give a good experience to those testing it.

Given it was a proof of concept the value of the generated coins was zero and so he could throw away blocks without caring for the minted coins.

spiccioli

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

BTC Books

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 12:45:00 PM

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

Why?

Because, at the lowest level, there is always conflict between those who create history and the historians who make an effort to document it.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: misterbigg on April 17, 2013, 11:55:05 AM

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

Why?

BTC Books

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: rpietila on April 17, 2013, 12:30:08 PM

- It is good if Satoshi's identity is revealed. Sorry for him, in case he wanted to stay anonymous. It was perhaps a coolness factor in 2012, but now we are talking about serious old school people who don't like surprises.
- It is good that the early coins belong to Satoshi, as it seems that they were not generated to be spent, even if it were technically possible.
- Even if the 1M coins were to be sold, it would not have any more lasting effect to the price than adjusting the price by 5-10% while keeping the marketcap. No killswitch lol. I own 5% of a certain company, nobody ever thought I would have a killswitch.

Of these three points of yours, we agree on one-and-a-half.

I disagree on Satoshi's identity - not only on ethical grounds, but on pure marketing grounds. You're heavily invested. I'm assuming you'd like the value to go up - which essentially means adoption must increase. Seriously: can you even buy that kind of marketing tool? "Shadowy cypherpunk creator, steeped in anonymity..." It's like the intro to the Lone Ranger, but for the 21st century.

Yes, it is good that the early coins belong to Satoshi. But I suspect he'll be spending them, by and by. And it is certainly technically possible for him to do so.

We are in point-to-point agreement on that last.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Quote from: theymos on April 17, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I don't know that the graph supposed to be convincing by itself. It just shows data in the blockchain, and red dots are coinbase transactions that have been spent, black dots are unspent generates. Any interpretation besides "there is one continuously-running strange-code miner with all-unspent coins" is up to you. In fact it's probably best if most people keep their interpretations to themselves.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Etlase2 on April 17, 2013, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 11:27:49 AM

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts. All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

Oh. And you're a fool if you believe that.

Entirely aside from the fact that I haven't expressed that, and certainly don't appreciate having words put in my mouth...

There are exactly two things that have happened during the rise of bitcoin that - together - have done more for the adoption of the currency than all the others (reddit, Wikileaks, OWS, WordPress, Seals With Clubs, and all the others - more and more; faster and faster). They are:

The disappearance of Satoshi and 'his' continuing anonymity, and

The purchase of two pizzas for 10k BTC.

Anyone who wants the currency to succeed understands that. You, of course - from what I'm able to glean from your postings - clearly want bitcoin to fail.

Okay, so let me offer a third viewpoint, which is different than either of yours:

Bitcoin's rise in 2013 can be attributed to people like me, who have the $$ to buy in the open market. Therefore my opinions matter, as they represent a large group of very high purchasing power which, when deployed, will raise Bitcoin to a next level. I think:

- It is good if Satoshi's identity is revealed. Sorry for him, in case he wanted to stay anonymous. It was perhaps a coolness factor in 2012, but now we are talking about serious old school people who don't like surprises.
- It is good that the early coins belong to Satoshi, as it seems that they were not generated to be spent, even if it were technically possible.
- Even if the 1M coins were to be sold, it would not have any more lasting effect to the price than adjusting the price by 5-10% while keeping the marketcap. No killswitch lol. I own 5% of a certain company, nobody ever thought I would have a killswitch.

Remember remember the 5th of November

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1011

Reverse engineer from time to time

How do these graphs help identify him?

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: theymos on April 17, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I hope that Satoshi does have a lot of bitcoins. He definitely deserves them, and it's better that he have them than someone else. He mined them fair and square -- this is not equivalent to premining.

I doubt that Satoshi threw those bitcoins away...

Quote from: satoshi on October 03, 2010, 03:54:07 PM

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.

I think by definition black dots are unspent and therefore difficult to be linked with Satoshi. The most interesting is the linkage of the red dots with Satoshi, and their statistical relationship with those black dots. Block 9 is sure, and I think there are possibly other known public transactions.

BTC Books

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: theymos on April 17, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I hope that Satoshi does have a lot of bitcoins. He definitely deserves them, and it's better that he have them than someone else. He mined them fair and square -- this is not equivalent to premining.

I doubt that Satoshi threw those bitcoins away...

Quote from: satoshi on October 03, 2010, 03:54:07 PM

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.

Indeed.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I hope that Satoshi does have a lot of bitcoins. He definitely deserves them, and it's better that he have them than someone else. He mined them fair and square -- this is not equivalent to premining.

I doubt that Satoshi threw those bitcoins away...

Quote from: satoshi on October 03, 2010, 03:54:07 PM

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Etlase2 on April 17, 2013, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 11:27:49 AM

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts. All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

Oh. And you're a fool if you believe that.

Entirely aside from the fact that I haven't expressed that, and certainly don't appreciate having words put in my mouth...

There are exactly two things that have happened during the rise of bitcoin that - together - have done more for the adoption of the currency than all the others (reddit, Wikileaks, OWS, WordPress, Seals With Clubs, and all the others - more and more; faster and faster). They are:

The disappearance of Satoshi and 'his' continuing anonymity, and

The purchase of two pizzas for 10k BTC.

Anyone who wants the currency to succeed understands that. You, of course - from what I'm able to glean from your postings - clearly want bitcoin to fail.

This analysis uses nothing but data in public domain. Won't you think CSI has already done the same analysis? Some serious, big investors may have done the same analysis too

BTC Books

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: Etlase2 on April 17, 2013, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 11:27:49 AM

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts. All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

Oh. And you're a fool if you believe that.

Entirely aside from the fact that I haven't expressed that, and certainly don't appreciate having words put in my mouth...

There are exactly two things that have happened during the rise of bitcoin that - together - have done more for the adoption of the currency than all the others (reddit, Wikileaks, OWS, WordPress, Seals With Clubs, and all the others - more and more; faster and faster). They are:

The disappearance of Satoshi and 'his' continuing anonymity, and

The purchase of two pizzas for 10k BTC.

Anyone who wants the currency to succeed understands that. You, of course - from what I'm able to glean from your postings - clearly want bitcoin to fail.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

I'm the one picking what I want to see? You are the deluded person who thinks that determining how much BTC satoshi controls is the same as revealing his identity and that is your pathetic reasoning for telling Sergio to do something useful. You are the one that believes protecting satoshi's identity is more important than informing people about the hidden dangerous of bitcoin. Gee I wonder why.

BTC Books

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: Etlase2 on April 17, 2013, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: BTC Books on April 17, 2013, 11:27:49 AM

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts. All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

There you are, picking and choosing what you want to see - again - and from sequential paragraphs in the same post, no less.

Quote

We've just seen what happens when a million or so gets dumped: it's annoying.

The coins could be publicly destroyed. So what?

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

Topic: The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Visionary and Genious - page 4. (Read 13362 times)