Topic: Who was Satoshi Nakamoto? - page 2. (Read 1062 times)

Nobody really knows if satoshi really planned on beign anonymous from the start or even had thoughts that bitcoin would he this big today, its hard to tell if he was just some secondary school nerd with a brilliant idea and some obsession or if he is a more advanced person with some status.

I'm not convinced that he was nick szabo and decided to use NS as a basis for his new anonymous name, like if it was planned he would have better left no trace of his original name or even use the first letters for the new name, he was smart for sure, so if he wanted to disappear he woudl leave no trace especially not one that would be easy to decode with a hint.
But there is every possibility that he didn't have total anonymousity in mind and must have had a few friends that knew him or probably wasn't planning to disappear from the start.



Quite long and I don't think anyone would be going through such stress to make it up unless just to point fingers elsewhere, and it's also possible that he wasn't even chatting with the real satoshi or maybe it was someone he had disclosed the idea to earlier, and I think this project might also have had some kind of sponsors.

The truth is when it comes to the mystery of who satoshi was there are so many possibilities of persons it might be and we might have even guess right before or his person has not just even surfaced to anyone.

I think it is the greatest secret of this century. Maybe they will make movies after discovering his identity. Why doesn’t he reveal his identity and shock the world? He will have status and respect from the whole world. I love him very much for his special discovery, but I would prefer him to contact me personally to ask him for some Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin was created by Nick alone, then we would all know about it, Nick would make sure of that.
There would be no Satoshi, the author would be Nick Szabo.
However Nick is not Satoshi, but he certainly knows who is, or was, behind the creation of Bitcoin.

I guess I can see some sense in that reasoning.  Kinda like making the 'signal to noise' ratio worse by having a greater variety of noise-makers.  Most of the people who openly speculate about it are probably miles off and just throw others further off the true scent of the trail.  

---

Then all I can say is that people in this topic have a very strange definition of the word "interesting".   

I'd call it "inane".

The theory that this person came up with is very interesting especially the initials of S and N which as you can see it is the same with sstoshi Nakamoto. I don't know what that person will say or reply if we ask that person to prove his theory that Nick is really Satoshi Nakamoto. It is also doesn't make sense if Bitcoin is created for the purpose of having anonymity then leaving initials defeats the purpose so I don't think that nick is Satoshi himself. If Nick can access the email that is used in correspondence with siriud then i'll believe that it's him.

I think that after so many years, and a topic that has been discussed countless times, this should be an introspective question, rather than looking for literal answers, the answer to that question is; yourself.

We are not getting closer to discover the real name behind Satoshi, nor do we know anything about why Satoshi chose that name. Even though quite clearly nobody will be able to answer the question the thread has been created to ask (Who was Satoshi Nakamoto?), it has been an experience reading some of the replies and the theories  

I will stand by my previous opinion, we do not know how many people were involved in creating Bitcoin and were behind the Satoshi name.

For the vast majority of 'Satoshi seekers' their hunt for Satoshi has failed before it starts.  An amateur researcher's biggest Achilles heel is themselves, their own preconceptions, bias and assumptions. A good example is the fact almost everyone goes on the hunt for Satoshi, the person that created Bitcoin, a single person. Not Satoshi the university project or Satoshi a group of Cypherpunks or Satoshi a father and son project.  The assumption Satoshi is one person is grave mistake.

If Satoshi is more than one, lets say 2, and they alternate posting to forums and/or edit the others posts before sending then no traditional linguistic study is going to work. The assumption that Satoshi changes from American English to Commonwealth English to muddy the waters on purpose is just that, an assumption. OPSEC: Satoshi used TOR and anon email services as the primary source of obscuring their/his/her identity. Saying very little about themselves was the secondary method.

On two occasion's 'Satoshi' made particular mention of their/his/her abilities with writing, saying they were better at coding than writing. This could be a bone thrown in the opposite direction, or the truth. Satoshi also mentioned working. Those are just two of only a few instances where 'Satoshi' made a comment that was of a personal nature.

"Satoshi' didn't want to be found, and still does not want to be found.

"Be careful what you wish for.".as the popular saying goes, because it may not be the Satoshi we want.. some think its Nick Szabo, Len, or Hal or all three.
If it did turn out to be one of those guys then I'm sure Bitcoin would get a small boost. But what if 'Satoshi' is someone that is perverted, or just a nasty piece of work, or someone like Craig Wright.. a delusional, a-hole. Fortunately one thing we can relax about is Satoshi is NOT Craig Wright. But you see what I mean, we may not get the Satoshi we want.

Bitcoin works best when we don't know who Satoshi is. We can go on the hunt to satisfy our own curiosity, but trust me, your time is best spent doing something else, Satoshi has made sure the search is almost impossible. Also, just imagine if you did discover who 'Satoshi' is and you blabbered it all over the internet, and it wasn't the good Satoshi everyone was hoping for, do you really wanna be 'that guy' that crashed Bitcoin.. you'd be on the run for the rest of your life. Perhaps that's a little over dramatic

Satoshi is anon for a bloody good reason and Satoshi needs to remain anon. Lets just focus on who is NOT Satoshi so we can rid the crypto community of those a-hole scammers.
Rant off.

I agree with both of you, but on the other hand, wouldn't it be more harmful to leave this "identity discovery" to malicious people alone? Satoshi's posts are open for public scrutiny. It is already apparent by now that there is a host variety of theories and evidence, such that nobody can be certain about a particular individual. I don't think that would be possible if simply curious people weren't involved in this.

I like thinking it as cryptographic security, wherein well-intentioned people attempt to break it, to ensure it is unbreakable. Not sure it is a good analogy, though.

Ignore this bozo, this is NOT James Donald (1st hand knowledge)

Satoshi Nakamoto was most likely the physicist and defender of human rights: Valery Chalidze (1938-2018)

Powerful clues: his 2000 book --> Entropy Demystified: Potential Order, Life and Money // especially chapter 11.

The book is no longer available in paper format, but is available on waybackmachine as a pdf. I don't know if I can put the link here so search for "Valery Chalidze twitter", you'll find on X a compilation of his work and the link to the book.

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a computer scientist by trade in my opinion but a physicist, like Isaac Newton. I invite you to watch Jack Miller's latest video, which corroborates this thesis.

Why don't you people organize a faketoshi conference and invite all those who could be good candidates, maybe 20 or 30 or 40 people could be invited to contest in the conference against Craig Wright. Whoever will be able to produce extraordinary evidence can be proclaimed as Satoshi.  Until the  real Satoshi comes forward. This type of conference can be arranged and it will be a good fun holiday for Satoshi candidates as well as for all other participants.  There must be an expert panel of judges who will examine each candidate and in the final round one person will be crowned as Satoshi for that year as like the Miss World beauty festival.

I don't mind donating some bitcoin and participating as an execrator.  Suppose, any credible Bitcoin Leader in the forum can be trusted to create a BTC address and every candidate has put numbers of coins who are claiming to be Satoshi or other people can bet on their chosen candidate, Who will the Satoshi Contest will get the Jackpot and share with his supporters.

I can assist to create the Satoshi Contest Project  every year but you people, a number of you must take responsibility to manage the events. If the real Satoshi decides to reveal his identity then he will produce his cryptographic plus other convincing  evidence. Well the real inventor will be able to pay out the full bumper  festival of Satoshi Contest and can also award a few credible developers from genesis block, may 20 BTC first prize, 10 BTC second prize 6 BTC third prize and numbers 1 BTC prize for developers.

 Hey, Bitcoinners, Let's gather together 36 Satoshi candidates in London High Court by 14 March March 2024 and we all can claim to be Satoshi.  If you really like my advise and really come forward then I will attend to the court with you all and give a surprise visit to Craig and the COPA members in the Court. I will choose the best 3 candidates out of all 36 and provide  them with a little evidence to claim and it will be good fun.

Every one must bring a Satoshi Mask to wear, so no body will know anybody for privacy if you prefer that.

Four pages in and still nothing I haven't read a dozen times before.  Lame thread is lame.  Even the newbie account with the fantastical story.  It's been done. 

ebliever's is the best contribution so far:


If people can't respect satoshi's wishes, at least come up with something interesting in terms of potential candidates.   

It's true, and I didn't understand why these folks couldn't respect others' privacy—can we simply go with the flow? It is crucial that we recognize that Satoshi made a conscious decision to remain anonymous. Instead of concentrating on the individual who created bitcoin, why don't we concentrate on the significance of Satoshi's creation, the bitcoin, and the influence it has had on our lives? Concerning those claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, perhaps they don't think their safety matters and that they can hurt their family since they are aware of the powerful reputation that Satoshi has or because it may draw in bad people. They are making these kinds of statements without providing enough evidence, which can be misleading and damaging to the credibility of the bitcoin community.

If the admin or co-admin had contact with Satoshi in the past, I don’t think that is enough for them to reveal what is true identity looks like. He might have never disclosed his real identity to them since he always wanted to remain anonymous. Just like the way he had contacts with all those bitcoin OG’s in the past without most of them or any of them ascertaining that they know his real identity, I think such is also to admin and co-admin of the forum whom he had most probably contacted when he was still very much active in this forum. The fact that his true identity is not known and his project keeps evolving makes it more exciting and curiosity centered on who this genius is actually.


Not everyone will respect him by allowing him to remain anonymous forever. Knowing who the true Satoshi is will be one of the most joyous moments for some people especially the bitcoin enthusiasts. He can chose to remain anonymous forever but for wanting to be that will be what some people will use to even want to  unravel who he is actually. You can’t get everyone on the same page or agree to one thing. Let those who wants to know him continue the search, but for those that chose to respect him, let them be also. Nothing is unintentional, there must be a purpose and I hope if they get to achieve that purpose it doesn’t put him or bitcoin in danger. If it will put any of the aforementioned in danger, it is better he never gets found or known.

Some people are just so determined to find out who Satoshi is that they leave all their work and keep researching this matter. I mean, leave the man alone for god's sake. If he wanted to be known for what he did, he would never hide his identity in the first place, and if he did that, he must have done it for some reason and we should respect that. What's wrong with him staying anonymous? He gave us Bitcoin, that's enough for us.
On the other hand, some people are so desperate to prove that they are Satoshi Nakamoto such as Craig Steven Wright despite the fact that it could be a threat for them, all they most probably care about is gaining fame with Satoshi's name.

In an attempt to determine Satoshi Nakamoto's true identity, there are several speculations, and individuals are collecting information and connecting the dots. Come on, people—don't you get tired of doing this? I mean, Satoshi would be happy to disclose himself if he so desired. Perhaps, though, we ought to just respect his right to silence and be grateful that he founded this wonderful community. Everybody may be Satoshi, after all, and they can create stories on their own to become well-known or for other purposes. Perhaps Satoshi only desired to stay anonymous in order to protect himself and avoid social pressures. But in all honesty, I'm sick of reading speculative articles on who Satoshi Nakamoto really is.

You posted long story with a newb account and didn't bother to offer any proof that you are in fact the James A Donald. Why is that?

Op, i am not sure why you didn't include link into that reddit thread, as this wasn't really convincing argument by itself.

Len Sassaman, might as well been Satoshi as his suicide seems fitting the timeline, but if there's not more evidence supporting it, so i think ThatInternetGuy is jumping to conclusions here. Also Nick Szabo & initials seems pretty cringe to me. Why the hell would Satoshi, a cryptographic enthusiast, would leave clue that could be from detective novel made for children.

But i've seen more convicing theories, like this one. That's not a perfect theory either, and i would prefer that satoshi wouldn't be around.

I think it goes with the territory. If someone creates something that ends up being used by millions of people around the world and it disrupts the age old financial, investment and banking sector in a way like never before then it is normal for people to want to know who was behind the project.

To what extent Satoshi wanted privacy is not known, nor why the name Satoshi Nakamoto was chosen nor how many people were involved in creating Bitcoin. Maybe the name was deliberately chosen for reasons we do not know yet.

I used to participate in threads like this one with my own opinion and arguments of who is really Satoshi. I don't anymore, and would urge others to consider doing likewise. My concern is that it brings real-world risk on the heads of those people who, rightly or wrongly, are nominated as possible "Satoshis." We don't need some deranged (or non-deranged) criminal kidnapping and torturing any of the possible Satoshis to try to get his private keys, or the widows of those nominees who are deceased.

Satoshi obviously wanted privacy, and we have good reasons for respecting that. It would not be good for bitcoin if he were outed against his will, or worse yet if something was done to him and it made the headlines.