Topic: Why did Satoshi use GB British English and international English ? - page 5. (Read 1007 times)

Pulling the concepts together took a clever individual, but the basics were already there with hashcash.
Programming for a skilled person isn't so difficult. Here's a tutorial that you might be able to do at home: https://levelup.gitconnected.com/creating-a-blockchain-from-scratch-9a7b123e1f3e
 

For sleep schedule, it wasn't so inconsistent with any internet denizen. This is where his opsec failed.

The more that I read about Satoshi, the more I feel as though he/she was more than one individual.

My own problem with this presumption is that this relies on all of those individuals having perfect OPsec.

If it was one person, he likely had the most bizarre sleep schedule of all time. His posting hours were never consistent.

Opsec.

He was trying to throw people off his scent.

Satoshi was a pseudonym -- this person does not exist under this name. He used disposable emails. He paid for the domain with an anonymous registration agent. Presumably he only connected with tor.
He didn't want to be found, and he went to great lengths to ensure that.

So, 'z' versus 's' was a way to throw people off his scent.

The way to analyse this would be to graph is 's' versus 'z' over time. Did he use 'z' for the first half of his posts, or the last half? Are they consistently mixed at all times?
And no, I don't believe that Satoshi was a team of people. Single, clever individuals do great things all the time by finding combinations of old ideas into new.
Very few people in the world could keep a secret like this for so long if they were a team.

I've studied some of the 575 posts Satoshi made. Satoshi's used international English and GB British English so is Satoshi more than one person living in different countries? It's a mystery that's not going to be solved soon but here's some of Satoshi's words that I've picked up on

criticised/criticized
serialisation/serialization
optimised/optimized
optimisation/optimization

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28549
December 09, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
I came to agree with Gavin about whitelisting when I realized how quickly new transaction types can be added.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28228
December 08, 2010, 08:21:49 PM
I know I've been criticized for being reluctant about listtransactions.  Let me explain my reluctance


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7090
August 02, 2010, 08:22:08 PM
The reason I didn't use protocol buffers or boost serialization is because they looked too complex to make absolutely airtight and secure.  Their code is too large to read and be sure that there's no way to form an input that would do something unexpected.

I hate reinventing the wheel and only resorted to writing my own serialization routines reluctantly.  The serialization format we have is as dead simple and flat as possible.  There is no extra freedom in the way the input stream is formed.  At each point, the next field in the data structure is expected.  The only choices given are those that the receiver is expecting.  There is versioning so upgrades are possible.

CAddress is about the only object with significant reserved space in it.  (about 7 bytes for flags and 12 bytes for possible future IPv6 expansion)

The larger things we have like blocks and transactions can't be optimized much more for size.  The bulk of their data is hashes and keys and signatures, which are uncompressible.  The serialization overhead is very small, usually 1 byte for size fields.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28302
December 08, 2010, 11:19:24 PM
Changes:
- Fixed a wallet.dat compatibility problem if you downgraded from 0.3.17 and then upgraded again
- IsStandard() check to only include known transaction types in blocks
- Jgarzik's optimisation to speed up the initial block download a little


Do you believe Satoshi was a pseudonym used by more than one person that's why there's differences in written English ?