Topic: Why did Satoshi use GB British English and international English ? (Read 1050 times)

I'm bumping for discussions as response to Is Satoshi a Russian?

If Satoshi's a team there isn't any style from their posts showing they're from Asia. Satoshi's used GB British English and international English in posts I didn't find any Asian words.

There may be some stigma from people from Asia, but I can only say for sure Satosi is from Asia, or of Asian descent.
and it's definitely a group of people, or anyone could be a Satoshi
There must have been a time when Satoshi wanted to show up to thank everyone and then disappear, but didn't receive recognition
I think so

Last month Dave Kleiman's estate sued Craig Wright. We know Craig isn't Satoshi but I'm curious did Satoshi ever type uniquely Australian words? I didn't find them in Satoshi's posts.

He did not hoard these coins. He had to mine them to let the network run. Without mining these, we wouldn't have Bitcoin today. If more people connected to the network and made the hashrate up, we wouldn't have these coins. How can we know this? He marked these coins so that we can separate them and analyze them.
https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/chain-archaeology-answers-from-the-early-blockchain-507458

That does not mean, that Satoshi isn't owning other coins than these marked.

If it's the case why did Satoshi hoard over 1 million bitcoin? Those were mined before 2011.

Thanks. When I made the thread I didn't show every GB British English and international English because it would've taken a long time.

What you're saying is correct it's better keeping open minds. Limiting ourselves to stubborn thinking's wrong because Satoshi could've been a pseudonym for one person or a team.

Asian?
9 UTC is the minimum, which would be 2 am in say Arizona.

Nearly every human is asleep at 2am when averaged over a long period of time.
This type of sleep fingerprint locates internet users within a few timezones.
The sleep schedule would place him between Pacific and Midwest America.

This is very interesting. Given the times, it is certainly someone or perhaps an Asian group. I would exclude that the creator is American otherwise they would have called him in a more pompous way, like Ramboshi or terminoshi. For the opposite reasons I would say that he cannot be Russian otherwise they would have called him sputnik or something like that. Another important indication on the group that created btc comes from those who own more of them, that is Binance. Clearly, these are all assumptions

All this speculation reminds me of the good old times in school when you had literature lessons and were analyzing poems. The poets who had world class reputation could actually write down whatever they wanted and the whole world started to come up with interpretations as to what the poet probably means with a certain verse.
I was always thinking that the poet might definitely be awesome, but he can't have had as many thoughts as the 100,000 pupils analyzing and interpreting his poem.

We see something similar here: the different English version - intention! Satoshi is smart! This this and that - intention! Because Satoshi is fucking smart. We may overthink it here and there while we might fail to see the truth at other places. Whatever he did or did not intend, he definitely succeeded in setting free an unbelievable and most likely unsolvable mystery. That is hard enough to pull off, seriously.

Not only the ExtraNonce. One can say he marked these mined coins intentionally.
https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi/

Agree on this one which it could really be intentional and as you do mention where he would really be doing all sorts of things that would really be just continuing to hide of himself to the public.

This isnt only talking about on being a popular but also talking about security because as a creator of a decentralized thing then for sure there would be lots of things will really be threatening your life.

Its just normal that he would really be mindful on leaving no trace nor patterns nor hints that would really be revealing himself. This man wont really be that making easy for him to be traced.

IMO, Satoshi is a person. Yes, he can't do it all by himself but this Bitcoin, it was throttled by one person. I understand that the different English is suspicious. But based on the kind of person I am, it isn't a point. I actually write both British and American. Which ever that comes into my head. Having read my writing sometimes, I cannot fully agree to use it as a point that Satoshi was more than one person. Just my opinion.

Satoshi Nakamoto's password was "freedom".

The people surrounding stood up and cheered, tossing coins in our direction.

I was there? Remember?  I was the fat balding guy in the back with the long moustache. I was eating noodles and rice at the time, while solving Goldbach's conjecture.

Oh, nevermind. What I said here can't be correct.

I lost the plot of this post.

Craig came to the village where Satoshi Nakamoto was, but did not find the house number stated in the message. He was going crazy in order to get those bitcoins. He scolded Satoshi Nakamoto frantically and desperately asked what the password was. What password did Satoshi Nakamoto say? What password?

Dave said to Satoshi Nakamoto, you never know how much we paid for you, including Thames. Satoshi Nakamoto said you don't tell anyone my information, and neither can your family members. And Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't even know whether the private key is 64 words or 52 words. Also asked Dave if you gave me 8 words less.

Yes it is that important, we know that his identity and whether bitcoin was made by a group of people will not change what bitcoin is and what it will become but we are talking about a technology that will change the world and we have no idea who created it, now this is not that weird as we do not have an idea of who developed the wheel the first time, but that was thousands of years ago and the fact that we are not going to know this on the XXI century is incredible and the identity of satoshi will most likely become one of the greatest mysteries of this century.

Thanks Kaggie for that post! I really appreciate you taking the time to answer that comprehensively!

Everything you said is valid. This story is just crazy. One thing I really don't believe is that he lost the methods to retrieve the coins. That's just unconceivable for me. That's like a Formula 1 racer not noticing he forgot the steering wheel. That's just 99.9999% unlikely. Someone who is able to put the code for Bitcoin together doesn't lose the keys to the biggest wallet out there.

All the other scenarios could be true. I didn't know there have been exchanges before Mt. Gox, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he had a finger in the pie with any of the marketplaces before Mt. Gox. Yes he wouldn't have set up a company or anything like that, but it just is hard to believe that he did nothing but publish the code and disappear. If he really did that, he has my deepest respect, deeper than the respect he already has from me. Imagine how much control you have to have over yourself not to get sloppy and make mistakes or fall victim to your own greed when your BTC hit $60 billion...

Absolutely insane story, definitely one that we will only have once in a lifetime and definitely one that we are soon going to see in cinemas around the world.

Maybe you discovered that Satoshi Nakamoto are two people who programmed and started Bitcoin.

We all learn. There are plenty of mysteries in blockchain that are yet to be discovered, no doubt, especially if you consider that even the hashes of the word 'hello' and the names of linux system files have revealed coin.

It is the greatest unsolved mystery of our day.

And truth be told, we may never have the answer to it.

An overwritten drive would leave no forensic evidence if his goal were to remain hidden.

Yes, makes a lot of sense what you and Frankie are saying, just learning over here. Isn't it then quite likely that Satoshi bought a ton of Bitcoin on Mt. Got (founded in 2010), anticipating that he would once prefer to not move those first mined coins? Or is it even possible that he somehow, don't ask me how, but somehow was involved with Mt. Gox?

I just can't get my head around the fact that those BTC are sitting idle and Satoshi feels no urge to move them. He must have benefitted from this, whoever he or she is or they are.

No one knows the reality and it's still a myth that the person called "Satoshi Nakamoto" is real, Japanese, etc. until now, all those stories are spreading on the internet but the reality is still hidden.

Negligent?

You're looking at it from 2021 eyes, not from 2009 eyes where bitcoin was practically valueless.

Until those addresses become available or identities proven, if ever, ascribing morality to why those are locked away is
impossible and not respective of what the individual(s) may have believed.

I like what you've said but I think Satoshi was a group. You're correct in 2009 bitcoin didn't have value but they still could've shared private keys. Sooner or later 1 million of 21 million bitcoin's got to have some effect. It's negligent if the team didn't find ways to move the bitcoin years after Satoshi's absence.

For a person/s who went to great lengths to maintain its identity unknown, using different types of English grammar as well as posting during different times without a particular pattern for all we know could all be intention.

For sure, Satoshi has planned this very carefully and meticulously so any of this would be irrelevant to work out. Satoshi did come up with a novel idea, so having his/their identity exposed could be a life threatening so absolutely he/they will go to extreme lengths to keep it all under wraps.

I agree with this, the stronger evidence that satoshi was not a group of people is that we have not found a single person that can say and prove they were part of team satoshi, keeping a secret especially one that includes the creation of a form of money that could potentially change the world is simply impossible so this fact alone should point out that satoshi was a single person, also Occam’s Razor indicates this is the most likely possibility, and about the different spellings of the words, this could be something as simple as satoshi using several computers to connect to the forum and some had a British English dictionary while the others had an international one.

The main point is that multiple party ownership made no sense since bitcoin wasn't valuable enough. You didn't have multi-million dollar fortunes invested into bitcoin in its first two years. There was no need for mult-sig yet.

On that method of breaking up a seed, the point is more that doing ownership for multiple parties was nothing new. Splitting ownership was completely possible using easy and more advanced methods, even if such methods were not integrated into bitcoin software. It was just unnecessary.

This is one that was missed by the OP. The GB spelling is FAVOUR and the American version is FAVOR

It might be worth considering that Satoshi wasn't American or British, but something in-between e.g. Canadian?!



https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8922

How would it work and who would be the person that breaks the key into two halves, unless you are talking about some software that could do it? If I break the private key into two and give you one half and keep the other for myself, how can you be sure I didn't keep your part as well. Introducing a third person to do if for us can bring additional problems. Now we have another subject who knows the key or could give me or you absolute control if he wanted to.

While multisig was not a thing, a clever enough person could come up with a multi-sig like method at any point. Breaking a bitcoin key into two halves was always possible -- although not quite the same.

But as frankie says, it was unnecessary.

If you had someone who you thought you should multisig with, you might as well convince them to get into bitcoin or send them coin.

The value of bitcoin was low enough that there was no reason to set up multisigs. Much like mining pools that did not exist yet.

Bitcoin's value had to start some place, which required proving both long term storability and current utility.

This 2011 post shows the mindset:

back then privkeys, had no value.
they were not important.
satoshi;s philosophy was if people lost their keys it made the coins left in circulation more scarce

he showed no desire, excitement or effort in hoarding. no mention of wanting/needing to accumulate. he preferred sharing coins for others to use for bug testing

as did others back then. making faucets to give coins away

hoarding/accumulating coin mindsets only begun in 2011

It's right that multisigs weren't a thing for Bitcoin in 2009-2010 within the Bitcoin protocol itself, but aren't there ways to set up multisig keys outside of the network such that you could still have the same effect? Or at least an effect that is similar? I know that alternatives would be prone to all kinds of attacks by those setting it up anyway, but isn't there a way they could have managed it somehow?

multisiig was not a thing in 2009-2010
there were no 'group' keys

secondly. satoshi was a single person with a single username
he talked and interacted and got help from other people. but they had their own names
like Hal. like Sirius
hal and sirius did not work physically in same room, building, neighbourhood as satoshi. they interacted over the internet
they were independant of each other not thinking of themselves as a 'group'


sats and btc had no value in 2009-2010 there was no reason to share keys. the mindset back then was not save for retirement. the keys had no value and of no importance.

also sharing keys then defeats the whole security model of bitcoin. the idea is to move value by spending value on bitcoin not handing the private keys to people

EG first transaction to hal. was done onchain by spending 10btc. not by giving hal a private key and then him moving them at his leisure

You didn't explain how would they've done it differently to account for deaths on Satoshi's team. Why haven't those bitcoin's belonging to Satoshi moved?

I don't believe in this scenario. Again, someone who can build such a protocol is smart enough to know that people can die, even that they will die eventually, the question is only when. If they were a team of say four, they would never share the keys in a way that is a 4 out of 4 set up to get access to the coins. They would have done it differently such that a possible death of a member is accounted for.

If the bitcoin haven't moved from Satoshi's wallet there's a possibility the group behind Satoshi shared parts of private keys between them. What' going to happen if the group needed each other but one member died without a will it's possible the group doesn't have access to the keys. If Satoshi was a lone genius who's died his keys might've gone with him.

Maybe the bitcoin didn't move from Satoshi's wallets for different reasons we don't know the reason.

But someone here brought up the argument that it's incredibly difficult to keep quiet for a whole team. It usually doesn't work out for very long unless they were a really small team. Then the question remains which group of people would be able to resist moving a million BTC. Perhaps they are running all kinds of crypto related businesses, don't know, maybe some exchanges and they really don't need to sell any. One million BTC, which were around $60 billion. Congratulations to whoever it is who doesn't need to touch a single coin

You're convinced it's OPSEC. There's a theory Satoshi might've used it so it can't be dismissed but I don't follow it. I think Satoshi was a pseudonym for a team of geniuses who's used international English and GB British English because they lived in different countries.

Satoshi's whitepaper referenced work by other people, Satoshi didn't write it alone. I can't see Bitcoin being a government back project headed by a mysterious Satoshi. Who could've known the impact Bitcoin would have ?

The bitcoin Satoshi mined might move one day. If it happens it's going to bring new theories about who Satoshi is.

Seriously switched on.

Yeah, all of these are indicators which over time you can collect, and build a profile of the person, and take a educated guess rather than anything concrete. So, while Franky might have been a little too quick to jump to the conclusion, those sayings are very typical of a British person, where as splendid I don't hear very often. Anyway, the indicator can also be inaccurate as it could tell us Satoshi has been infulenced by British culture, not necessarily where they were or currently based. I know Americans, and other nationalities use phrases from different countries just because they are friends or associate with international people.

Well of course, it's most certainly very difficult to prove, and therefore would forever remain inconclusive. We have had issues in the past with people claiming to be Satoshi, and I believe Satoshi's email address was even compromised, so it indicates that Satoshi may have not had the best security practices in place for certain things. Which is nothing new, I know of security professionals which are very good at their job, but neglect things close to home, and its usually because of the same pit falls other people fall for. Ease of use, and complacency.

What you're saying is another possibility. There's many possibilities. If Satoshi worked alone throwing false clues to confuse us the plan's been successful because we're discussing it 10 years after Satoshi disappeared. Right now I can't accept Satoshi was a lone genius who's compiled work from others to create bitcoin.

It's fascinating reading theories. If Satoshi was a team it must've been headed by Hal Finney with Adam Back and Nick Szabo involved. Other people could've contributed towards the team behind Satoshi. If there was a team behind Satoshi the GB British English would've been provided by Adam Back.

satoshi was one man..
but he took idea's from different elements of the cypherpunks group. and he had people like theymos and hal debug code in the early months.
they all used their own pseudonyms

as for the language. i dont see any purposeful internationalising words. i would just say his spell checker showed the annoying red underline. where the spellcheck changed it to international when he was bothered to right click and take its suggestion

apart from that all signs of buzzwords time format and phrases point to british based language
but a hint of their language does not give any evidence of their physical location.(you know planes can take people anywhere these days)

What if Satoshi purposely wrote varied English styles to make people think that he isn't one person?
So what you're thinking about him right now, is exactly what Satoshi expected.
If you are referring satoshi account in this forum, I assume it is operated by a single person. Why? Can many people together use 1 account for a serious thing like this forum? I am not sure if many people are possible to trust each other for this matter. There should be one leader in a community forum and the leader won't share his private thing like using a forum account together, even with his friends. It probably risks him.

This was Satoshi's penultimate post. What you've said about being in fear of getting betrayed is serious because Satoshi's disappearance coincided when bitcoin was being used to send donations to Wikileaks. It was when the US went on the offensive against Wikileaks. It's possible in the end Satoshi couldn't risk being sold out by people so went underground fearing it's something that's going to happen one day.

I am convinced that all these theories will remain just theories and nothing more, in 10 years or 50 years, nothing will change in that regard. The truth that many are looking for will only be found out if Satoshi shows up and unequivocally proves that it is him or them, but even then there can be a suspicion that someone just managed to gain possession of his private data.

Over the years, I've read dozens, if not hundreds, of such threads, and learned nothing new - but I've recently had a chance to read about the relationship between Satoshi and the people who worked with him, and it's much clearer now why he disappeared - in case he did not do so it would only be a matter of time before some of these Judas would betray him.

There is a big difference between the United States and England when it comes to writing and spelling. The differences aren't as obvious when you consider the other Commonwealth nations such as Canada, New Zealand, or Australia. They use British English there as well. You also have Ireland and Scotland to consider. 

Well, this is very interesting to discuss because I personally believe that Satoshi is a group of anonymous people, not one anonymous person...

I still remember very well someone once said that 'it is not difficult to detect the presence of one person but when there are many it will be very difficult'. satoshi is a group or individual, I still admire him and really grateful for making the world a better place.

What if it's a government led project. I agree with you that hardly any team would be able to keep such a secret to themselves forever unless it is a government operation. I think it is at least a possibility that can't easily be ruled out. If it was a one man show, what do you think how long it took that person to write the whole code?

From today's perspective it might look easier than it actually was to pull the whole thing off successfully. I mean sure the ingredients were there but when you first sit down and try to make the right decisions and combinations to come up with something of Bitcoin's calibre, that is still extremely impressive.

Also the question whether Satoshi is dead or not, who would be able to refrain from touching a million BTC? Could a single individual resist? I don't know. A government could I guess.

I have read a lot about this and done a lot of digging around to try and see whom I think Satoshi is or was.  I think there are two trains of thought, either Satoshi did a lot of things on purpose to throw people off, or there were a couple individuals who made up Satoshi.  I know Satoshi once used the term "bloody" as in like "bloody hell".  As an American I can tell you we never use that term here. So it makes you wonder.  Personally I think that it was a combo of cypherpunks such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo.

I'm with the theory Satoshi was a team. I'm aware the false clues and dead ends theory is possible because words containing international English and GB British English "s" and "z" could've been put out there deliberately. What Hal said about Satoshi was high level complimentary but imagine how much respect Satoshi would've had for Hal. We'll never know.

Surprisingly, if you really find out who Satoshi is, then this could clarify a number of important questions, but as I noticed, for some reason this question is not particularly asked, why? I believe that the use of English in writing your messages says a lot, for example, that Satoshi is a person or a group of people from the United States or England, and if so, then this tells us a lot. But unfortunately all these are just our guesses and at the moment we cannot know 100% how everything really is. But I still hope that in the near future there will be more information about who Satoshi is, where he is from and why the blockchain and cryptocurrencies were developed.

Whether it’s about him, her, or them it’s completely irrelevant, and given that it’s someone above-average intelligent, I believe nothing was done by accident, and that someone wanted to create a lot of false clues and dead ends. The fact that people have been trying to achieve something with their analyzes for 10 years without moving from the deadlock clearly indicates that Satoshi succeeded in his intention to remain anonymous.

Instead of chasing ghosts, it is enough for me to read what Hal wrote about Satoshi - and yet he is a man who was very close to him to be able to evaluate some things.

I agree with you that no team can keep a secret for so long. A team will always have disputes, and when there are disputes, there will be mistakes.

I didn't know about your thread. That's a good one I like the way you cleanly placed comments you've collected from Satoshi to show examples. In Satoshi's posts "s" and "z" exist so questioning why international English and GB British English was used is right.

He might also be they because Satoshi could be a pseudonym for a team which collaborated in different countries. We just don't know.

It is quite difficult to make any good assumptions based solely on the type of English he decided to use since there can be many variables present. Just thinking about the dozens of reasons available as to why he did this or if he or they really were doing this on purpose, makes my head blow steam. Either way, it is a good thing since it misled everyone(maybe) and only made it harder to find the person(s) behind the name satoshi. Or maybe there are people who already know but chooses not to talk about it because they respect the wishes of the person(s) behind the name satoshi to not be found and stay hidden or maybe they are just being ridiculed and do not want to be ridiculed even further who knows? Truth of the matter is that I honestly don't know and can only speculate like most of the people in this industry.

On a side note though, topics about satoshi really piques my interest a lot maybe because of the mysteriousness connected to this name or the success by his/their creation or maybe simply because of his shocking predictions. But as to what I always say, let the guy/them be since if the person or people behind bitcoin is/are still alive after all this time, they wouldn't bother to go to such lengths to stay hidden if he/they really wanted to be found and be famous and take advantage of the success of bitcoin. Although I understand the curiosity and fascination along with the thrill of solving this huge hunt, I also understand that the guy/people behind this big name simply wants to live a peaceful life away from all the noise in this industry. Thus I hope people would respect his/their wishes and let him/them be.

Satoshi is a mystery person or individual and we can only know who he was if he discloses himself or Theymos show us his PM which could give us a tip of who he was and theymos once said he had no plan to disclose his PM as a sign of respecting his privacy which what the crypto community cherishes the most.
But using his mode of writing in British English to judge where is based will provide false answers cause he may have studied in British, know British English, or borne there and later relocated.

Fun fact -
The only hornet in the US is the European hornet, which is commonly referred to in the south as the Japanese hornet.

The book, "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest", was popularized in the US and UK in 2009 and 2010, so the phrase would be extant in both locations at the time.

Europeans and Americans has the date formatting backwards. It should be yyyy/mm/dd to make sorting by date easier, like the Japanese do. Still, the dd/mm/yyyy format seems preferable to mm/dd/yyyy for working with data over time since it doesn't require inserting the smallest amount in the centre.

At the end of the day, it is about probabilities, even if hard evidence one day gives new details. The inconsistency of spelling, if taken at face value, points to an international, but the sleep schedule points to an American location.

mobile. not cellular

use of british dd/mm/yyyy format
not american mm/dd/yyyy format

his language was british. but heck im british and pre-pandemic i spent many years abroad. so my language does not = my location
and knowing he is british doesnt reveal any location either

It's interesting people think "bloody hell" considered exclusively GB British English when it isn't. "Splendid" is very GB British English but something tells me it's a word that's been used in Hollywood movies. It's getting harder pinning down words and expressions to geographic areas in a modern world.

Satoshi's whitepaper didn't appear to have any GB British English but some of Satoshi's posts did.

You said it before me. I do use expressions like "bloody hell", but I'm far from British.


Not at all. People can easily have strange sleeping schedule if they work on big projects they like, off work. Or people who travel a lot.
I could maybe say, based on such a schedule, that he probably doesn't have small kids at school but not much more.

@arabspaceship123
Your thread reminded me of one I created myself last year. My investigation on satoshi.

I was also interested in finding out if he was British or maybe American. Among the things I looked at was also the letters "z" and "s". There is also the letters "ou" in words like colour/color that are spelt differently depending on if you are taught British or American English.  

I really enjoyed reading Satoshi's posts and creating that thread.  

A splendid few z and s switches are easy. A bloody stereotypical word here is all that's required to confuse origins.
The majority of his language was technical and specific to the field, which have fewer American/British/Aus/Intl splits.
In the end, there isn't enough there. Most word-grams that I look at hint less American and more British.
Every person's language evolves very mildly over time, and they would be less likely to stick to a persona during the hours they are most tired.
If he had talked more about other aspects of life, there would have been other hints.
The question would be whether he uses phrases that a non-Brit or non-American (whichever) would barely recognise.

The writing style doesn't say anything, especially because one can move from locations.

But, his words age him. "inpoint" and "outpoint" (noted by Pmalek) mean that he's older, as these fell out of favour in the past few decades.


If you were to look at any internet forum, you would find that any user don't post as much at their 2am (except for people who work night-shifts, which is very rare to stay consistent).
Satoshi's daily posting patterns put him at about Hal Finney's location (Arizona). (Not to mention that Satoshi disappeared at about the same time that Hal had to quit working due to ALS..)
It is unfortunately very difficult to hide your general location, without scripting delayed responses, and very few people have that ability and are so committed to privacy to consider that.

I could post "splendid" once in a while, but that doesn't make me based in Britain.

I know nullius has always loved his privacy, up to the point that he tries to post around the clock to hide his time zone. Does his writing style really say anything useful about his whereabouts? I doubt it. Same for Satoshi.

That's based on your theory that Satoshi typed using GB British English but had default autocorrect or spellchecker settings in international English. Deliberate or not the whitepaper didn't use GB British English it used international English.

That's true

Blockstream CEO Adam Back is British maybe he's got some involvement. Hal Finney and Nick Szabo are other names linked to Satoshi.

satoshi used british phrases

making him british based.
the other examples in previous post are just the annoying spell check corrections which he sometimes accepts or sometimes ignores

This might be just a bunch of errors.
I'm from eastern Europe and sometimes I make the same errors,when I'm writing words like these.
I don't know when to write the letter s or the letter z in some English words.
Does that make me a potential "Satoshi Nakamoto"?I don't think so.
I also think that it is grammatically correct to write the words in your list with z,instead of s.
I'm not an expert in English grammar,though...

Also if Satoshi was using different computers in different locations with different browsers etc.
there could have been spell checkers used or not. Lets face it whomever the person or group
was the great art was to create and remain anonymous.

---

Here is an article which is very interesting and pretty much conclude that satoshi was
different people, Its very technical, I found it difficult to read parts.

https://towardsdatascience.com/stylometric-analysis-satoshi-nakamoto-294926cdf995

Some extracts below.

It can be that Satoshi was/is more than one person.
It can be that he was trying to confuse the followers. (I don't think so).
It can be that he was not English native.
It can be that he was British and the exceptions were made by some auto-completion.

Most probably we'll never know.

I'm not obsessed with working out who Satoshi is. If Satoshi's name is made public it doesn't mean it's going to adversely affect bitcoin we don't know what will happen.

I haven't look in more of Satoshi's posts but I don't use autocorrect tools set in different variants of English so why would anybody else?

I'm not saying anything for sure merely curious why Satoshi would use international English and GB British English.

common sense
he wrote using british english, but occasionally got annoyed by the red wiggly line that suggests he spelled something wrong. where reality is the spellcheck is set to international(US) english
so occasionally you will see that when he selects the spell checks preference, it makes him look less british

Or probably Satoshi is using different computers that have different types of English and he just didn't bother to change it and probably the autocorrect feature for his computer is probably strong. It's just me throwing speculation but I don't think that at that time, the auto correct function is really that good. Maybe Satoshi is doing this on purpose to throw off the scent that he/she is a one man.

The possibility that Satoshi is more than one person will always be there. However, it seems to me that Satoshi's use of both GB English and American English cannot be made a basis for a conclusion. It will create a hypothesis at most, one which we might not be able to prove ever.

There are just so many possibilities. Satoshi may be one person who is exposed to both American and GB English. Satoshi may be more than one. Satoshi may be a single person who is trying keep clues away from curious individuals. Satoshi could be Hal, Szabo, and so on, or both of them and 1 or 2 or 3 more persons. This could go on.

I don't believe the OPSEC theory. I don't believe international English and GB English was used to throw people off his scent. I'm believing Satoshi Nakamoto was a pseudonym used by the creators of bitcoin.

If Satoshi was one person it's hard to look past Hal Finney. He died in 2014 but he's standing out the most. If Satoshi was a group he was probably involved in it.

     Truth be told, you will never get a satisfying answer for this question that you have. Even when there may be authentic answers from the people who may have known or may have been a colleague of satoshi, there is just no way to confirm such answers. The only thing that asking this question will do is gain even more questions. Unless though if satoshi himself turns up, verifies his identity and speak for these people who responded. Which in my opinion is entirely impossible.

     But for speculations and such, there really is an equal possibility of satoshi being a group of people or a single person. Both of which are indeed useful to hide the true identity or identities of the person/people behind the creation of bitcoin. One thing is for certain though, whoever he, she or they are, it is very evident that through the silence from the creator(s) of bitcoin, the person or the people doesn't want to be found. I hope people would respect such decision and let the matter rest.

There's a third option: he doesn't know and didn't care how to write the words. I'm neither British nor American, but was taught British English on school. Most of the internet uses American English. I couldn't care less I type "optimised" or "optimized", and I'm pretty sure I've used different spellings for the same word once in a while too. I see no reason to assume Satoshi would use perfect English without mistakes.

Or all 3 options could be valid at the same time.

Perhaps Satoshi intended to do this to keep his true identity out of sight, of course there are many theories about the personality of Satoshi and no one yet has evidence that can lead to knowing the true personality of Satoshi, or even if he is one person or a group of people under a pseudonym! !!
In fact, the person who invented Bitcoin had amazing talents and of course he feared for himself if his identity was revealed, so it is likely that he deliberately used different language methods and different forms of communication in the singular or plural to increase the complexity and mystery of this unknown character, and it seems that he succeeded in doing so Brilliantly.

I believe this doesn't mean much, because there can be many explanations. A non-native English speaker would likely use both spelling simultaneously if they learned English from different sources. Or maybe Satoshi intentionally used many spellings to make it harder to uncover their identity. Or maybe Satoshi used to live in different English-speaking countries and ended up using both spellings without paying attention.

The examples are pretty well documented:

https://ungeared.com/the-strange-story-of-satoshi-nakamotos-spelling-choices-part-1/



Sometimes he even used both spelling variants on the same day:



So Satoshi was either multiple people or one clever person who was pretty switched on about OpSec.

Endless possibilities here. How can we predict someone's nationality entirely from their typing habits alone? What if he was from GB English background but just used the words alternatively and he had habit of doing so? We can't say anything for sure how anyone type the stuff. In extreme cases what if he had his assistant behind the screen answering others on behalf of him? What if he had dialect behaviour where he used to switch between two different English modes, or may be as OP said having mixed backgrounds?

This study can go anywhere but not to the point proving whether he was X English or Y English country person.

do you have any other example where Satoshi uses "s" instead of "z" because this is the only single example you posted with an "s" and it looks like change-log which might have been written by someone else (like Garzik) and copied here.
even still, one example is hardly proof because it may have been autocorrect tool setting one variation over the other.

He/they probably mixed it up so people can't easily figure out nationality.

With that being said, I honestly don't get the people's obsessions to figure out who is behind Satoshi Nakamoto name. Sure, all of us spend some time thinking who could that be, but I dont think that it could bring anything good to bitcoin, and I think that's exactly one of the many bitcoin's strengths.

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 ?