"Did he keep the private keys to every single one of those 20,000? Unlikely. Why go to the trouble for something that was worthless?"
Wow.. so Satoshi was intelligent enough to have invented Bitcoin, but was dumb enough to not save his private keys.
Topic: Why Satoshi's coins will never hit the market - page 4. (Read 5353 times)
The whole article hangs on a single assumption:
"Did he keep the private keys to every single one of those 20,000? Unlikely. Why go to the trouble for something that was worthless?"
Wow.. so Satoshi was intelligent enough to have invented Bitcoin, but was dumb enough to not save his private keys.
"Did he keep the private keys to every single one of those 20,000? Unlikely. Why go to the trouble for something that was worthless?"
Wow.. so Satoshi was intelligent enough to have invented Bitcoin, but was dumb enough to not save his private keys.
That he was aware of the potential - but still decided he couldn't be bothered?
...
Maybe buying back later...? That's certainly a route to lesser riches but much increased anonymity when cashing in.
...
Maybe buying back later...? That's certainly a route to lesser riches but much increased anonymity when cashing in.
So you just have a different public key with the same private key.
That's not how it works.
A public key is computed from the private key. There can not be two different public keys for one private key.
The other direction is possible (multiple private keys can have public keys that hash to the same bitcoin address) but so extremely unlikely that the probability can safely be ignored.
Onkel Paul
I don't really know all that much about ECDSA and co, but if that's true bitcoin-qt generates new private key/public key pairs on it's own every block when mining.
Yes, this is my understanding. I think we are talking cross purposes.
Edit: there's some ambiguity in the article that I'll fix, I suspect this has caused the problem. Point stands: he had to have the keys to create the addresses, but I'm not convinced he still has every single one.
It's speculation. A discussion starter. With some interesting evidence from the blockchain for his habits. Take it as you will.
So you just have a different public key with the same private key.
That's not how it works.
A public key is computed from the private key. There can not be two different public keys for one private key.
The other direction is possible (multiple private keys can have public keys that hash to the same bitcoin address) but so extremely unlikely that the probability can safely be ignored.
Onkel Paul
I don't really know all that much about ECDSA and co, but if that's true bitcoin-qt generates new private key/public key pairs on it's own every block when mining.
...
That's possible, of course. But it's interesting they haven't moved since. It's speculation, but Occam's Razor suggests it's more likely than the alternative. Remember, the coins were literally worthless then, and bitcoin was still an experiment in its infancy.
he also specifically stated in early communications something to the effect "it might be wise to hold on to a few in case value increases".
Mining is supposed to provide value to the miner. This is key to the entire Bitcoin thing.
So I think he was aware of the potential. I think it's entirely possible he didn't keep the keys, all the same. But whether he did or didn't I'm sure it wasn't anything other than a deliberate decision.
This is essentially my view
...
That's possible, of course. But it's interesting they haven't moved since. It's speculation, but Occam's Razor suggests it's more likely than the alternative. Remember, the coins were literally worthless then, and bitcoin was still an experiment in its infancy.
he also specifically stated in early communications something to the effect "it might be wise to hold on to a few in case value increases".
Mining is supposed to provide value to the miner. This is key to the entire Bitcoin thing.
So I think he was aware of the potential. I think it's entirely possible he didn't keep the keys, all the same. But whether he did or didn't I'm sure it wasn't anything other than a deliberate decision.
Each wallet can have several receiving addresses. And I'm pretty sure you don't need a new private key for that.
Really? How do you get 2 addresses from 1 key? And we're talking about 20000 addresses here, untouched since they were mined.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_Bitcoin_addresses
Quote
A Bitcoin address is a 160-bit hash of the public portion of a public/private ECDSA keypair. Using public-key cryptography, you can "sign" data with your private key and anyone who knows your public key can verify that the signature is valid.
So you just have a different public key with the same private key.
It doesn't work like that to my knowledge. Privkey -> pubkey -> address, 1:1:1. The wiki suggests this too, surely.
Perhaps he has a wallet with 20000 addresses, or rather a series of wallets as he'd be running it on many computers.
So you just have a different public key with the same private key.
That's not how it works.
A public key is computed from the private key. There can not be two different public keys for one private key.
The other direction is possible (multiple private keys can have public keys that hash to the same bitcoin address) but so extremely unlikely that the probability can safely be ignored.
Onkel Paul
Each wallet can have several receiving addresses. And I'm pretty sure you don't need a new private key for that.
Really? How do you get 2 addresses from 1 key? And we're talking about 20000 addresses here, untouched since they were mined.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_Bitcoin_addresses
Quote
A Bitcoin address is a 160-bit hash of the public portion of a public/private ECDSA keypair. Using public-key cryptography, you can "sign" data with your private key and anyone who knows your public key can verify that the signature is valid.
So you just have a different public key with the same private key.
But the technical detail doesn't even really matter here, everybody who used bitcoin-qt knows you can generate new addresses and receive transactions to them for the same wallet.
Each wallet can have several receiving addresses. And I'm pretty sure you don't need a new private key for that.
Really? How do you get 2 addresses from 1 key? And we're talking about 20000 addresses here, untouched since they were mined.
Each wallet can have several receiving addresses. And I'm pretty sure you don't need a new private key for that.
I'm pretty sure I remember that this is even the default behavior from solo mining litecoins.
I'm pretty sure I remember that this is even the default behavior from solo mining litecoins.
The article speculates that keeping 20,000 private keys is "unlikely".
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
Bingo
There is also the possibility that satoshi nakamoto thought it's possible that generating the coins into different adresses each block can make it harder to track which ones are his.
And it would have worked if it weren't for the sequential nonces that linked the different blocks together.
Plus AFIK solo mining sends generated coins to different addresses on it's own, at least using any client I am aware of, which doesn't mean they don't all belong to the same private key. I even think that was the default behavior from the start.
So IIRC the whole article is incorrect. Can somebody confirm?
Yes: new address, new key each block. I don't follow your logic.
Article looks like bullshit based off nothing but speculation to me. There's nothing that offers proof or backs up their claims at all. Nobody knows what happened to satoshi, his coins, or even if he is one or more people.
I think he should have made something obvious like an address that consists of a string or something. That way people could be pretty sure he doesn't have control about the coins anymore. If those coins move, I bet they move into a black-hole address.
Is there a way that he could have proved that the bitcoins were really lost? Even if the address he used to send them to was just some string, wouldn't someone eventually create that address and get the coins? xD
Or are you saying that it should be something pre-programmed to have an address that can't be accessed?
Article looks like bullshit based off nothing but speculation to me. There's nothing that offers proof or backs up their claims at all. Nobody knows what happened to satoshi, his coins, or even if he is one or more people.
What we do know is though that he was here he created Bitcoin mined a very very nice amount and then went totally of the public radar for what reasons we do not know, but we do know most if not all of his coins remained untouched in wallets that there are links to in some threads here.
Question is why would he not spend any of the coins at the first bubble if he could indeed get to them to spend, only someone filthy rich would leave them to never touch but i am talking filthy rich 100's of millions banked.
I don't think the bitcoins that are in addresses people know to be from Satoshi can be used. If they are moved people may think he is selling or something and make the price crash lol.
The article speculates that keeping 20,000 private keys is "unlikely".
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
Bingo
There is also the possibility that satoshi nakamoto thought it's possible that generating the coins into different adresses each block can make it harder to track which ones are his.
And it would have worked if it weren't for the sequential nonces that linked the different blocks together.
Plus AFIK solo mining sends generated coins to different addresses on it's own, at least using any client I am aware of, which doesn't mean they don't all belong to the same private key. I even think that was the default behavior from the start.
So IIRC the whole article is incorrect. Can somebody confirm?
You know, if this Dorian nakamoto really IS the satoshi nakamoto, and wanted to remain anonymous, he could've just lied to get people to stop bothering him?
I think he should have made something obvious like an address that consists of a string or something. That way people could be pretty sure he doesn't have control about the coins anymore. If those coins move, I bet they move into a black-hole address.
I think the most likely scenario is he's either dead or purposely lost access to them, but something tells me he wouldn't just waste the coins like this.
Article looks like bullshit based off nothing but speculation to me. There's nothing that offers proof or backs up their claims at all. Nobody knows what happened to satoshi, his coins, or even if he is one or more people.
I think he should have made something obvious like an address that consists of a string or something. That way people could be pretty sure he doesn't have control about the coins anymore. If those coins move, I bet they move into a black-hole address.
I think the most likely scenario is he's either dead or purposely lost access to them, but something tells me he wouldn't just waste the coins like this.
The article speculates that keeping 20,000 private keys is "unlikely".
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
That's possible, of course. But it's interesting they haven't moved since. It's speculation, but Occam's Razor suggests it's more likely than the alternative. Remember, the coins were literally worthless then, and bitcoin was still an experiment in its infancy.
The article speculates that keeping 20,000 private keys is "unlikely".
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
This is the only "evidence" that I see.
Maybe Satoshi generated them sequentially from some seeds. Then he only needs a unique seed per mining machine.
Maybe he wrote them out to a database or simple log file and has these files backed up.
I do kind of want to believe he threw away the keys, it would have been the best thing to do for the good of Bitcoin. (Shame he won't actually state he did that...) But I see nothing approaching proof.
That band on the graph can only be him. Did he really keep 20,000 keys, or just a few to larger accounts?
I agree, it's only speculation - but this is the speculation board, after all Well Satoshi still has access to master keys to send messages, I believe. Also he could sign a message from an address that's known to be his to prove his identity if he wanted to.
Well Satoshi still has access to master keys to send messages, I believe. Also he could sign a message from an address that's known to be his to prove his identity if he wanted to. Article looks like bullshit based off nothing but speculation to me. There's nothing that offers proof or backs up their claims at all. Nobody knows what happened to satoshi, his coins, or even if he is one or more people.
Aside from the evidence of course. Did you even read it?
It's not a watertight case but strongly plausible.
Jump to: