Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

investinblockchain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#121

Post by darawk »

tdcbfdct3 wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #36

Evidence: * Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects. * Both Le Roux and Satoshi work in C++. * Wright claimed in legal filings to have been involved with Le Roux. * Allegedly, Wright and a friend have built a cluster of computers to crack secrets, which the theory presumes to be the password for a TrueCrypt volume with Le Roux's bitcoin key. * Le Roux has an alias, "Solotshi", which sounds like…

> Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects The article says (emphasis mine): "Le Roux is highly suspected to have been a part of a team of anonymous developers called the “TrueCrypt Team.”" It also gives the fact that Le Roux has been in jail since 2012 as a possible explanation for why Satisfied Satoshi's Bitcoin fortune has gone untouched, but doesn't attempt to reconcile that with why he was…

Ya, IMO the big connection is:

- Anonymous creator of significant cryptography project

How many other people like that are there? People that are known to have written important cryptographic software, but chosen to remain anonymous. I'm sure there's a few, but it's a short list.

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#122

Post by trickstra »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #52
tptacek wrote: post #36

Evidence: * Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects. * Both Le Roux and Satoshi work in C++. * Wright claimed in legal filings to have been involved with Le Roux. * Allegedly, Wright and a friend have built a cluster of computers to crack secrets, which the theory presumes to be the password for a TrueCrypt volume with Le Roux's bitcoin key. * Le Roux has an alias, "Solotshi", which sounds like…

I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all. (I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)

Having the "founder" anonymous and silent has been good for Bitcoin. Even if it didn't have any effect on the market (it would) everyone can fantasize and speculate about the motives for Bitcoin's creation, about the next moves, etc. So such founder is a superposition of anyone's idea. If that superposition collapses into one drug cartel boss, that would change many people's view about Bitcoin and it's purpose, legality and of course market price

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#123

Post by UseStrict »

_Nat_ wrote: post #112

Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto supposed to control >5% of the total Bitcoin supply currently available? But they're inexplicably not tapping into the large amount of wealth that'd seem to be available to them? It's a bit hard to believe that someone who'd go to such extremes for money as Le Roux would simply choose not to enjoy some payday from the Bitcoin hoard.

I'm pretty sure he's still in prison, serving time for various convictions.

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#124

Post by betterunix2 »

danShumway wrote: post #109
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright? Neither. I was talking about Satoshi Nakamoto. It disturbs me that so many people are willing to unmask Satoshi. More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?

One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy (whether or not it ever delivered, other people can debate). But there's a special kind of horribleness in working so hard to unmask someone who is in part famous because they helped build a privacy-protecting payment system. Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not personally get to know the real world identity of one famous…

"One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy"

Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi, who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things were created).

As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment privacy, since anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#125

Post by BubRoss »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #115
BubRoss wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the thought that it is more likely the creator is dead than someone who gave up being world famous as well as 20 billion dollars.

If satoshi tried to cash out, wouldn't the value of bitcoin plummet?

Is the number of billions the only thing you have an issue with here?

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#126

Post by mthoms »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #75
mthoms wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the TrueCrypt link (if proven) is very interesting. Both TrueCrypt and Bitcoin share similar ideologies and both are extraordinary ambitious feats of (anonymous) C++ engineering. I'm inclined to think there aren't many people in the world who possess the skills necessary and at the same time the need to preserve absolute anonymity at all costs. The number of (non governmental) people in the world who intersect…

> Well, the TrueCrypt link (if proven) is very interesting. The only link that the article mentions is that Satoshi used TrueCrypt. So what? TrueCrypt was the gold standard for encrypted drives which everyone in the tinfoil hat community used until it shut down. It would be like trying to draw a link between a real person and a pseudonymous identity because both of them were known to have an iPhone.

The article (and my comment) suggests a possible link because both projects (1) are so advanced that only a very elite calibre of developer could have produced them; (2) used the same language; (3) had similar ideologies/goals; and (4) had an author who insisted on complete anonymity.

It's no smoking gun but it's certainly interesting.

>It would be like trying to draw a link between a real person and a pseudonymous identity because both of them were known to have an iPhone.

Ridiculous. Having an iPhone is exceedingly common. Having the above mentioned qualities in common, while not unheard of, is certainly rare.

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#127

Post by nickpsecurity »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #91
0x4542 wrote: post #85

Elaine Shannon wrote the book "Hunting LeRoux" https://www.elaine-shannon.com/works-1 I haven't read it but she has been on reddit discussing why she thinks Paul Le Roux is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bp3uug/the_unanimous_o...

Great find. "In 2009, when bitcoin emerged, he was busy launching multiple ventures As I detailed in Hunting LeRoux, among these were small arms sales, trading in hard drugs, trading in smuggled gold, building a submarine, devising a new missile navigation system for Iran and setting up a new base in Somalia, where he intended to make himself into a white warlord, expanding his arms business into an Amazon-for-arms p…

"saying it would take too long to turn a profit."

If that's true, he'd definitely not want to do an uncertain and long play like Bitcoin. He'd be more likely to do Silk Road or something.

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#128

Post by dwild »

mike_hearn wrote: post #113

I was one of the first users of Bitcoin, and one of the earliest developers. I'd like to have a beer with Satoshi some day, so I took a brief look at this. But I'm unconvinced. One key claim is "they both liked gambling, Bitcoin 0.1 had a poker client in it". Beyond the obvious problem that lots of people like poker, this claim is nonsense. None of the versions of Bitcoin I've ever seen had a poker client in them. It…

For the poker claims, a quick Google search gave this: https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/master/src...

I don't know if this is the right source code though.

Re: New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux

#129

Post by krustyburger »

nostrademons wrote: post #114
api wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add more: "Console cowboys" who constantly pop stimulants like Modafinil and Adderall to maintain their edge and shoot for a big payday (via startups, cryptocurrency, cybercrime, etc.), weird subcultures of nihilistic cyber-terrorists, enormously powerful criminal organizations that are almost indistinguishable from states (the Russian mob), an Asian superstate with crazy pollution and industry (China instead of…

The Matrix, probably. Harvested for bio-energy after a losing a war with the AI, while being pacified by a simulation of ordinary life. Who knows, maybe it's already happened?

Why would human beings possibly be the best source of “bio-energy” instead of other organisms? Futurama already made the point, but that part of the plot of The Matrix is really total nonsense.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a very good movie.

Post reply on HN