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

Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

whoissatoshi.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#71

Post by tablespoon »

drawkbox wrote: post #39
anm89 wrote: post #14

I feel like Hal Finney and Nick Szabo were the two people who seem plausible and the fact that Hal and Satoshi were on different IP addresses that day seems to me like it's not Hal. So for me it feels pretty much settled that Satoshi is Szabo.

Nick Szabo has been potentially mentioned as Satoshi for sometime [1] due to him working on decentralized currencies since 1998 with Bit Gold [2]. Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto and currencies. [3] > "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible for the…

> Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto and currencies. [3]

>> "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk, adding, "he claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be the one more responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone else."

Why do Elon Musk's speculations have any credibility here? It's not his field, and even in his field he has a track record of making confident public statements that turn out to be wildly wrong.

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#73

Post by rfd4sgmk8u »

zaxbeast wrote: post #63

Does the blockchain log the miner's IP addresses? That's why I don't like to mine on my local network

No, it does not. Transactions also do not contain IP addresses.

Some chain explorer will track 'first seen IP', eg: the first IP that relayed the transaction, but this does not mean the sender. Same deal with blocks -- you can see the IP sent your peer the block, but not the IP that created it, which may or may not be the same. With Dandelion routing, you can mask the sender IP behind multiple other relaying nodes. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0156

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#74

Post by larsiusprime »

seoaeu wrote: post #61
koolba wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think LA housing prices are crazy now, just wait till people start factoring in potential billions of dollars buried in the backyard.

A couple billion dollars divided by the number of houses in LA... actually wouldn't add that much value to the housing prices. After all, the total assessed value of real estate in the county is about $1.7 trillion.

As best I can figure, America's land alone is worth somewhere between $22-44 trillion, and that's not including any of the buildings. (Manhattan's land alone is worth about $1.7 trillion according to my sources)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-...

So one multibillion dollar thumb drive is even less when spread out over everything in LA!

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#75

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

fairity wrote: post #65
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #7

EDIT: Please explain in the comments - because I seriously do not understand that - why on earth you are downvoting this!? You're advocating something cruel. WTF? What is the problem about saying "leave a person alone who apparently WANTS to be left alone?". You're advocating stalking. The people who trying to figure out who Satoshi is and make it public should realize this: What they're effectively doing is trying t…

Well, to start with, you're exaggerating. His life will meaningfully change (perhaps for the worse, by his standards), but his life won't be "destroyed" -- at least not by any reasonable standard. There are plenty of well-known billionaires who are perfectly happy. To put this another way: is the search for knowledge immoral, if discovering that knowledge will inadvertently harm a person? That's sort of a deep questi…

Thanks for taking the care of explaining!

> but his life won't be "destroyed" -- at least not by any reasonable standard. There are plenty of well-known billionaires who are perfectly happy.

1. The person has actively signaled that they do NOT want to be known by trying to stay anonymous. You're acting against their will. It is thus false to assume that they would like it. They have basically told you that they won't.

2. Destruction, in a minimal definition, means changing something so much it is completely different from what it was.

So to prove this is not destructive, name me the aspects of their personal life which will NOT be affected by suddenly the whole planet assuming they are rich.

There are probably none. Everything of their existing life will likely change.

So this is quite destructive isn't it?

And sure, their new life afterwards (if they don't get murdered) might be likeable as well.

But is it your right to replace the whole of someone's life with something different and expect them to like it?

It's a pretty intrusive attitude.

> To put this another way: is the search for knowledge immoral, if discovering that knowledge will inadvertently harm a person?

Yes in this case, because that knowledge is completely worthless for producing any real usable thing. So there is no benefit of the knowledge to value its harm against.

You can read how Bitcoin works in the source code, and deduce all necessary financial decisions from that. No need to know about the developer is needed. Bitcoin is trust-less so they have zero power on what it does. The code is its law.

So overall, what people are seeking is not knowledge but entertainment.

And it is super cruel to hurt someone for entertainment.

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#76

Post by ncmncm »

KiranRao0 wrote: post #56
sktrdie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but leaking such data from an ISP would be considered illegal.

Is there some "legal process" (subpoena, etc) that could reveal this?

The spooks know, anyway. They don't even need to ask anybody.

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#77

Post by tehlike »

anm89 wrote: post #14

I feel like Hal Finney and Nick Szabo were the two people who seem plausible and the fact that Hal and Satoshi were on different IP addresses that day seems to me like it's not Hal. So for me it feels pretty much settled that Satoshi is Szabo.

https://www.google.com/search?q=szabo+van+nuy

Lot's of szabo references in google in Van Nuys.

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#78

Post by rshnotsecure »

The reverse DNS of the IP address mentioned is: h-68-164-57-219.lsan.ca.dynamic.globalcapacity.com according to SecurityTrails.

The article also gives the following information:

- HOST DETAILS: H-68-164-57-219.LSANCA54.DYNAMIC.COVAD.NET

- IP Address: 68.164.57.219

The IP address is within a /16 block owned by Megapath, a Los Angeles hosting provider.

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#79

Post by johnnyfived »

alphabet9000 wrote: post #67
tsywke44 wrote: post #10

Is there a term for this, where a person discovers something extremely interesting, but doesn’t know the proper channels to make the knowledge public? In this case, releasing the info on a random spammy looking WP blog.

the term is 'liberating'

Thank you

Re: Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)

#80

Post by johannes1234321 »

triceratops wrote: post #25
xqoiu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example: Warren Buffett's personal security budget > Keeping the boss safe has cost [Berkshire] an average of US$339,000 a year since 2008, or US$4.4 million in total. https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/style/luxury/article/3126736/...

No sarcasm, that honestly sounds pretty cheap. About the price of a mid-level FAANG SWE.

Comparing it to an SWE is not a good comparison.

However that sum is low. You need 24/7 security people at watch, both guarding him and the home and then also key family members.

It is possible that he prefers a low attention detail, which reduces cost. But we're still easily talking about a mid two digit number for full-time personal.

It is however likely that different aspects are accounted differently (general company estate security etc.)

Post reply on HN