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

101–110 of 178 posts

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

#101

Post by robocat »

larsiusprime wrote: post #74
seoaeu wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Does it even make sense to divorce the price of land from the buildings? Developed farmland also has a different value from virgin land, but the difference is ignored.

Manhattan's land would not be worth 1.7T$ if it were just farmland.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-24/manhattan...

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

#102

Post by rfd4sgmk8u »

Jerrrry wrote: post #98
rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. h…

Transactions can contain IP addresses. You can send BTC to an IP address. This is not a good thing to do - the documentation even says it "will probably be stolen immediately"

Many many years ago. The initial designs for Bitcoin had a 'pay to IP' feature, probably to approximate traditional banking IP to IP transfer. It has not existed for almost 8 years now.

"This feature has been removed from Bitcoin Core as-of v0.8.0[1]." (Feb 2013).

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

#103

Post by throwawaydroid »

misiti3780 wrote: post #43
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.

He was on a podcast and misspoke saying he invented it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_z-vzkA0r4

FYI 11 minute Satoshi infomercial with ads. mentions Szabo @7:30

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

#104

Post by Jerrrry »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #102
Jerrrry wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transactions can contain IP addresses. You can send BTC to an IP address. This is not a good thing to do - the documentation even says it "will probably be stolen immediately"

Many many years ago. The initial designs for Bitcoin had a 'pay to IP' feature, probably to approximate traditional banking IP to IP transfer. It has not existed for almost 8 years now. "This feature has been removed from Bitcoin Core as-of v0.8.0[1]." (Feb 2013).

damn time flies.

I haven't bought a bitcoin since it went from $20 to $400.

the change in my tumbling accounts are worth more than everything i had bought since then combined.

thanks china!

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

#105

Post by wallacoloo »

nullc wrote: post #87
wallacoloo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree with the sentiment, however, it’s wishful thinking. Bitcoin exists in a space within game theory where everyone is in a constant adversarial relation with everyone else. it’s an explicit design, and that relationship is the only way we really know that the software and cryptography are sound. but you can’t completely isolate the protocol from its surroundings. the adversarial challenge of trying to break the…

> remains pseudonymous under the extreme pressure of thousands trying to de-anonymize him, that’s the only way we can really be sure that anonymization is still possible in the modern age. Other unwilling human beings aren't appropriate test subjects for your conjectures about security and privacy. If you'd like to test a security hypothesis, offer up yourself or your family for attack-- don't nominate other people.

see:

> i agree with the sentiment, however, it’s wishful thinking.

if you’re trying to persuade me that i shouldn’t use SN as an unwilling test subject, save your breath: i’m not engaged in any effort to de-anonymize him. his project is founded on adversarial mechanics within an extrajudicial (i.e. lawless) space: it’s naive to think those mechanics won’t bleed over from the project to its adjacencies. that’s the point i’m trying to make.

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

#106

Post by 1066 »

orionsbelt wrote: post #99
drawkbox wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there a theory for why Nick Szabo would be public about Bit Gold but go to great efforts to hide himself when creating Bitcoin? It seems unlikely to me that someone who previously had no issue being public would suddenly be so secretive, especially given how unlikely it was for Bitcoin to turn out the way it did.

As unlikely as traction to Bitcoin was/is, surely he would have understood the implications it could have to the practitioner of this idea? "bitcoins can not be manipulated by governments or financial institutions and bitcoin transactions occur directly between two parties without a middleman." If he figured that he could make it functionally work with Bit Gold, why would you expose yourself to that.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20091129231620/http://sourceforg...

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

#107

Post by rfd4sgmk8u »

Jerrrry wrote: post #104
rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many many years ago. The initial designs for Bitcoin had a 'pay to IP' feature, probably to approximate traditional banking IP to IP transfer. It has not existed for almost 8 years now. "This feature has been removed from Bitcoin Core as-of v0.8.0[1]." (Feb 2013).

damn time flies. I haven't bought a bitcoin since it went from $20 to $400. the change in my tumbling accounts are worth more than everything i had bought since then combined. thanks china!

I recommend dollar cost averaging over time to 'stack sats'. You can probably never get back to your original position if you sold, but you can try.

I also bought then, I continue to buy now. I will buy in the future. Regret every sale, No regrets on every purchase.

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

#108

Post by desireco42 »

misiti3780 wrote: post #34

Doesnt this mean that somewhere, buried deep in a a database, someone can run a query to see who had the IP address on that day, and assuming it is a private residence there is at least a chance that is SN?

I am perfectly fine not knowing ever who Satoshi is. I think we need to learn to accept these things.

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

#109

Post by rmasters »

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.

I worked with Nick's brother Paul for many years at F5. Several years ago I asked him if Nick was Satoshi and he said Nick denied being Satoshi and Paul also added that it wouldn't make sense because "He still owes me money!". Pretty funny. But I guess he could have fooled his own brother.

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

#110

Post by vmception »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #90
vmception wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Anybody that mined those earlier blocks on the weird unknown hardware was also able to mine on known hardware under another identity. so A) Satoshi has other earnings, in bitcoin, that was held long enough to make Satoshi extremely rich, and sold under their normal known identity. While never needing to associate with the other identity. B) The private keys to the bitcoin mined in those original blocks were…

The problem with those private keys being sold off-net is that the buyer can never be sure the seller deleted every copy. Who would take that risk? And who would buy it and not use any of it? Even if the value tanks it'll still be a ton of money.

Correct, with all single signer ownership you can never be sure how many custodians there are

So you’re right and we would never be able to prove that any amount has changed hands or not, only assume that others wouldn't take the risk

Post reply on HN