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

Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#21

Post by api »

toenail wrote: post #3

https://evanhatch.medium.com/len-sassaman-and-satoshi-e483c8...

It’s obviously someone or a small group in this circle. Continuing to keep a low profile makes a lot of sense given all the negativity surrounding Bitcoin and the criminal figures that might come looking for Satoshi’s keys.

What if Len forgot, when he took his own life, that he was the only one with the private key to the Satoshi wallet? Even if he wasn’t the only or even primary author that could explain that wallet being dead.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#22

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tempmac wrote: post #2

what happens if wallet from satoshi is stolen and poured into the market for quick bucks? what happens if "satoshi" gets desperate for quick cash? idk this seems to be a major financial risk for bitcoiners, not altruism...

If it's "poured" into the market, the value will crash so whoever's trying to sell them won't make as much money. That said, at this point, any activity in that wallet will cause a huge stir in the community.

That said, there's probably a nontrivial amount of processing power currently being used to crack that wallet / find the secret key.

A theory is that Satoshi themselves lost access to their own wallet, so if there is activity, it may mean someone got the private key.

Anyway yeah, it is a huge risk, and it's proven by the billions scammed from people when new coins were created and the creators themselves held onto a lot of the coins themselves to sell when the hype cycle is trending upwards.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#23

Post by orra »

The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it?

I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#24

Post by lisper »

orra wrote: post #23

The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it? I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.

If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#25

Post by Beijinger »

RyanAdamas wrote: post #18

>Sure, but Occam’s Razor applies. Why go to such lengths to sow disinformation in a private communication? It would have been far simpler for Hal to have just responded at a different time rather than leaving this proverbial needle in the haystack that would have never been revealed had Hearn not published the emails. Occam's Razor, as the author enjoyed using, would suggest that someone knowingly creating a rival to…

"Lastly, I find it interesting that the Silicon Valley elite did the ice bucket challenge 2 weeks before Hal died."

Sorry, I don't get this. Please elaborate.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#26

Post by sMarsIntruder »

tromp wrote: post #4

> Who, we ask, is so altruistic as to create a new monetary system but not use it to enrich themselves? Bitcoin's supply schedule, in which half of all Bitcoin is mined in the first four years, guaranteed a Bitcoin wealth concentration on the early miners, especially considering how few there were. At long intervals, Satoshi would be the only one, mining on his laptop. A truly altruistic system would not confer such…

[flagged]

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#27

Post by automatic6131 »

chx wrote: post #16

Remind me why we dropped Paul Le Roux as Satoshi. I thought it fit rather well: he had the motivation, the knowledge and the disappearance of Satoshi also fit.

Well, if any of Satoshi's wallets move after Paul Le Roux is released in 2045 or so, we'll have a smoking gun ;)

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#28

Post by orra »

lisper wrote: post #24
orra wrote: post #23

The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it? I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.

If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.

Plausible, but I would have thought if it's gradual, there would be a recovery.

But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#29

Post by dewey »

orra wrote: post #28
lisper wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.

Plausible, but I would have thought if it's gradual, there would be a recovery. But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?

Wouldn't every known early address be monitored quite heavily? The amount wouldn't matter as much as the fact that _something_ moved and being proof that someone still has access to the keys.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#30

Post by Timja »

I think there is some systematic reason why people like Satoshi, Buckethead, Banksy, etc are not uncovered.

In each case, I doubt that it really is hard to figure out who they are.

Maybe it is the way the press and social media work. You get as many clicks for a wild theory as you get for a properly researched opinion.

As for Satoshi Nakamoto: The most obvious candidate seems to be Adam Back. His invention of proof of work, his biography, character, writing style and role as the CEO of the company behind the main wallet software all point to him. Also, his current communication "Bitcoin looks like something that was discovered rather than invented". That's something a creator typically says about a particularly great piece of work they did. Are there any arguments why he might not be the inventor of Bitcoin?

Post reply on HN