I don't really understand why Satoshi wants to be hidden. Is it because of the legal issues or does he want be a hidden super character?
My guess is that Satoshi died and that we will never know his identity.
I Am Not Satoshi
71–80 of 179 posts
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#72This is not even the first paper by Dorit Ron and Shamir on Bitcoin; they did an analysis of the transaction graph earlier: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf And that one too was quite poorly done; from the text, it actually seemed like they thought that "the blockchain" is a file stored on blockchain.info. Disappointing from the inventor of Shamir's Secret Sharing and differential cryptanalysis.
I'd be shocked if the NSA hadn't "invented" differential cryptanalysis long before Shamir.
Isn't it a given that they did? They strengthened DES's s-boxes against it 10 or so years before it was publicly discovered iirc.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#73This is not even the first paper by Dorit Ron and Shamir on Bitcoin; they did an analysis of the transaction graph earlier: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf And that one too was quite poorly done; from the text, it actually seemed like they thought that "the blockchain" is a file stored on blockchain.info. Disappointing from the inventor of Shamir's Secret Sharing and differential cryptanalysis.
I find the criticism of research papers on the part of Bitcoin supporters a bit ironic. Have people forgotten how poorly researched the original Bitcoin paper was?
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#74One of the consequences of a public transaction chain is the great potential for witch hunts. Here's one of the first examples, but it surely won't be the last.
That's a positive thing, because it only grows trust between members of community.
Unless you are the one being hunted and have to stop your life to explain yourself and hope they get it before someone on FBI believes on it.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
He had a balance of ~1200 btc on mtgox in March of 2013, during a time when bitcoin was hovering around $50. Had he sold it all then it would have been a cool $60k. Had he kept it until now, it would be approximately $1MM (it's never been below $50 since that time). Whether that counts as "rich" is a matter of perspective, I guess.
It only counts as "rich" if he can use the money. I suspect that in practice, such large amounts of Bitcoin money have limited usefulness. It would be hard to get the actual million dollars his wallet is supposedly worth. There are still exceedingly few businesses that accept Bitcoin payments. At best, he could get augment whatever other income he has by selling small amounts of his Bitcoin money at a time.
According to [1] and [2] I can sell 100 bitcoins for $88,631 or $96,805 at Bitstamp and Mtgox respectively - or 10,000 bitcoins for $7,155,446 and $8,797,257
As I understand it those are offers to buy that are on the market right now, so you could execute the trades instantly.
[1] http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_depth.html [2] http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD_depth.html
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#76Too obvious. Backwards that's "I hso tasto nmai" which is phonetic late R'lyehian for "Up yours Bernanke". C'mon Dustin.
Correct. I like the idea.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Satoshi is the NSA. This is 99% because it would be the most entertaining result, and 1% actual reasoning ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6206086 ).
Can we rule out the FBI?
I think so. Bitcoin is too global to be interesting to a domestic agency. It's more likely to be CIA.
If it's part of a policing effort, then it's obviously part of the UN, which according to Tim LeHaye, rules over the United States with an iron fist and is where the shadow government of totally-not-Jews would do exactly this kind of thing.
The only name I have for that is New World Order.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#78This is not even the first paper by Dorit Ron and Shamir on Bitcoin; they did an analysis of the transaction graph earlier: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf And that one too was quite poorly done; from the text, it actually seemed like they thought that "the blockchain" is a file stored on blockchain.info. Disappointing from the inventor of Shamir's Secret Sharing and differential cryptanalysis.
I find the criticism of research papers on the part of Bitcoin supporters a bit ironic. Have people forgotten how poorly researched the original Bitcoin paper was?
Not sure what you mean by 'poorly researched'. Whatever it's flaws, it produced a hell of an innovative idea (or rather, a conglomeration of ideas into something innovative), and it has grown into something undeniably huge. Something people are building businesses upon. Something that is trading at over $900 USD/unit right now, despite countless rounds of naysayers decrying its intrinsic worthlessness and foretelling it's doom.
Meanwhile these guys are merely riding on the huge waves which that 'poorly researched' paper left in its wake, trying to catch some press-coverage-by-association with their shoddy research. I'm failing to see the irony here, this is apples and oranges stuff. Really seems like you just wanted to sneer at 'Bitcoin supporters'.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we rule out the FBI?
I think so. Bitcoin is too global to be interesting to a domestic agency. It's more likely to be CIA. If it's part of a policing effort, then it's obviously part of the UN, which according to Tim LeHaye, rules over the United States with an iron fist and is where the shadow government of totally-not-Jews would do exactly this kind of thing. The only name I have for that is New World Order.
I would believe NSA before CIA. The FBI gets involved in the internet space, but it doesn't seem like the CIA does all that much.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#80If I really want to find out who satoshi is I would have lie to all and wait until the actual Satoshi to come out and call me a liar. Anyway, life goes on - I do want to find out who Satoshi is really...