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

I Am Not Satoshi

blog.dustintrammell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 179 posts

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#131

Post by kanzure »

Aqueous wrote: post #129

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his real name about something unrelated to BitCoin, before he decided to switch identities to release BitCoin under a pseudonym. I really doubt that Satoshi would have lurked silently there for many years before suddenly dropping the BitCoin whitepaper on the list…

At the moment, it would be really helpful if you could submit archives of the original cypherpunk mailing list, the p2p-hackers mailing list, the cryptology mailing list, and the original member list of the p2presearch mailing list (not the current one).

A copy of the original pdf would also be really helpful. Not the one that md5 hashes to d56d71ecadf2137be09d8b1d35c6c042 please.

Here is some content in return: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin-satoshi/

I am secretly hoping that Satoshi (and many others like him) really were lurking throughout the entire cypherpunk history, because it plays well into the cyberpunk fantasy unrolling in my head.

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#132

Post by darkmighty »

jamesrom wrote: post #130
Aqueous wrote: post #129

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his real name about something unrelated to BitCoin, before he decided to switch identities to release BitCoin under a pseudonym. I really doubt that Satoshi would have lurked silently there for many years before suddenly dropping the BitCoin whitepaper on the list…

> a unique fingerprint of written language that accurately predicts the identity of the author These kinds of analysis are usually more "fuzzy" than "unique" and "accurate". And can be easily fooled if you are trying to remain anonymous. Especially in the case that Satoshi isn't a single person.

Agreed, but strong evidence could plausibly be found. Also the style of writing/spelling errors can sometimes reveal nationality if you're familiar enough with different languages. I don't think someone would go through that much work, though.

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#135

Post by theboywho »

gjm11 wrote: post #42

General consensus seems to be that Ron&Shamir's publications on this topic are extraordinarily weak given how stellar a record Shamir, in particular, has. The conclusion seems obvious: It's a misdirection. Adi Shamir is Satoshi Nakamoto. (Note: No, I do not in fact believe this.)

I think it's important to note that this paper was a research paid by the Citi foundation, which belongs to Citi Group, a financial services corporation formed following the merger of banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group.

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#136

Post by saraid216 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #79
saraid216 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not supposed to think the CIA does much. They're the actual spy agency; the whole "just a star on the wall at Langley" thing is CIA; you don't hear about their victories, and if you do, it's a failure of some kind. Stuxnet, for instance, was almost certainly CIA.

If Bitcoin is a targeted strike against China somehow (not completely impossible), then the CIA is the likeliest candidate. Otherwise, of the USGov national agencies, the NSA is most likely.

The FBI doesn't really get anything out of it. The only reason I can think of for the FBI to do it is for paying off informants anonymously. (And as I've pointed out before, if anyone's an expert on money laundering, it's the FBI.)

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#137

Post by oleganza »

memracom wrote: post #104
buremba wrote: post #28

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?

What if Satoshi is actually a group of NSA agents who created a new crypto-currency as a honey-trap to attract bad guys so that they could either stop them or use them as slave agents. What if? Would that Satoshi want to be identified?

NSA is still against "the bad guys" in the minds of some people?

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#138

Post by ohwp »

Aqueous wrote: post #129

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his real name about something unrelated to BitCoin, before he decided to switch identities to release BitCoin under a pseudonym. I really doubt that Satoshi would have lurked silently there for many years before suddenly dropping the BitCoin whitepaper on the list…

The term "proof-of-work" (with the dashes) is not used very often. But in all Bitcoin documentation it's written with the dashes.

Now there is one Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system started by 'Julian Krause', so Satoshi might be Julian Krause.. ;)

Re: I Am Not Satoshi

#140

Post by DominikR »

Aqueous wrote: post #129

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his real name about something unrelated to BitCoin, before he decided to switch identities to release BitCoin under a pseudonym. I really doubt that Satoshi would have lurked silently there for many years before suddenly dropping the BitCoin whitepaper on the list…

Why does it really matter who Satoshi is?

He didn't do anything illegal so why should anyone try to uncover his identity even though he's chosen anonymity for himself?

Post reply on HN