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

Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#111

Post by btym »

mshron wrote: post #98
btym wrote: post #49

"The PGP key associated with Nakamoto’s email address and references to an upcoming “cryptocurrency paper” and “triple entry accounting” were added sometime after 2013" Why is this not at the beginning of the article? That's pretty strong evidence that this is a hoax.

I went back and read it more carefully, and it's linked to an email address one character off from the known Satoshi one. satoshin@vistomail.com vs satoshi@vistomail.com.

Yeah, I don't know why they're taking that as proof either. What's more likely, Satoshi having two near-identical addresses on the same host, or someone registering a near identical address to impersonate him?

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#112

Post by kijin »

maaarghk wrote: post #63
mike_hearn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only grammar, but Wright's writings are full of typos and spelling errors, which occur at a remarkable rate, to the extent that he can't spell Silicon Valley! (he spelled it as "silicone valley"). I never once saw Satoshi make a spelling error. That said, the rest of the evidence is pretty compelling, isn't it? Satoshi did once say he wasn't all that good with words, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps this…

I think that's plausible particularly because he emailed someone asking them to leak his message about not being Dorian, and that person heavily edited / redacted it; it's quite possible that is a recurring theme. Also in the Gawker article we are told Wright emailed Kleiman asking for "help editing a paper", "I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me."

Notice that most of Wright's retroactive editing to make himself look like Satoshi took place in 2013-2014, shortly after Kleiman died.

Perhaps Kleiman was the one who really wanted to keep Satoshi's identity a secret, but Wright had different ambitions and now he doesn't have his friend to rein him in anymore.

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#113

Post by qume »

emgoldstein wrote: post #39
Analemma_ wrote: post #6

So far there have been multiple Satoshi Nakamoto reveals which, of course, never panned out. To their credit Wired is hedging their bets, saying Wright could be a determined hoaxer and even providing some countervailing evidence to their own theory. Good journalism, that. Having said that, I looked over the article and this seems to be the most convincing Satoshi Nakamoto theory thus far. There's no need to jump to a…

I think a very small amount of stylometric analysis would cast a lot of doubt on this theory. Satoshi's grammar is always perfect. His sentences are tight. He's clear and to the point. Wright rambles; his grammar is terrible; he seems to have no idea what a comma is for. Scanning his blog for a minute, he comes across as the kind of slightly dotty kook who would try to convince people he's Satoshi with this kind of "…

I think there are a lot of engineers on here who only express a single language style.

In the business world I see writing style changing depending on who one is talking to - a trait I don't generally see in engineers. Who knows the mind of the originator of bitcoin.

Also, Wright can have a few drinks and click to send a sloppy message without much thought. However any time he purportedly posts as Satoshi he probably re-reads it 100 times with his heart pumping at 150bpm and takes as much care over his writing as the potentially fictional Satoshi. The author of bitcoin would surely be clever enough even if his natural language skills were poor.

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#114

Post by qume »

mortehu wrote: post #103
chroma wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Gizmodo's is a much less rigorous article than the Wired one. It mostly consists of accusations and circumstantial evidence. Every early player in Bitcoin development has these in spades. In a world where Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi, we'd see the exact same tenuous evidence. In contrast, the Wired article stays close to the facts (GPG keys, email addresses, IPs, etc) and hedges its bets. Wright might b…

I have looked at the GPG keys, and based on the hash algorithm preference order, I believe they were created after [edit: July 2009], by a gnupg version following this[1] commit, on a computer with its clock set to 2008. 1. http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit... [edited]

Which hash did he use?

The change you link to has the same SHA-256 as the first option both before and after the change.

Did he use something else?

I'm curious to know your thoughts on the scenario whereby another hash would be chosen for him by the software, and whether or not he may have chosen a specific hash?

This is potentially a good line of enquiry with more info

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#115

Post by 4oh9do »

mortehu wrote: post #103
chroma wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Gizmodo's is a much less rigorous article than the Wired one. It mostly consists of accusations and circumstantial evidence. Every early player in Bitcoin development has these in spades. In a world where Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi, we'd see the exact same tenuous evidence. In contrast, the Wired article stays close to the facts (GPG keys, email addresses, IPs, etc) and hedges its bets. Wright might b…

I have looked at the GPG keys, and based on the hash algorithm preference order, I believe they were created after [edit: July 2009], by a gnupg version following this[1] commit, on a computer with its clock set to 2008. 1. http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit... [edited]

If this is true, then it's pretty substantial evidence that this guy is a hoaxer.

But can you really tell when a key-pair was generated? This would make for a fascinating write-up if you could please spend the time to explain.

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#116

Post by toyg »

norea-armozel wrote: post #13

Why is it important to know who Satoshi Nakamoto is/was? It seems like all this desire to know the person defeats the point of the pseudo-anonymity here. I assume it's meant to keep people focused on the idea of the crypto-currency and less on any specific ideology SN may espouse. But that's just me.

It's important because he can potentially impact bitcoin prices. It's like asking why it's important to know who is the head of the FED.

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#118

Post by bhoung »

mike_hearn wrote: post #58
emgoldstein wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a very small amount of stylometric analysis would cast a lot of doubt on this theory. Satoshi's grammar is always perfect. His sentences are tight. He's clear and to the point. Wright rambles; his grammar is terrible; he seems to have no idea what a comma is for. Scanning his blog for a minute, he comes across as the kind of slightly dotty kook who would try to convince people he's Satoshi with this kind of "…

Not only grammar, but Wright's writings are full of typos and spelling errors, which occur at a remarkable rate, to the extent that he can't spell Silicon Valley! (he spelled it as "silicone valley"). I never once saw Satoshi make a spelling error. That said, the rest of the evidence is pretty compelling, isn't it? Satoshi did once say he wasn't all that good with words, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps this…

the spelling of "silicone" looks intentional to me. the review is titled "Like the US is the only country to produce tech."

'Craig Wright of Australia wrote, a bit petulantly, “Always the assumption that [Satoshi Nakamoto] must be a bloody yank. The analysis of who Satoshi is is always so limited.”'

from this article: http://fusion.net/story/243056/alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig...

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#119

Post by perseusprime1 »

kijin wrote: post #112
maaarghk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's plausible particularly because he emailed someone asking them to leak his message about not being Dorian, and that person heavily edited / redacted it; it's quite possible that is a recurring theme. Also in the Gawker article we are told Wright emailed Kleiman asking for "help editing a paper", "I need your help and I need a version of me to make this work that is better than me."

Notice that most of Wright's retroactive editing to make himself look like Satoshi took place in 2013-2014, shortly after Kleiman died. Perhaps Kleiman was the one who really wanted to keep Satoshi's identity a secret, but Wright had different ambitions and now he doesn't have his friend to rein him in anymore.

Possible. Kleiman seems to have stuck to not outing Satoshi at the expense of his own money problems.

Re: Satoshi Nakamoto Is Probably This Unknown Australian Genius?

#120

Post by DaniFong »

Does anybody have access to Craig Steven Wright's papers? Google Scholar only turns up a single patent application (apparently a patent on a registration server -- vaguely related to bitcoin but without the decentralized aspect-- and very ideologically misaligned...)

I've seen people want to mysteriously associate themselves with something large before. This could be an example of it.

Post reply on HN