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

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#151

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

lawn wrote: post #47
Timja wrote: post #30

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 o…

> 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. Adam Back is obviously not Satoshi. His level of writing or thinking is not even close to the level of Satoshi. When asked what people should pay with when fees were high and Lightning N…

Wouldn't the real Satoshi do everything in their power to throw people off the scent?

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#152

Post by gumby »

ryanklee wrote: post #83
gumby wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it mean to uncover someone who wishes to remain anonymous and is doing no harm? Uncovering their identity is just vandalism.

You should not repeatedly present the world with a mystery and not expect to attempt to solve it,

Just seems like it would be kinder to leave them in peace. If they wanted to be known they could easily have said so.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#153

Post by [deleted] »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #143
almost_usual wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue it’s useful for many people who live in countries that suffer from hyperinflation.

I feel like an asset that doesn't rise or fall by a factor of 10 a year would be a lot more useful for that purpose. Even bartering levis blue jeans would offer more price stability than btc.

[deleted]

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#154

Post by almost_usual »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #145
jonahbenton wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. The blockchain is forever and there are all these breadcrumb producing onramps.

Its probably a lot easier to do a better job of covering your tracks with cash than with bitcoin.

Absolutely but the point I’m making is that I don’t see cash existing in the near future.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#155

Post by tim333 »

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.

Maybe he has spent some of the money. There are a bunch of bitcoin considered Satoshi's that have never moved but who's to say he didn't mine some more on the side under another account? He seems a smart guy after all and that would be kind of an obvious thing to do.

I'm wondering if as the guy gets old if he'll set up a charitable foundation with the main lot.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#156

Post by almost_usual »

noman-land wrote: post #125
almost_usual wrote: post #92

Bitcoin is one of those technologies that I have been skeptical of for over a decade but within the past year it’s finally starting to click for me. I don’t own any yet but I don’t think it’s ever going away.

What changed?

It’s been resilient to boom and bust cycles, it’s stable and safe for those who live in third world countries with hyperinflation, it’s extremely hard to eliminate or control since it’s decentralized.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#157

Post by almost_usual »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #143
almost_usual wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue it’s useful for many people who live in countries that suffer from hyperinflation.

I feel like an asset that doesn't rise or fall by a factor of 10 a year would be a lot more useful for that purpose. Even bartering levis blue jeans would offer more price stability than btc.

Blue jeans aren’t very salable in the sense that you have to find a blue jeans buyer in order to exchange them for something else.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#159

Post by Veserv »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #129
drawkbox wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key. If you have some insight to the tool that created the key you could, lots of systems have doors by design, typically by creators or regulation for export. My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. If they aren't broken then actually found, and that much concentration is too much. It creates a rug pull for an entire c…

My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. That's not at all what you said at first. You didn't say the keys would probably be found, you said with quantum computing someone will break the encryption, which is based on nothing. Here it is verbatim: Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's…

If you assume powerful quantum computers then Bitcoin is dead, that is a straightforward result.

The digital signatures that prevent others from spending your bitcoins are based on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC). The security of elliptic curve cryptography is based on the hardness of the discrete logarithm problem (DLP). A sufficiently powerful quantum computer can use a variant of Shor’s algorithm to solve the DLP in runtime polynomial in the key size (my research indicates O(n^3) in key size more or less), giving you the private key behind a bitcoin wallet in a very tractable amount of time.

Though everything else they are saying about backdoors or design issues are wild speculation, a powerful quantum computer absolutely would allow you to spend anybody’s, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s, bitcoins.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#160

Post by greyface- »

Veserv wrote: post #159
CyberDildonics wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. That's not at all what you said at first. You didn't say the keys would probably be found, you said with quantum computing someone will break the encryption, which is based on nothing. Here it is verbatim: Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's…

If you assume powerful quantum computers then Bitcoin is dead, that is a straightforward result. The digital signatures that prevent others from spending your bitcoins are based on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC). The security of elliptic curve cryptography is based on the hardness of the discrete logarithm problem (DLP). A sufficiently powerful quantum computer can use a variant of Shor’s algorithm to solve the DL…

Single-use P2PKH addresses are quantum safe, since the public key is not revealed publicly until spending, just its hash. QC breaks ECDSA but not SHA256.
Post reply on HN