31–40 of 162 posts
If he is Nakamoto, I wonder if he's using this computing power to test strategies for divesting of the "nine-figure fortune" of coins which is assumed to be controlled by Nakamoto.
gwern, should we really be doing this? Why not leave the guy alone? Obviously he does not want to be found out... let him have his peace!
I'm really not too sure why you're being downvoted. I think there are a number of people who agree that outing him isn't necessary or valuable. A man trying not to be in the public eye deserves as much.
The email/tweet/transcript quotes almost suggest sort of multiple personality disorder where he believes he's Satoshi.
"As Wright told the Bitcoin Investor’s conference, he’s applying that second machine towards the mysterious task of 'modeling Bitcoin's scalability'[.]" If he is Nakamoto, I wonder if he's using this computing power to test strategies for divesting of the "nine-figure fortune" of coins which is assumed to be controlled by Nakamoto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judging by the trainwreck that the debate over the change in block size ended up being, maybe Bitcoin could use a benevolent dictator.
It wasn't a trainwreck; it worked exactly as it should. Bitcoin is not a system for those that favor changing the rules once the game is in play.
I would submit that posting this drivel on HK is unnecessary. I'm all for real Bitcoin news, even about whats-his-face in Japan or interviews with old cypherpunks. Or new forks or new coins or ponzi schemes or silly lost hard drives even. But this article is unfounded clickbait nonsense. Whomever the real SN is has done good security work on their identity and won't be found unless they want to.
"As Wright told the Bitcoin Investor’s conference, he’s applying that second machine towards the mysterious task of 'modeling Bitcoin's scalability'[.]" If he is Nakamoto, I wonder if he's using this computing power to test strategies for divesting of the "nine-figure fortune" of coins which is assumed to be controlled by Nakamoto.
Can you explain your theory better? The coin's Satoshi owns haven't moved since they were mined long ago.
Satoshi has a large position relative to the whole market. If he every wanted to convert those coins to US dollars or some other currency, I'm guessing the supply it would introduce would cause the conversion rate to crash unless done in a sophisticated way.
Worth noting that the main source on this is Gwern ( https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gwern ). Gwern, care to comment?
> Nothing completed (due to work on a secret project)
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…
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 "leak."
I'll stick with the current mainstream theory, thanks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judging by the trainwreck that the debate over the change in block size ended up being, maybe Bitcoin could use a benevolent dictator.
It wasn't a trainwreck; it worked exactly as it should. Bitcoin is not a system for those that favor changing the rules once the game is in play.