[deleted]
Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
31–40 of 194 posts
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#32The identity probably isn't one person but there are people that stand out.
Nick Szabo has been potentially mentioned as Satoshi for sometime [1] due to him working on decentralized currencies since 1998 with Bit Gold [2]. Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto and currencies. [3]
> "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk, adding, "he claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be the one more responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone else."
> Szabo is best known as the inventor of one of bitcoin’s predecessors, Bit Gold, and digital smart contracts—which eventually evolved to become a key part of the ethereum blockchain. Szabo has previously denied he's Satoshi Nakamoto, telling financial author Dominic Frisby in 2014, "I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it."
Szabo's full name is Nicholas Szabo [4]. Just seems quite a bit like Satoshi Nakamoto. It feels like there is something there potentially.
He uses his initials for his Pseudonyms (N.S)
Nakamoto Satoshi = Bitcoin
Nicholas Saberhagen = Monero
Bit Gold was maybe to test out interest, then when the real one was made it would be more anonymous. If you think about it, bitcoin being anonymous is a feature as it makes it seem less centralized eventhough Satoshi owns a large chunk of it. Today companies or individuals will control a large chunk of other coins/platforms and it feels more centralized or even autocratic. At any time those big fish could wreak havoc. Satoshi seems more hands off. Another potential reason is the money it would generate and the recognition would attract too much attention. The successful decentralized currency like bitcoin might have been foreseen as a threat to the creator after it takes off and gains in value.
From the wiki on Nick Szabo, he is more 'reclusive' and not wanting to be known. On his blog he mentioned his intent on creating a live version of the currency as Bit Gold was more of a prototype/demo and was never launched. Even the name Bit Gold and bitcoin are very similar as is the name Nicholas Szabo (N.S.) and Satoshi Nakamoto (S.N.) in a few ways. Satoshi Nakamoto always seems like a purposeful shroud of a name, looking for someone by that name is probably not going to find them:
> Nathaniel Popper wrote in The New York Times that "the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo." In 2008, prior to the release of bitcoin, Szabo wrote a comment on his blog about the intent of creating a live version of his hypothetical currency. [1]
Hal Finney was the first to receive 10 bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto [5][6]. Hal Finney was the next employee after Phil Zimmermann at PGP. So he knew the potential for being pursued by governments for software creations. Hal, who died in 2014 unfortunately, probably knew Satoshi and would have known he was shrouding/anonymous for good reasons as seen in the PGP history just before that and around the same time bit gold was being created.
The very likely people to be Satoshi Nakamoto are Nick Szabo and Hal Finney due to the early interactions and transactions, and potentially Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, but that seems unlikely they would use their real name [7]. Maybe it was all three or someone else entirely, these guys are just around the early days and some of the first transactions. Either that or someone or some group saw the need for decentralized currency from their efforts and then front ran them and made it seem more like them to help shroud themselves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Bit_gold
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/12/28/elon-...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Possible_iden...
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#33> Bitcoin is better off with Satoshi's identity remaining unknown. A human can be criticized and politically attacked. A myth will withstand the test of time.
There's another reason. Because there's no entity controlling bitcoin, the SEC doesn't consider it a security, unlike all other cryptocurrencies.
> “Everything other than bitcoin,” Gensler told me, “you can find a website, you can find a group of entrepreneurs, they might set up their legal entities in a tax haven offshore, they might have a foundation, they might lawyer it up to try to arbitrage and make it hard jurisdictionally or so forth.” In other words, there are people behind these cryptocurrencies using a variety of complex and legally opaque mechanisms, but at the most basic level, they are trying to promote their tokens and entice investors. (Bitcoin, because of its unique history and creation story, is fundamentally different from other crypto projects in this respect.)
> “They might drop their tokens overseas at first and contend or pretend that it’s going to take six months before they come back to the U.S.,” he continued. “But at the core,” he argued, “these tokens are securities because there’s a group in the middle and the public is anticipating profits based on that group.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/gary-gensler-on-meet... (https://archive.ph/EzNmO)
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#34> Who, we ask, is so altruistic as to create a new monetary system but not use it to enrich themselves? Bitcoin's supply schedule, in which half of all Bitcoin is mined in the first four years, guaranteed a Bitcoin wealth concentration on the early miners, especially considering how few there were. At long intervals, Satoshi would be the only one, mining on his laptop. A truly altruistic system would not confer such…
> A truly altruistic system would not confer such a huge advantage on early miners Bitcoin never claimed to be and is not altruistic. And the same can be said about almost all investments, you need information early, you need to judge the information correctly, and you need to move in. Same with bitcoin.
Is bitcoin a currency or investment? I would say neither but interesting to see it getting lumped in with investments.
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#35>Sure, but Occam’s Razor applies. Why go to such lengths to sow disinformation in a private communication? It would have been far simpler for Hal to have just responded at a different time rather than leaving this proverbial needle in the haystack that would have never been revealed had Hearn not published the emails. Occam's Razor, as the author enjoyed using, would suggest that someone knowingly creating a rival to…
"Lastly, I find it interesting that the Silicon Valley elite did the ice bucket challenge 2 weeks before Hal died." Sorry, I don't get this. Please elaborate.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did their Ice Bucket Challenges on August 14th 2014 and Hal died August 28th 2014 of ALS.
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#36I 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…
Is there another Buckethead that I'm not aware of, because the one that I'm thinking of has a pretty well-established identity.
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#37> Who, we ask, is so altruistic as to create a new monetary system but not use it to enrich themselves? Bitcoin's supply schedule, in which half of all Bitcoin is mined in the first four years, guaranteed a Bitcoin wealth concentration on the early miners, especially considering how few there were. At long intervals, Satoshi would be the only one, mining on his laptop. A truly altruistic system would not confer such…
[flagged]
I am biased because I see a lot of value in the current fiat system that Bitcoin directly impacts. I am also biased because I don't buy the arguments that the current fiat system has enough issues to indicate it needs replacement.
As an example, I am against any system that takes us back to a world where governments no longer are able to use the soft power of economics to react to other countries. The alternative being that they will need to result to hard power which means physical violence.
The rest of the stuff like being a haven for criminals, grifters, and scam artists is related to but not really the cause for my bias.
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#38I 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…
Is there another Buckethead that I'm not aware of, because the one that I'm thinking of has a pretty well-established identity.
Oh, interesting. So he only keeps his face secret, not his identity?
I remember reading an interview with Ozzy Osbourne who said he refused to work with Buckethead because it spooked him that BH always kept a mask on, even when they talked in private.
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#39The 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.
If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.
Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin.
Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties.
Satoshi owns 5% of bitcoin. Other crypto coins are more concentrated and more problematic. This isn't like a large institutional investor in a public stock, this is a large percentage of all currency.
The rug pull was set from the beginning.
Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
#40Is it possible ( novice with respect to blockchain here ) , to crack the wallet , with all the computing power of the bitcoin mining ?