9 ms·

Who I think Satoshi Nakamoto is

62 points by markessien 9y ago

Waterluvian 9y ago
Have we had the conversation yet about the politeness of not trying to hunt down someone who quite apparently does not want to be found? I feel that there's no value to trying to figure out his/her identity other than personal gain at his/her expense. It doesn't help us collectively.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I thought the same thing. It's not just impolite, there are safety implications as well to being revealed as a potentially really rich person. Plus, the person "identified" may or may not have the resources to defend themselves.
- devereaux 9y ago
  I had made a post about that when the story was flagged and no comments allowed. I reposted it a minute ago. TLDR: It is at best disrespectful, at worst could cause great harm to this person. We have a few heroes - the kind of persons who can disable by themselves a botnet that was hurting the NHS. We repay them by exposing their identity. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6bcerj/doxing_the_hero_who_stopped_wannacry_was/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6bcerj/doxing_t... Satoshi is one such hero - he gave us technology that will help people secure property rights, with lack of trust of hostile goverments. Think what you want about crypto. It is a technological solution to a social problem. Once again, some people think hunting our heroes is acceptable. Personally, I find that disgusting. Some people say we have to few nice persons, to few heroes. If this is the kind of negative feedback they receive, I think I know why.
- krapp 9y ago
  > Have we had the conversation yet about the politeness of not trying to hunt down someone who quite apparently does not want to be found? This is the internet... no one is afforded the luxury of anonymity when the hivemind takes an interest in them.
- bb88 9y ago
  > Have we had the conversation yet about the politeness of not trying to hunt down someone who quite apparently does not want to be found? I'm going to take the con or anti position here. 1. People who commit crimes should be exposed. (Not saying Satoshi has, but answering your question generally) 2. People who engage in public discourse, should not be expected to have their identities remain private. 3. People who potentially have billions of dollars (whether realized or not) should also not expect privacy. > I feel that there's no value to trying to figure out his/her identity other than personal gain at his/her expense. Factually incorrect. If I can find out who Satoshi is, I can create a web page and sell ad space on the web page. That's value -- in the best kind -- economic value. And economic value can be more than just personal gain, it can create jobs for others. > It doesn't help us collectively. We can ask if he thought about the side effects of Bitcoin while developing his algorithm. E.g. money laundering, increased energy demand for little economic gain, etc. And interestingly, Bram Cohen has also recently came out with another version of Bitcoin with an algorithm better than PoW. [Edited to clarify economic value]
  - Waterluvian 9y ago
    Thanks for taking the con position. Here are some of my thoughts. Re: #3. I don't understand why being wealthy means you cannot expect privacy. Re: creating a webpage: that's what I meant by: "other than personal gain". Ie. if you can figure it out, you can profiteer. Re: asking about side-effects. Yes, fair enough. There are certainly some academic benefits of knowing who it is. You might be able to pressure them into answering questions. Though I think it's implicit that if the individual does not want to be found, they're unlikely to suddenly be welcoming and happy to answer questions.
    - bb88 9y ago
      > I don't understand why being wealthy means you cannot expect privacy. The more wealth, the deeper and more heinous one's crimes can be. It's not that Satoshi would fund a terrorist organization, because I find it unlikely he would do so. But he is just a few clicks away from sending his bitcoins to ISIS, say. And if he did that, wouldn't you want to know who he is? Law, like programming, is defined by the corner cases. Laws aren't written from the perspective that 99% of people are good. They're written from the perspective that there's 1% who aren't.
emsal 9y ago
Regarding point A: How can you really date a person's writing style to be from pre-2010? Is there really a way to prove this? And why does that necessarily date the person writing it as a 35-50-year-old?
- stuntkite 9y ago
  I don’t disagree that it’s possible, but it’s weird that he doesn’t clarify at all. Like it’s something we all agree on. This article is BS clickbait.
- bb88 9y ago
  The book "Primary Colors" penned by Anonymous was statistically tied to be Joe Klein before he admitted to doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel) Also, if you're curious about the man you discovered it, he went on to work on famous cases trying to unmask anonymous writers, including work for the FBI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster
tlb 9y ago
You shouldn't publish something like that without at least reaching out to the person for comment.
- jhasse 9y ago
  I doubt he would answer "Yeah I'm Satoshi, please don't publish it."
fragsworth 9y ago
I don't buy it. Satoshi Nakamoto was most likely Hal Finney. 1) Finney lived in very close to Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto (who happened to be unrelated to Bitcoin) - it's possible that he used his name. 2) Finney was the first person to perform a bitcoin transaction with Satoshi Nakamoto 3) Satoshi Nakamoto stopped writing messages after Finney died There are a few other reasons I'm forgetting, but the coincidences are too many. Interestingly, Hal Finney had himself cryopreserved. He may have invented Bitcoin, to get resurrected 150 years later...
- kleer001 9y ago
  > to get resurrected 150 years later... After which we will be in a post scarcity society and money will be meaningless.
- drexlspivey 9y ago
  So in all those discussions they had, he was talking to himself? Why would he do that? Also satoshi stopped writing in 2010 and Finney died in 2014
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    I have no idea what the conversations were like because I don't pay much attention to bitcoin (and less to the history) outside of HN but presenting things as dialogue is often more engaging and effective than monologue. Even in monologue exposition people often pose themselves rhetorical questions. As an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_...
    - berberous 9y ago
      Finney gave the WSJ a bunch of private emails between him and Satoshi from 2009, linked below. I suppose it's theoretically possible Finney spent a lot of time faking this convincing set of emails, but absent that possibility, I think this seals the case that Satoshi was not Finney. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakam...
Crontab 9y ago
Is it really so hard to give someone the anonymity they want?
bitmapbrother 9y ago
There needs to be a #NotMe movement.
- ixtli 9y ago
  I get that most of the comments here are joking BUT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten is a related and important thing :)
bratao 9y ago
This is a very good hypothesis, I only see one big counter-point. He announced a Bitcoin alternative https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/chia-network-cryptocurrency/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/chia-network-cryptocurrenc...
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  It's pretty clear that bitcoin will only allow very conservative upgrades, it's entirely possible that the creator of bitcoin isn't interested in the development of modern bitcoin.
pbreit 9y ago
Was this killed because it's dox-ish?
devereaux 9y ago
What not leave that person alone? They have not come forward and may dislike the publicity. Maybe they just want a normal happy life? They haven't cashed a single bitcoin in almost 10 years. They would have every right to do that: They gave humanity a wonderful new tool, a technological solution to a social problem!! It may also be safer for them to never come forward, even if they destroyed their own keys and bitcoins. Criminals and government would never believe that, and still attempt to attack that person.
berberous 9y ago
I'm not a professional programmer, but I'd imagine the amount of code available for both BitTorrent and Bitcoin might be enough for someone with a lot of experience coding to say whether or not this is likely to be true based on coding style. My bet is it's not. Also, agree with the other comments here that these sort of articles are both dangerous and disrespectful.
bb88 9y ago
Why are the topics critical of bitcoin more likely being flagged than not?

62 points by markessien 9y ago

Have we had the conversation yet about the politeness of not trying to hunt down someone who quite apparently does not want to be found? I feel that there's no value to trying to figure out his/her identity other than personal gain at his/her expense. It doesn't help us collectively.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
I thought the same thing. It's not just impolite, there are safety implications as well to being revealed as a potentially really rich person. Plus, the person "identified" may or may not have the resources to defend themselves.
devereaux 9y ago
I had made a post about that when the story was flagged and no comments allowed. I reposted it a minute ago. TLDR: It is at best disrespectful, at worst could cause great harm to this person. We have a few heroes - the kind of persons who can disable by themselves a botnet that was hurting the NHS. We repay them by exposing their identity. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6bcerj/doxing_the_hero_who_stopped_wannacry_was/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6bcerj/doxing_t... Satoshi is one such hero - he gave us technology that will help people secure property rights, with lack of trust of hostile goverments. Think what you want about crypto. It is a technological solution to a social problem. Once again, some people think hunting our heroes is acceptable. Personally, I find that disgusting. Some people say we have to few nice persons, to few heroes. If this is the kind of negative feedback they receive, I think I know why.
krapp 9y ago
> Have we had the conversation yet about the politeness of not trying to hunt down someone who quite apparently does not want to be found? This is the internet... no one is afforded the luxury of anonymity when the hivemind takes an interest in them.
bb88 9y ago
> Have we had the conversation yet about the politeness of not trying to hunt down someone who quite apparently does not want to be found? I'm going to take the con or anti position here. 1. People who commit crimes should be exposed. (Not saying Satoshi has, but answering your question generally) 2. People who engage in public discourse, should not be expected to have their identities remain private. 3. People who potentially have billions of dollars (whether realized or not) should also not expect privacy. > I feel that there's no value to trying to figure out his/her identity other than personal gain at his/her expense. Factually incorrect. If I can find out who Satoshi is, I can create a web page and sell ad space on the web page. That's value -- in the best kind -- economic value. And economic value can be more than just personal gain, it can create jobs for others. > It doesn't help us collectively. We can ask if he thought about the side effects of Bitcoin while developing his algorithm. E.g. money laundering, increased energy demand for little economic gain, etc. And interestingly, Bram Cohen has also recently came out with another version of Bitcoin with an algorithm better than PoW. [Edited to clarify economic value]
- Waterluvian 9y ago
  Thanks for taking the con position. Here are some of my thoughts. Re: #3. I don't understand why being wealthy means you cannot expect privacy. Re: creating a webpage: that's what I meant by: "other than personal gain". Ie. if you can figure it out, you can profiteer. Re: asking about side-effects. Yes, fair enough. There are certainly some academic benefits of knowing who it is. You might be able to pressure them into answering questions. Though I think it's implicit that if the individual does not want to be found, they're unlikely to suddenly be welcoming and happy to answer questions.
  - bb88 9y ago
    > I don't understand why being wealthy means you cannot expect privacy. The more wealth, the deeper and more heinous one's crimes can be. It's not that Satoshi would fund a terrorist organization, because I find it unlikely he would do so. But he is just a few clicks away from sending his bitcoins to ISIS, say. And if he did that, wouldn't you want to know who he is? Law, like programming, is defined by the corner cases. Laws aren't written from the perspective that 99% of people are good. They're written from the perspective that there's 1% who aren't.

emsal 9y ago

Regarding point A: How can you really date a person's writing style to be from pre-2010? Is there really a way to prove this? And why does that necessarily date the person writing it as a 35-50-year-old?

stuntkite 9y ago
I don’t disagree that it’s possible, but it’s weird that he doesn’t clarify at all. Like it’s something we all agree on. This article is BS clickbait.
bb88 9y ago
The book "Primary Colors" penned by Anonymous was statistically tied to be Joe Klein before he admitted to doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_(novel) Also, if you're curious about the man you discovered it, he went on to work on famous cases trying to unmask anonymous writers, including work for the FBI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster

tlb 9y ago

You shouldn't publish something like that without at least reaching out to the person for comment.

jhasse 9y ago
I doubt he would answer "Yeah I'm Satoshi, please don't publish it."

fragsworth 9y ago

I don't buy it. Satoshi Nakamoto was most likely Hal Finney. 1) Finney lived in very close to Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto (who happened to be unrelated to Bitcoin) - it's possible that he used his name. 2) Finney was the first person to perform a bitcoin transaction with Satoshi Nakamoto 3) Satoshi Nakamoto stopped writing messages after Finney died There are a few other reasons I'm forgetting, but the coincidences are too many. Interestingly, Hal Finney had himself cryopreserved. He may have invented Bitcoin, to get resurrected 150 years later...

kleer001 9y ago
> to get resurrected 150 years later... After which we will be in a post scarcity society and money will be meaningless.
drexlspivey 9y ago
So in all those discussions they had, he was talking to himself? Why would he do that? Also satoshi stopped writing in 2010 and Finney died in 2014
- Avshalom 9y ago
  I have no idea what the conversations were like because I don't pay much attention to bitcoin (and less to the history) outside of HN but presenting things as dialogue is often more engaging and effective than monologue. Even in monologue exposition people often pose themselves rhetorical questions. As an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_...
  - berberous 9y ago
    Finney gave the WSJ a bunch of private emails between him and Satoshi from 2009, linked below. I suppose it's theoretically possible Finney spent a lot of time faking this convincing set of emails, but absent that possibility, I think this seals the case that Satoshi was not Finney. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakam...

Crontab 9y ago

Is it really so hard to give someone the anonymity they want?

bitmapbrother 9y ago

There needs to be a #NotMe movement.

ixtli 9y ago
I get that most of the comments here are joking BUT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten is a related and important thing :)

bratao 9y ago

This is a very good hypothesis, I only see one big counter-point. He announced a Bitcoin alternative https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/chia-network-cryptocurrency/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/08/chia-network-cryptocurrenc...

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
It's pretty clear that bitcoin will only allow very conservative upgrades, it's entirely possible that the creator of bitcoin isn't interested in the development of modern bitcoin.

pbreit 9y ago

Was this killed because it's dox-ish?

devereaux 9y ago

What not leave that person alone? They have not come forward and may dislike the publicity. Maybe they just want a normal happy life? They haven't cashed a single bitcoin in almost 10 years. They would have every right to do that: They gave humanity a wonderful new tool, a technological solution to a social problem!! It may also be safer for them to never come forward, even if they destroyed their own keys and bitcoins. Criminals and government would never believe that, and still attempt to attack that person.

berberous 9y ago

I'm not a professional programmer, but I'd imagine the amount of code available for both BitTorrent and Bitcoin might be enough for someone with a lot of experience coding to say whether or not this is likely to be true based on coding style. My bet is it's not. Also, agree with the other comments here that these sort of articles are both dangerous and disrespectful.

bb88 9y ago

Why are the topics critical of bitcoin more likely being flagged than not?