5 ms·

I think it's either Hal Finney or Dave Kleiman. Both have background in crypto and security, and both have been deceased since early 2010s - just before the met

I think it's either Hal Finney or Dave Kleiman. Both have background in crypto and security, and both have been deceased since early 2010s - just before the meteoric rise of bitcoin. The second part is key, because given the prominence and status of bitcoin they would have been unable to stay anonymous or silent.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
betterunix2 6y ago
Have you considered the possibility that Satoshi was some random cryptography enthusiast of little note who died in a traffic accident? He probably told nobody about his project, and the lengths he went to to remain anonymous make me think he used full disk encryption -- so his family, not knowing his passphrase, probably unknowingly destroyed all evidence of his work on Bitcoin after he passed away. What makes you think Satoshi had any background in cryptography? Everything about the Bitcoin whitepaper and even the design of Bitcoin itself says otherwise.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Have you considered the possibility that Satoshi was some random cryptography enthusiast of little note who died in a traffic accident? Yes. That could also be the case. The individual behind 'Satoshi' has probably died.
xorcist 6y ago
> they would have been unable to stay anonymous or silent. Not necessarily. Satoshi obviously planned his pseudonymity from the start. The decision to leave the project may very well have been taken long before it was carried out. Satoshi could be alive and well. Maybe he carried on his work under his real name, as one developer among many, or maybe not. He obviously thought fairness and trust was important enough to value to form for him to prove the non-possbility of backdating the chain (later known as premining). Planned obsolescence for the creator plays well into this scenario. In hindsight, having no real creator has served Bitcoin well. People would have listened too much to the creator for a decentralized decision process by consensus to form.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Not necessarily. Satoshi obviously planned his pseudonymity from the start. The decision to leave the project may very well have been taken long before it was carried out. I don't think so. I can't disprove your claim, but people aren't very good at that kind of planning and execution. Too many things can go wrong for them to either maintain anonymity or prevent others from maintaining this anonymity. It comes off as a bad Hollywood movie. I think the person behind Satoshi has died. >In hindsight, having no real creator has served Bitcoin well. We'll see. It's too early to tell. One thing's for sure, I see a lot of less places that take bitcoin as currency then I did a few years ago. Also, the community is much more divided, and there are massive structural issues with bitcoin, from technical issues around the protocol itself, to lack of unified vision leading to forks and arguments, to massive amount of illegal behaviour. >People would have listened too much to the creator for a decentralized decision process by consensus to form. Is the leadership decentralized though? At the end of the day, someone needs to hold the keys for the code the runs the bitcoin protocol. Ultimately that individual or group has the power to do anything they want with bitcoin.
heimatau 6y ago
>I think it's either Hal Finney or Dave Kleiman. You must be a new bitcoin user. Before Craig Wright came into the scene, has anyone heard of Kleiman? Legit question. What evidence is there of Dave? Dave wasn't even around then, zero evidence exists outside of CSW's claims.
- mrkramer 6y ago
  American computer security specialists did. He was getting interviewed by US TV stations so he had some reputation in the security industry. And btw who heard of Jeff Bezos before Amazon? Nobody. You can not judge somebody just by looking at their past. People change and evolve.
  - heimatau 6y ago
    I apologize for not being clear enough. "has anyone heard of Kleiman? Legit question." By this I mean what substantive proof exists that Kleiman was interested with the underlying technologies that bitcoin incorporates? > He was getting interviewed by US TV stations so he had some reputation in the security industry. The field is pretty vast. This is like saying because I've made websites, I can somehow fix your laptop. (I probably could but I couldn't come up with a solution fast and well thought out.) Satoshi was clearly meticulous about this, if you've read enough of their posts, it's clear as day. > And btw who heard of Jeff Bezos before Amazon? Nobody. A lot of top talent is in hedge funds. So, I'm sure many people were looking. It is fair to say I choose a weak logical argument but the point is still valid (hopefully the added clarity to my intent pushes us deeper into our actual points). > You can not judge somebody just by looking at their past. People change and evolve. Sure, this applies if we're trying to gauge someone's character but this doesn't apply in the expertise required to be Satoshi. Terry Tao (expert mathematician) isn't going to just randomly come up with the next bulletproof SHA function. It's out of his scope. Bitcoin is out of the scope of Kleiman's skillset. I have seen zero evidence to the contrary, other than a false narrative (perpetuated by 'news') that him and CSW created Bitcoin. Even the court has thrown out numerous dated evidence [1,2]. Being a computer forensics specialist doesn't easily port to creating a blend of PGP, Hashcash, eCash, bitgold, etc. Satoshi was an expert at this stuff. What evidence shows that Kleiman did anything? Even in the Kleiman/CSW court cases, there isn't evidence that's been produced by either party. That's the court of law. Please don't avoid this point, no evidence exists to tie Kleiman even to the ideas of digital cash. I haven't seen any and I looked into it heavily, maintaining an open mind. I got no dog in the fight, just a sizable curiosity to this mysterious character. [1] - https://decrypt.co/21995/us-judge-throws-out-craig-wrights-latest-excuse https://decrypt.co/21995/us-judge-throws-out-craig-wrights-l... [2] - http://blockchaingrade.org/experts-dissect-craig-wrights-satoshi-testimony-and-court-documents http://blockchaingrade.org/experts-dissect-craig-wrights-sat...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

betterunix2 6y ago

Have you considered the possibility that Satoshi was some random cryptography enthusiast of little note who died in a traffic accident? He probably told nobody about his project, and the lengths he went to to remain anonymous make me think he used full disk encryption -- so his family, not knowing his passphrase, probably unknowingly destroyed all evidence of his work on Bitcoin after he passed away. What makes you think Satoshi had any background in cryptography? Everything about the Bitcoin whitepaper and even the design of Bitcoin itself says otherwise.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Have you considered the possibility that Satoshi was some random cryptography enthusiast of little note who died in a traffic accident? Yes. That could also be the case. The individual behind 'Satoshi' has probably died.

xorcist 6y ago

> they would have been unable to stay anonymous or silent. Not necessarily. Satoshi obviously planned his pseudonymity from the start. The decision to leave the project may very well have been taken long before it was carried out. Satoshi could be alive and well. Maybe he carried on his work under his real name, as one developer among many, or maybe not. He obviously thought fairness and trust was important enough to value to form for him to prove the non-possbility of backdating the chain (later known as premining). Planned obsolescence for the creator plays well into this scenario. In hindsight, having no real creator has served Bitcoin well. People would have listened too much to the creator for a decentralized decision process by consensus to form.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Not necessarily. Satoshi obviously planned his pseudonymity from the start. The decision to leave the project may very well have been taken long before it was carried out. I don't think so. I can't disprove your claim, but people aren't very good at that kind of planning and execution. Too many things can go wrong for them to either maintain anonymity or prevent others from maintaining this anonymity. It comes off as a bad Hollywood movie. I think the person behind Satoshi has died. >In hindsight, having no real creator has served Bitcoin well. We'll see. It's too early to tell. One thing's for sure, I see a lot of less places that take bitcoin as currency then I did a few years ago. Also, the community is much more divided, and there are massive structural issues with bitcoin, from technical issues around the protocol itself, to lack of unified vision leading to forks and arguments, to massive amount of illegal behaviour. >People would have listened too much to the creator for a decentralized decision process by consensus to form. Is the leadership decentralized though? At the end of the day, someone needs to hold the keys for the code the runs the bitcoin protocol. Ultimately that individual or group has the power to do anything they want with bitcoin.

heimatau 6y ago

>I think it's either Hal Finney or Dave Kleiman. You must be a new bitcoin user. Before Craig Wright came into the scene, has anyone heard of Kleiman? Legit question. What evidence is there of Dave? Dave wasn't even around then, zero evidence exists outside of CSW's claims.

mrkramer 6y ago
American computer security specialists did. He was getting interviewed by US TV stations so he had some reputation in the security industry. And btw who heard of Jeff Bezos before Amazon? Nobody. You can not judge somebody just by looking at their past. People change and evolve.
- heimatau 6y ago
  I apologize for not being clear enough. "has anyone heard of Kleiman? Legit question." By this I mean what substantive proof exists that Kleiman was interested with the underlying technologies that bitcoin incorporates? > He was getting interviewed by US TV stations so he had some reputation in the security industry. The field is pretty vast. This is like saying because I've made websites, I can somehow fix your laptop. (I probably could but I couldn't come up with a solution fast and well thought out.) Satoshi was clearly meticulous about this, if you've read enough of their posts, it's clear as day. > And btw who heard of Jeff Bezos before Amazon? Nobody. A lot of top talent is in hedge funds. So, I'm sure many people were looking. It is fair to say I choose a weak logical argument but the point is still valid (hopefully the added clarity to my intent pushes us deeper into our actual points). > You can not judge somebody just by looking at their past. People change and evolve. Sure, this applies if we're trying to gauge someone's character but this doesn't apply in the expertise required to be Satoshi. Terry Tao (expert mathematician) isn't going to just randomly come up with the next bulletproof SHA function. It's out of his scope. Bitcoin is out of the scope of Kleiman's skillset. I have seen zero evidence to the contrary, other than a false narrative (perpetuated by 'news') that him and CSW created Bitcoin. Even the court has thrown out numerous dated evidence [1,2]. Being a computer forensics specialist doesn't easily port to creating a blend of PGP, Hashcash, eCash, bitgold, etc. Satoshi was an expert at this stuff. What evidence shows that Kleiman did anything? Even in the Kleiman/CSW court cases, there isn't evidence that's been produced by either party. That's the court of law. Please don't avoid this point, no evidence exists to tie Kleiman even to the ideas of digital cash. I haven't seen any and I looked into it heavily, maintaining an open mind. I got no dog in the fight, just a sizable curiosity to this mysterious character. [1] - https://decrypt.co/21995/us-judge-throws-out-craig-wrights-latest-excuse https://decrypt.co/21995/us-judge-throws-out-craig-wrights-l... [2] - http://blockchaingrade.org/experts-dissect-craig-wrights-satoshi-testimony-and-court-documents http://blockchaingrade.org/experts-dissect-craig-wrights-sat...