4 ms·
Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could
by nullc 2y ago
Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could have just abandoned the account and certainly not later had it renamed to his legal name!
- alchemist1e9 2y agoThat’s actually a really good point if true. In my mind all anyone has to do to prove they aren’t Satoshi is prove what they were doing on 2009-01-10 and had no possibility of using an IP from somewhere around Van Nuys California. https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-california/ https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-cal...
- alchemist1e9 2y agoIt turns out one can view this as actually incriminating not exculpatory as petertodd and nullc are promoting. https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063.html https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063... Hal Finney and others interacted with Peter Todd as “retep” for more than a decade before the bitcointalk account and post. They would have immediately recognized him.
- petertodd 2y agoExcellent point!
- amai 2y ago'retep' for peter backwards? That is kind a lame.
- nullc 2y agohey now, it took me most of a decade to figure out that retep was peter backwards! but also, it's not particularly identifying as there are a lot of peter's in and around bitcoin.