3 ms·

You obviously haven't done much research on the topic. There are far, far more likely candidates, like Len Sassaman. Anyone that knew a bit about Bitcoin at the

You obviously haven't done much research on the topic. There are far, far more likely candidates, like Len Sassaman. Anyone that knew a bit about Bitcoin at the time could have made that BitcoinTalk post, it's not a "slip up". Also, Satoshi almost certainly lived in the Benelux region when he released Bitcoin. See this paper for some actual evidence-based research: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.10257 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.10257

alchemist1e9 2y ago
I have done a lot and have read that paper. I’ve been camp Szabo for a while. also have considered Sassaman however it’s not just his anti Bitcoin tweets, which could be misdirection, but people have reported he had genuine conversations with them with same sentiments. I also initially thought Peter Todd theory was a joke. Wasn’t convinced by doc at all. However once you dig into his life from teen onward and see his current attempts to downplay himself and retell history in strange ways … I don’t know … my position has changed significantly, I think it’s looking more and more possible.
- olalonde 2y ago
  Not only is there not much evidence backing the Peter Todd theory, but there are many issues with it: 1) Why wouldn't he have used his Satoshi identity to discredit Craig Wright and save himself and fellow core developers a lot of pain and suffering? 2) Why wouldn't he have spent any of his large BTC stash? 3) Why is he fine being known as an early Bitcoin developer and adopter, but not fine being known as its creator? 4) How would he have a copy of the "20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux", given that it was only distributed to attendants and university libraries in the Benelux? 5) How would he have gotten his hands on the British version of a newspaper on 03/Jan/2009? Due to 1), I highly doubt that Satoshi remained an active member of the Bitcoin community following his departure. The fact that he stayed silent during the "block wars" and the Craig Wright shitshow shows a complete indifference towards Bitcoin or more likely, that he was dead or incapacitated. I'm not saying Sassaman is Satoshi, but simply that Sassaman is a much better candidate. This is a picture that Sassaman took of his office in 2007: https://www.flickr.com/photos/enochsmiles/488460964/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/enochsmiles/488460964/. Notice anything interesting?
  - nullc 2y ago
    I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have late 2010 backups with a copy of the "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements" paper. It was rendered with a January 2009 copy of ghostscript. Just based on the dates there are reasonable odds my copy is the same one Satoshi had. Satoshi contacted the authors he cited for information on how to correctly cite their work, he didn't actually have to have seen the symposium document. Considering that it's title used the same language as Satoshi, it wouldn't have been surprising for him to have turned it up -- or one of the people Satoshi contacted might have suggested it. Lots of possibilities. I would take the source that you're taking these arguments from with a huge grain of salt. > I'm not saying Sassaman is Satoshi, but simply that Sassaman is a much better candidate. A hand full of random coincidences which are unsurprising for people of their interests isn't good evidence for any of them. And it's also not unusual for people to have access to proceedings for events they didn't attend, or even to have them outright, e.g. I have a big set of FC proceedings but only was actually attending for a couple-- https://files.catbox.moe/w1dhwn.jpeg https://files.catbox.moe/w1dhwn.jpeg.
    - olalonde 2y ago
      > I don't have a dog in this fight Neither do I, I was simply comparing them from a Bayesian point of view. There is indeed no "smoking gun". What you say about the citation is possible but I estimate that it's more likely he had a physical copy (I would change my mind about that if we found out he had indeed contacted the authors for citation information). Also, Sassaman has some important points in his favor that Peter Todd lacks: 1) he is dead. I find it unlikely that Satoshi is still alive and even more unlikely that he is still alive and very publicly involved in Bitcoin. 2) strong connection to one of the white paper's citations 3) cares a lot about privacy/anonymity, e.g. he tried to convince Bram Cohen to release BitTorrent anonymously But he also has some points that work against him: not being known as a Windows C++ programmer, his wife not believing him to be Satoshi, etc. Overall I feel Sassaman is more likely than Todd, but I am not convinced he is Satoshi.
      - alchemist1e9 2y ago
midmagico 2y ago
lol, no.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  to which aspect does the lol correspond?

alchemist1e9 2y ago

I have done a lot and have read that paper. I’ve been camp Szabo for a while. also have considered Sassaman however it’s not just his anti Bitcoin tweets, which could be misdirection, but people have reported he had genuine conversations with them with same sentiments. I also initially thought Peter Todd theory was a joke. Wasn’t convinced by doc at all. However once you dig into his life from teen onward and see his current attempts to downplay himself and retell history in strange ways … I don’t know … my position has changed significantly, I think it’s looking more and more possible.

olalonde 2y ago
Not only is there not much evidence backing the Peter Todd theory, but there are many issues with it: 1) Why wouldn't he have used his Satoshi identity to discredit Craig Wright and save himself and fellow core developers a lot of pain and suffering? 2) Why wouldn't he have spent any of his large BTC stash? 3) Why is he fine being known as an early Bitcoin developer and adopter, but not fine being known as its creator? 4) How would he have a copy of the "20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux", given that it was only distributed to attendants and university libraries in the Benelux? 5) How would he have gotten his hands on the British version of a newspaper on 03/Jan/2009? Due to 1), I highly doubt that Satoshi remained an active member of the Bitcoin community following his departure. The fact that he stayed silent during the "block wars" and the Craig Wright shitshow shows a complete indifference towards Bitcoin or more likely, that he was dead or incapacitated. I'm not saying Sassaman is Satoshi, but simply that Sassaman is a much better candidate. This is a picture that Sassaman took of his office in 2007: https://www.flickr.com/photos/enochsmiles/488460964/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/enochsmiles/488460964/. Notice anything interesting?
- nullc 2y ago
  I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have late 2010 backups with a copy of the "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements" paper. It was rendered with a January 2009 copy of ghostscript. Just based on the dates there are reasonable odds my copy is the same one Satoshi had. Satoshi contacted the authors he cited for information on how to correctly cite their work, he didn't actually have to have seen the symposium document. Considering that it's title used the same language as Satoshi, it wouldn't have been surprising for him to have turned it up -- or one of the people Satoshi contacted might have suggested it. Lots of possibilities. I would take the source that you're taking these arguments from with a huge grain of salt. > I'm not saying Sassaman is Satoshi, but simply that Sassaman is a much better candidate. A hand full of random coincidences which are unsurprising for people of their interests isn't good evidence for any of them. And it's also not unusual for people to have access to proceedings for events they didn't attend, or even to have them outright, e.g. I have a big set of FC proceedings but only was actually attending for a couple-- https://files.catbox.moe/w1dhwn.jpeg https://files.catbox.moe/w1dhwn.jpeg.
  - olalonde 2y ago
    > I don't have a dog in this fight Neither do I, I was simply comparing them from a Bayesian point of view. There is indeed no "smoking gun". What you say about the citation is possible but I estimate that it's more likely he had a physical copy (I would change my mind about that if we found out he had indeed contacted the authors for citation information). Also, Sassaman has some important points in his favor that Peter Todd lacks: 1) he is dead. I find it unlikely that Satoshi is still alive and even more unlikely that he is still alive and very publicly involved in Bitcoin. 2) strong connection to one of the white paper's citations 3) cares a lot about privacy/anonymity, e.g. he tried to convince Bram Cohen to release BitTorrent anonymously But he also has some points that work against him: not being known as a Windows C++ programmer, his wife not believing him to be Satoshi, etc. Overall I feel Sassaman is more likely than Todd, but I am not convinced he is Satoshi.
    - alchemist1e9 2y ago

midmagico 2y ago

lol, no.

alchemist1e9 2y ago
to which aspect does the lol correspond?