5 ms·

Who created Bitcoin? This comment seems to offer many clues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547590 There a

Who created Bitcoin? This comment seems to offer many clues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547590 There are two groups that are on the suspects list for having engendered bitcoin, one group centers around Trinity College, another is a bunch of loosely affiliated international collaborators. Both groups are on the record with precursors to bitcoin (papers, software), neither has admitted openly that they were the ones. Along with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548093 Investigations into the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto have been attempted by The New Yorker and Fast Company. Fast Company's investigation brought up circumstantial evidence that indicated a link between an encryption patent application filed by Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry on 15 August 2008, and the bitcoin.org domain name which was registered 72 hours later. The patent application (#20100042841) contained networking and encryption technologies similar to bitcoin's. After textual analysis, the phrase "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto. Anyone care to speculate whether it's more likely the creators were based in Trinity College rather than being international collaborators? It's interesting that the controller of the Satoshi persona managed to stay anonymous for so long. I wonder if they were careful to only write forum posts via Tor? Otherwise their IP address might've been logged. An IP address would be enough for an ISP to unmask them (or at least narrow down the suspect list quite a lot). Satoshi also made a lot of source code commits, which seems like another way their IP address could leak.

Afforess 13y ago
>All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto Obviously if the inventor was not a single person, but the result of a group effort, one could truthfully reply that they were not the inventor.
- canttestthis 13y ago
  Why would you even assume that they replied truthfully?
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    Since some people would prefer not to lie, the fact that they didn't have to removes the "AND they were lying" clause from the hypothesis and thereby raises the chances that they're involved. It's not an assumption that they replied truthfully, but a removal of the requirement that they lied when asked.
oskarth 13y ago
> "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. That's the first time I have heard that one. If there are no other textbooks / papers / patents were this phrase is used, this seems like a pretty strong indicator to me. A search on Google Scholar for that exact phrase gives (at the time) the two expected results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally+impractical+to+reverse%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally... Alternative hypothesis: (a) Nakamoto paid close attention to research, read the patent and liked the phrase. (b) The phrase is common lingo, but Google Scholar doesn't index it. For example, it could be used in a private mailing list. Both (a) and (b) seems like they could quite easily be investigated by someone with domain knowledge together with some knowledge of how patents are distributed. This seems like too simplistic a reasoning. Anyone care to explain what I am missing? EDIT: The exact phrase "computationally impractical" seems to be very common, with thousands of citations before 2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impractical%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impra... It seems to me that reversibility might simple have been a "theme" in crypto circles around that time, which could explain the coincidence that two different groups independently glued the phrases together.
BoppreH 13y ago
Satoshi mined bitcoins alone for a long time, back when it was easiest. If they did not lose those original coins, they are stupidly rich. When you hit a jackpot like this, remaining silent and denying everything is one of the most sensible courses of action.
- deegles 13y ago
  People are keeping a close eye on the addresses holding all of those bitcoins. I wonder how he'll avoid being detected when trying to withdraw them.
  - Perseids 13y ago
    I guess when there are some more established exchange services they could slowly pull some of that money out in relatively good anonymity. (Assuming that a more established service would not sell their name to the press.)
    - eof 13y ago
      they will have to have their own, popular, mixing service to pull this off
deelowe 13y ago
I have a related question. Why hasn't the creator(s) come forward? What reason is there for hiding their identity? I'm starting to add more tin foil to my hat these days and this sort of thing worries me.
- wmf 13y ago
  It's possible that some kind of secondary liability theory could be invented to make Satoshi an accessory to money laundering on a massive scale. But I've also noticed that communities and movements must become stronger when they outgrow their original leader. When you meet the Buddha on the road you're supposed to kill him, but most people won't. So he disappears instead.
- mrb 13y ago
  He wants to remain anonymous almost certainly because he is estimated to own ~1 million BTC ($200 million!); and a lot of thieves would track/kidnap/torture/murder someone for the chance to steal that amount.
  - deelowe 13y ago
    I doubt that's it. There's plenty of more wealthier people out there: http://www.forbes.com/lists/ http://www.forbes.com/lists/
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sktrdie 13y ago
Their activity on the official Bitcoin forum could probably lead to some analysis on where they are from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=statPanel https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=stat...
kristianp 13y ago
Why is it that an off-topic (and untechnical) thread always seems to go to the top of HN discussions? So irritating.

Afforess 13y ago

>All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto Obviously if the inventor was not a single person, but the result of a group effort, one could truthfully reply that they were not the inventor.

canttestthis 13y ago
Why would you even assume that they replied truthfully?
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Since some people would prefer not to lie, the fact that they didn't have to removes the "AND they were lying" clause from the hypothesis and thereby raises the chances that they're involved. It's not an assumption that they replied truthfully, but a removal of the requirement that they lied when asked.

oskarth 13y ago

> "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. That's the first time I have heard that one. If there are no other textbooks / papers / patents were this phrase is used, this seems like a pretty strong indicator to me. A search on Google Scholar for that exact phrase gives (at the time) the two expected results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally+impractical+to+reverse%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally... Alternative hypothesis: (a) Nakamoto paid close attention to research, read the patent and liked the phrase. (b) The phrase is common lingo, but Google Scholar doesn't index it. For example, it could be used in a private mailing list. Both (a) and (b) seems like they could quite easily be investigated by someone with domain knowledge together with some knowledge of how patents are distributed. This seems like too simplistic a reasoning. Anyone care to explain what I am missing? EDIT: The exact phrase "computationally impractical" seems to be very common, with thousands of citations before 2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impractical%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impra... It seems to me that reversibility might simple have been a "theme" in crypto circles around that time, which could explain the coincidence that two different groups independently glued the phrases together.

BoppreH 13y ago

Satoshi mined bitcoins alone for a long time, back when it was easiest. If they did not lose those original coins, they are stupidly rich. When you hit a jackpot like this, remaining silent and denying everything is one of the most sensible courses of action.

deegles 13y ago
People are keeping a close eye on the addresses holding all of those bitcoins. I wonder how he'll avoid being detected when trying to withdraw them.
- Perseids 13y ago
  I guess when there are some more established exchange services they could slowly pull some of that money out in relatively good anonymity. (Assuming that a more established service would not sell their name to the press.)
  - eof 13y ago
    they will have to have their own, popular, mixing service to pull this off

deelowe 13y ago

I have a related question. Why hasn't the creator(s) come forward? What reason is there for hiding their identity? I'm starting to add more tin foil to my hat these days and this sort of thing worries me.

wmf 13y ago
It's possible that some kind of secondary liability theory could be invented to make Satoshi an accessory to money laundering on a massive scale. But I've also noticed that communities and movements must become stronger when they outgrow their original leader. When you meet the Buddha on the road you're supposed to kill him, but most people won't. So he disappears instead.
mrb 13y ago
He wants to remain anonymous almost certainly because he is estimated to own ~1 million BTC ($200 million!); and a lot of thieves would track/kidnap/torture/murder someone for the chance to steal that amount.
- deelowe 13y ago
  I doubt that's it. There's plenty of more wealthier people out there: http://www.forbes.com/lists/ http://www.forbes.com/lists/

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sktrdie 13y ago

Their activity on the official Bitcoin forum could probably lead to some analysis on where they are from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=statPanel https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=stat...

kristianp 13y ago

Why is it that an off-topic (and untechnical) thread always seems to go to the top of HN discussions? So irritating.