5 ms·

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his r

by Aqueous 13y ago

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his real name about something unrelated to BitCoin, before he decided to switch identities to release BitCoin under a pseudonym. I really doubt that Satoshi would have lurked silently there for many years before suddenly dropping the BitCoin whitepaper on the list without once contributing under his own name, perhaps before he was even thinking about BitCoin. I think someone should do a quantified textual analysis of posts to to derive some sort of written language fingerprint for each author on the Cryptography Mailing List. Has anyone been able to derive a unique fingerprint of written language that accurately predicts the identity of the author? Has an analysis like this been done and come up empty?

jamesrom 13y ago
> a unique fingerprint of written language that accurately predicts the identity of the author These kinds of analysis are usually more "fuzzy" than "unique" and "accurate". And can be easily fooled if you are trying to remain anonymous. Especially in the case that Satoshi isn't a single person.
- darkmighty 13y ago
  Agreed, but strong evidence could plausibly be found. Also the style of writing/spelling errors can sometimes reveal nationality if you're familiar enough with different languages. I don't think someone would go through that much work, though.
- Tycho 13y ago
  If it pointed to a particular individual then people would quickly find corroborating evidence (or not), so the fuzziness doesn't make the analysis useless.
kanzure 13y ago
At the moment, it would be really helpful if you could submit archives of the original cypherpunk mailing list, the p2p-hackers mailing list, the cryptology mailing list, and the original member list of the p2presearch mailing list (not the current one). A copy of the original pdf would also be really helpful. Not the one that md5 hashes to d56d71ecadf2137be09d8b1d35c6c042 please. Here is some content in return: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin-satoshi/ http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin-satoshi/ I am secretly hoping that Satoshi (and many others like him) really were lurking throughout the entire cypherpunk history, because it plays well into the cyberpunk fantasy unrolling in my head.
ohwp 13y ago
The term "proof-of-work" (with the dashes) is not used very often. But in all Bitcoin documentation it's written with the dashes. Now there is one Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system started by 'Julian Krause', so Satoshi might be Julian Krause.. ;)
DominikR 13y ago
Why does it really matter who Satoshi is? He didn't do anything illegal so why should anyone try to uncover his identity even though he's chosen anonymity for himself?
- toyg 13y ago
  You could argue that it's in the public interest to know who created Bitcoin and why. What if Satoshi were a NSA stooge and the algorithm had currently-unknown weaknesses that would allow a selected group of in-the-know people to generate BC at rates much higher than regular miners? Cryptography does not lie, but we often don't know what (or how) to ask the right questions. Satoshi's identity could help shape those questions.
  - bennyg 13y ago
    I'd rather not know. It's more fun this way - almost like a Banksy of cryptography.
  - DominikR 13y ago
    As far as I know, everything is open source, and I'm sure that some cryptography experts already analyzed that. And even if no one did, it is obvious that the person/organization that started the whole thing would have the highest profit by definition without the need of any backdoor. Just look at how many Bitcoins Satoshi made at the start, when competition and mining difficulty was low. But yes, I share your concerns, since it could be a pyramid scheme. The one that starts it profits the most, everyone that enters the game later earns less but hopes that the value increases as long as more and more new players are joining. And this currency is deflationary by design, which obviously helps driving profit expectations for everyone. (why the hell would you want deflation in a currency? Deflation reduces circulation which defeats the purpose of a currency)

by Aqueous 13y ago

jamesrom 13y ago

> a unique fingerprint of written language that accurately predicts the identity of the author These kinds of analysis are usually more "fuzzy" than "unique" and "accurate". And can be easily fooled if you are trying to remain anonymous. Especially in the case that Satoshi isn't a single person.

darkmighty 13y ago
Agreed, but strong evidence could plausibly be found. Also the style of writing/spelling errors can sometimes reveal nationality if you're familiar enough with different languages. I don't think someone would go through that much work, though.
Tycho 13y ago
If it pointed to a particular individual then people would quickly find corroborating evidence (or not), so the fuzziness doesn't make the analysis useless.

kanzure 13y ago

At the moment, it would be really helpful if you could submit archives of the original cypherpunk mailing list, the p2p-hackers mailing list, the cryptology mailing list, and the original member list of the p2presearch mailing list (not the current one). A copy of the original pdf would also be really helpful. Not the one that md5 hashes to d56d71ecadf2137be09d8b1d35c6c042 please. Here is some content in return: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin-satoshi/ http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin-satoshi/ I am secretly hoping that Satoshi (and many others like him) really were lurking throughout the entire cypherpunk history, because it plays well into the cyberpunk fantasy unrolling in my head.

ohwp 13y ago

The term "proof-of-work" (with the dashes) is not used very often. But in all Bitcoin documentation it's written with the dashes. Now there is one Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system started by 'Julian Krause', so Satoshi might be Julian Krause.. ;)

DominikR 13y ago

Why does it really matter who Satoshi is? He didn't do anything illegal so why should anyone try to uncover his identity even though he's chosen anonymity for himself?

toyg 13y ago
You could argue that it's in the public interest to know who created Bitcoin and why. What if Satoshi were a NSA stooge and the algorithm had currently-unknown weaknesses that would allow a selected group of in-the-know people to generate BC at rates much higher than regular miners? Cryptography does not lie, but we often don't know what (or how) to ask the right questions. Satoshi's identity could help shape those questions.
- bennyg 13y ago
  I'd rather not know. It's more fun this way - almost like a Banksy of cryptography.
- DominikR 13y ago
  As far as I know, everything is open source, and I'm sure that some cryptography experts already analyzed that. And even if no one did, it is obvious that the person/organization that started the whole thing would have the highest profit by definition without the need of any backdoor. Just look at how many Bitcoins Satoshi made at the start, when competition and mining difficulty was low. But yes, I share your concerns, since it could be a pyramid scheme. The one that starts it profits the most, everyone that enters the game later earns less but hopes that the value increases as long as more and more new players are joining. And this currency is deflationary by design, which obviously helps driving profit expectations for everyone. (why the hell would you want deflation in a currency? Deflation reduces circulation which defeats the purpose of a currency)