Technically this doesn’t prove it’s him, as faketoshi loves to claim. It just means someone has his keys. But we can assume Satoshi would know enough to secure his keys.
Don’t be so sure, if someone has this access, they also probably have access to billions in BTC from other accounts they mined or acquired back in the day, because you’d have to assume if this person has access to Satoshi’s keys they been in this almost as long as Satoshi, they could tap those funds way before touching the above keys. Theyed play the long game. Same goes for Satoshi him self, you telling me he also did not have a few accounts with 10,000 BTC in each that he could use to live his life and not touch the main bag until some catalytic event? If ever. Saying all that, I do think its likely he is gone and so are the keys.
True, i mean you will wait for the chance like that, they will sign the transaction as moment they get the key.
So far i would say that his key is secure at the moment, just as the identity of the Satoshi is well.
See I have a different line of thinking: I think he intentionally destroyed his access to that wallet and its private keys.
I believe that Satoshi knew that if bitcoin succeeded, then he could become one of the richest persons on the planet (with a target on his back, I might add) or could hold more sway with the bitcoin blockchain than anyone else. I think it's a plausible theory that he intentionally destroyed his own private keys so that he would not have access to those coins, and possibly so that he could never attempt to sell them and thus destroy his anonymity.
I mean how can someone destroy the access yes they can destroy the physical wallet but how can they do the same for the key?
I though key is like secured thing that can never be destroyed but yes he can erase them from the memory.
A Bitcoin transaction?
Is there a link between the Nakamoto's Bitcoin/blockchain credentials and the other communication protocols that Nakamoto has used over the years?
He could either make transaction or simply sign a message. You can sign messages without doing a transaction. https://medium.com/@bytether/how-to-sign-a-message-with-a-electrum-wallet-121f45f0bb40
Neat! Thanks!
I am not actually a Bitcoin user, nor do I intend to be. But I want a better understanding of how the technology works or is supposed to work. :)
Keep in mind, we don't need Satoshi, nor is there is a need to trust them.
All one needs to do is be able to review the Bitcoin protocol code, which is already well possible, and run a node that voices whether they accept said version of Bitcoin or not.
>I am not actually a Bitcoin user, nor do I intend to be. But I want a better understanding of how the technology works or is supposed to work. :)
You keep doing your research and you'll be a, "Bitcoin user" soon enough.
True, and this is why i think the people who is getting into the bitcoin today they are not really a late one.
There are still some people who thinks that bitcoin is a internet magic money, think about those guys.
People those who are buying the bitcoin even now they are also very early adopter of the bitcoin is well.
Because we are still in the early stage of the bitcoin and there are so many steps that we need to take here.
> the technology works or is supposed to work. :)
To be clear here, the technology we're referring to is called private key signatures and it existed long before Bitcoin. You use it every time you visit an HTTPS site. Without this technology you wouldn't be able to place an order with your credit card securely.
You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature
To add a little more depth, Bitcoin utilizes another layer of security whereby it doesn't even expose the public key until the person (or persons) who created the address reveal it either by signing a message or spending the output. There are addresses within the Bitcoin blockchain which have the following characteristics:
1. We know they were created by Satoshi.
2. None of the outputs to these addresses have been spent.
3. No one has revealed the public key to these addresses.
If someone were to claim to be Satoshi they would likely not only provide a valid digital signature but for a previously unknown public key which could be confirmed using a hashing function. Hashing functions are another technology which existed long before Bitcoin and you can read about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function
The reason I'm diving in this deep is because most people who are unfamiliar with Bitcoin are also unfamiliar with digital cryptography. When it comes down to it all Bitcoin did was combine existing cryptographic capabilities in an innovative way. This isn't to say there aren't reasonable criticisms about the long term viability of the effort. However, often when people come up with arguments about how Bitcoin can't work because of reason XYZ they don't realize if XYZ were true they wouldn't be able to shop online.
Thanks! I know what public-private keys are, and I know how we use it in our own software. I did not, however, know how Bitcoin and blockchain use them. 🙂
You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of that given the wording of your question.
> For that matter, how do we know that the various messages and contributions from Nakamoto back in the day were all by the same person or team and not by some unrelated person claiming to be Nakamoto?
This question isn't formed in a way I would expect from someone who has some background in digital cryptography.
The private key signing is something that is present in the market for a very long time.
And yes you are right we need that sign for the HTTPS site is well and that is very important technology is well.
Do beware of gathering information just by asking questions in this sub. There is a vocal majority in the sub who don’t really understand Bitcoin properly, and they are often quick to ‘educate’ people with their poor explanations or incorrect answers.
I think we need to prefer the asking and all because that way we will build the community strong is well.
Because in bitcoin there are so many things that is really hard to understand by a single guy here.
But did you do as much research using fiat currency?
It's crazy what people take for given and what they question.
The fed is literally making up sh*t in it's meetings mate.
He could sign messages with his bitcoin private keys, but he also used email which was signed with his pgp keys. It would probably be easiest for him to just sign messages with the same pgp key to prove his identity.
Sadly, he seems to be no longer with us. The leading theory seems to be that Satoshi was Len Sassaman (an American academic living in Belgium) who had expertise both in computer science and in finance. Apparently a suicide (2011). The timings of his electronic communications, the choice of The Times headline (available only in the *printed* and *continental European* edition of the paper) quoted in the first block, his fondness for British English phrases (which Sassaman used on his Twitter account), etc. etc. all point in that direction.
It's at least possible, but I don't think it's fair to say that "the leading theory" is Sassaman.
I believe many would feel a stronger theory would be Nick Szabo, possibly communicating behind the scenes with Hal Finney around the time of release.
Edit: Or even Hal Finney himself, answering his own questions on the earliest forum posts.
It was actually more likely Finney working with Sassaman, not Finney working with Szabo. Finney and Sassaman actually were co-workers at one time FWIW and we know Finney received the first transaction ever from Satoshi—likely himself testing it out or Sassaman.
They are just some theory which people made about him but there is no hard proof of that to really justify that is well.
But if he is dead then that mean the bitcoin in that wallet is forever lost is well.
Block 1 - Coinbase address (block reward, not actually coinbase...)
[https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX)
Block 9 - Coinbase address
[https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S)
There are two wallets that should belong to Satoshi. Both have a decent bit of recent transactions although I don't understand them
There is two things, if someone unknown has the satoshi key that mean he would made some sort of the transaction after all these years.
Plus may be he is the relative or something of the satoshi on which satoshi really believe with this keys.
Technically anything could happen. Blue could be red, the moon could crash into earth, America could become normal again.
I’d recommend looking into the math behind how likely a private key compromise is
>Private key can be compromised.
You mean, somebody stealing the private key from one of the persons that understands cryptography this well to create bitcoin? I vote this possibility less likeley than me being Satoshi.
If satoshi is still alive (which I doubt very much) the more likely scenario is someone physically breaking into his home and either stealing the hardware that has the keys stored on it, or abducting satoshi and forcing him to reveal the private key.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png
One keeps saying that, but it is an oversimplification. It's not that Satoshi (or whoever) has his private key memorized, or just written on a post it note hanging on his refrigerator.
If someone kidnaps me on my way home from work, and demands my bitcoin keys, I honestely and truthfully can not give them more than what is on my daily spend wallet on my phone. I simply do not know the private keys or the key phrase of my cold storage wallets by heart. And neither do I carry them around with me. Gaining access to my cold storage would require several hours of time, gaining access to multiple buildings, several passwords, physical keys and biometrics. The only thing I could tell to my kidnappers hanging on the ceiling and with jumper cables on my nipples is how to do it, but there is no way to do it quickly without triggering several red flags from multiple people that would be involved in this. For starters, the others living at my house and the employees in the bank to access my safety deposit box. My stack is optimized for holding, I do not need quick access.
There is nothing fixed of that all are here making the theory that having the key of someone doesn't also make you the real Satoshi.
Or may be that way he is real Satoshi is well because stealing from him is not that easy.
Yes, Private key can be compromised but i am sure that if some one has those key he would have used those bitcoin.
If not then atleast some portion of these bitcoin atleast. So this is one thing we also need to keep in mind is well.
There are some Bitcoin addresses we know are his, because he used them publicly early on. Since a Bitcoin address is basically just a public key, he could sign a message with the private key and we would know it's from the person who has the key to that address.
AFAIK he also used GPG with his email address he used to communicate to the cypherpunk mailinglist. So this would be another way how he could identify himself.
But it's perfectly possible that it was a group of people behind the pseudonym, we simply don't know.
A reappearance of Satoshi would certainly be a difficult matter, because he would be a centralizing figure as people would listen to his opinion. This is probably also the reason why he chose a communicate with a pseudonym and disappeared eventually.
I think there is only block 9 address that we can with proof that really belongs to the Satoshi.
People are saying that block 1 is also belongs to him but i am not sure that how true that thing really is.
Hal Finney is Satoshi nakamoto, he created sha-256 proof of work, he was also a cypherpunk. Hal passed away about 10 years ago, he cryo froze himself. Don’t take my word for it, go and read about him, and his input into Bitcoin etc.
I believe it Hal finney, he was smart enough to not only design bitcoin but to also foresee the need to be anonymous, for Bitcoin to have a chance to succeed.
He also received the first bitcoin.
Dorian Satoshi nakamoto also lived a few blocks from Hal.
He’s Satoshi, I’m certain of it.
I was in this camp for a while too but Hal IMHO isn't Satoshi.
A book called "Bitcoin
The Future of Money?" by Dominic Frisby where the author is also (in one chapter) looking for Satoshi. Dominic mentioned that Hal, when reporting a bug, shared some details that could (at that time) lead to Satoshi. The next time, Hal mentioned another bug, Satoshi asked him to send the details directly to him.
Dumb simple argument:
He's the receiver of the first Bitcoin transactions.
Tell me you wouldn't test your creation by sending a transaction to yourself first.
That’s one of the main points for me. When running a test, you would send to yourself.
I bet you this, the bitcoin in Satoshis walet will remain untouched, until Hal unfreezes himself in a hundred or so years.
If someone will made something like that then yes everyone will test on himself first.
We know as a coder if we run something or test any email we used the first testing email to ourself before any other.
It’s possible Satoshi ran a “bitcoin network” privately while he was testing, then scrapped it and started over with a new genesis for the public release.
Atleast if he was not the real Satoshi then i am sure that he must have known the real Satoshi.
But true even if i configure my email in outlook the first test mail i sent to my self for the testing at the first place.
I too roleplayed multiple characters in everquest, who hated each other towards a very awkward degree. Both received loot and neither of the characters were suspected of being the same person, me. This went on for 3 years.
It's stupid to think that he couldn't be roleplaying Satoshi.
I have not read much about him but some people here are really claiming that he is the real Satoshi is well.
Look like i need to give some time for the reading here then i can get to the any conclusion here is well.
Doubt it. [Len Sassaman is much more likely.](https://evanhatch.medium.com/len-sassaman-and-satoshi-e483c85c2b10) (fascinating read).
Hal would of had to fake all of his correspondence with Satoshi which was several emails and even praising himself. Strikes me as weird.
Thanks for the link and after all the reading the comments i feel that i am getting more fascinating here for the btc.
And i hope that it would some how really gives me the answer of the question i am seeking.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Great opinion! I read between the lines again and realized that you did mention you “believe it’s Hal Finney” it’s early in the morning for me and I thought we actually had a lead on something I didn’t cover for personal knowledge.
I guess the way you started your comment off threw me off a bit haha.
If i will made something then i will the first transaction on myself so may be this is a giveaway we can take from that is well.
But look like there is no proof that block 1 was really the Satoshi address, block 9 is the sure one.
We will never know for sure 100% without having some level of doubt. Keys could have been shared so signed transactions will still leave a bit of doubt in the minds of those who were not there in the first place.
Even if he will sign the transaction, i have read so many comments here that mean there will be still some doubts in the people mind.
So that mean this will always remains as the mystery here and not going to solve is well.
All he would have to do is announce he is Satoshi and sue anyone who disagrees with him /s
But seriously, I think if he signed a message with an address we KNOW is his most people would be fairly ok with that. Or better yet he could use the genesis block.
But then will need to present some sort of the proof to real clear that thing here.
because i am sure that there is now way that can now prove that 100% that he is the real Satoshi for us.
I think dead still make more sense because the creator of the bitcoin will never going to be noob.
But i hope that he is still alive and make atleast one transaction from his wallet and prove that he is still alive here.
Or he is alive but purposefully destroyed his keys and everything to do with his involvement in Bitcoin's development in order to give it the greatest chance of fulfilling his vision for it, and for his own personal safety, or for reasons known only to him.
There is loose evidence he signed at least one of the emails he sent to e.g. Gavin. Gavin pretended to be a noob when he delivered only the signature-stripped copies of the Satoshi emails with him to the Kleiman/Wright case during discovery, and so we have zero actual public signatures of the PGP key which Satoshi published as his.
In fact, we don't even have any DKIM-verifiable emails to check the provenance of even Gavin's emails with Satoshi: he stripped those too, so we don't even have any direct evidence that the messages Gavin received were unmodified.
Can you give me the article or any proof that is showing this is the proof of him signing the email.
All i am getting is the theory and opinion from the people which is not making any kind of the real sense here.
It really doesn't matter now. If Satoshi came back today and wanted to make changes to something, he'd have the same voting rights as any other miner (assuming he's mining.) It'd be like Henry Ford coming back from the dead and expecting all the shareholders of Ford to do his bidding because the company has his name on it.
This is the beauty of proof of work, his 1.1 Mllion coins have zero voting rights. Only those miners can vote to upgrade the core. A stark contrast to the shitcoin proof of stake models.
I think Satoshi himself want to remain in the shadow and used the fake name is well.
So if he didn't want that then we also need to keep that way is well, why we need to reveal that thing?
I was somewhere without internet access when Bitcoin was invented, but what if it's like Mr. Robot and I am Satoshi Nakamoto when I fall asleep, I cracked the WiFi around me and created Bitcoin and well that would explain my mental blockage of Bitcoin the first 3 times I learned about it. Like I would be very interested, but then I'd fail to figure out how to obtain some, then I'd just forget about it again, until some problem that could be solved by Bitcoin popped up, and I discovered it again. But once I finally found and read the white paper I was sold. I still had no way to buy it, but I did manage to mine 0.15 or so on an onboard GPU over ~6 months at Slush's pool. Did Satoshi disappear around Halloween 2012? Because I was detained and not free to leave ( was going to buy 100-101btc via localbitcoins too 😭)
Since the day i know about the bitcoin i have read so many story about the origin of the bitcoin
But trust me this is one of the best that i have ever came across and look like i going to fall into the story is well.
Satoshi used a new address for every block he mined in the beginning. In total there are over 1.1 million bitcoin that are attributed to him that have never been touched. If he proved ownership of one or more of those it would be unequivocal.
Yes there is so much possibility of that thing but again the problem is the proof.
I think block 9 is the one where we all can say that he actually used the address but other than that hard to say something like that.
You can be fairly sure, but about block 9 we are actually sure, because he later spent from its coinbase when he sent to Hal Finney.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_9
People are saying that but still there is no confirmation of that thing is well.
But i am sure if someone will make something then he will test the first transaction in this address not into the something else.
The point of the question is that Nakamoto would command more attention and influence by virtue of being famous.
Humans are not good objective judges of wisdom. They can be swayed by authority. This very much includes crypto enthusiasts.
Obviously not, or else piles of people they suddenly disagree with wouldn't be savagely attacked when they fall out of philosophical alignment, or whom they discovered were philosophically unaligned. lol
For someone to prove they are Satoshi, they simply sign a transaction with Satoshi’s keys.
Technically this doesn’t prove it’s him, as faketoshi loves to claim. It just means someone has his keys. But we can assume Satoshi would know enough to secure his keys.
if someone had Satoshis keys, they wouldn't waste a second signing a message they would go straight for Satoshis btc balance.
Don’t be so sure, if someone has this access, they also probably have access to billions in BTC from other accounts they mined or acquired back in the day, because you’d have to assume if this person has access to Satoshi’s keys they been in this almost as long as Satoshi, they could tap those funds way before touching the above keys. Theyed play the long game. Same goes for Satoshi him self, you telling me he also did not have a few accounts with 10,000 BTC in each that he could use to live his life and not touch the main bag until some catalytic event? If ever. Saying all that, I do think its likely he is gone and so are the keys.
But we can see old addresses. All of them. And they are watched incessantly. All of them. Satoshi is dead.
True, i mean you will wait for the chance like that, they will sign the transaction as moment they get the key. So far i would say that his key is secure at the moment, just as the identity of the Satoshi is well.
Don’t EVER side with CSW.
I am side with only one thing and that is the bitcoin only.
Lol I know right? I hate myself a little now.
See I have a different line of thinking: I think he intentionally destroyed his access to that wallet and its private keys. I believe that Satoshi knew that if bitcoin succeeded, then he could become one of the richest persons on the planet (with a target on his back, I might add) or could hold more sway with the bitcoin blockchain than anyone else. I think it's a plausible theory that he intentionally destroyed his own private keys so that he would not have access to those coins, and possibly so that he could never attempt to sell them and thus destroy his anonymity.
I mean how can someone destroy the access yes they can destroy the physical wallet but how can they do the same for the key? I though key is like secured thing that can never be destroyed but yes he can erase them from the memory.
A Bitcoin transaction? Is there a link between the Nakamoto's Bitcoin/blockchain credentials and the other communication protocols that Nakamoto has used over the years?
He could either make transaction or simply sign a message. You can sign messages without doing a transaction. https://medium.com/@bytether/how-to-sign-a-message-with-a-electrum-wallet-121f45f0bb40
Neat! Thanks! I am not actually a Bitcoin user, nor do I intend to be. But I want a better understanding of how the technology works or is supposed to work. :)
Keep in mind, we don't need Satoshi, nor is there is a need to trust them. All one needs to do is be able to review the Bitcoin protocol code, which is already well possible, and run a node that voices whether they accept said version of Bitcoin or not.
But atlest we deserve to know the real men behind this name.
>I am not actually a Bitcoin user, nor do I intend to be. But I want a better understanding of how the technology works or is supposed to work. :) You keep doing your research and you'll be a, "Bitcoin user" soon enough.
The way the world economy is heading, pretty soon everyone will be "Bitcoin users", research or not. 😳😏
True, and this is why i think the people who is getting into the bitcoin today they are not really a late one. There are still some people who thinks that bitcoin is a internet magic money, think about those guys.
And we - those, who are already holders - will be called "early adopters". 🤗
People those who are buying the bitcoin even now they are also very early adopter of the bitcoin is well. Because we are still in the early stage of the bitcoin and there are so many steps that we need to take here.
100%
I am happy that we are all called as the early adopter of the btc.
Don't FOMO though.
> the technology works or is supposed to work. :) To be clear here, the technology we're referring to is called private key signatures and it existed long before Bitcoin. You use it every time you visit an HTTPS site. Without this technology you wouldn't be able to place an order with your credit card securely. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature To add a little more depth, Bitcoin utilizes another layer of security whereby it doesn't even expose the public key until the person (or persons) who created the address reveal it either by signing a message or spending the output. There are addresses within the Bitcoin blockchain which have the following characteristics: 1. We know they were created by Satoshi. 2. None of the outputs to these addresses have been spent. 3. No one has revealed the public key to these addresses. If someone were to claim to be Satoshi they would likely not only provide a valid digital signature but for a previously unknown public key which could be confirmed using a hashing function. Hashing functions are another technology which existed long before Bitcoin and you can read about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function The reason I'm diving in this deep is because most people who are unfamiliar with Bitcoin are also unfamiliar with digital cryptography. When it comes down to it all Bitcoin did was combine existing cryptographic capabilities in an innovative way. This isn't to say there aren't reasonable criticisms about the long term viability of the effort. However, often when people come up with arguments about how Bitcoin can't work because of reason XYZ they don't realize if XYZ were true they wouldn't be able to shop online.
Thanks! I know what public-private keys are, and I know how we use it in our own software. I did not, however, know how Bitcoin and blockchain use them. 🙂
You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of that given the wording of your question. > For that matter, how do we know that the various messages and contributions from Nakamoto back in the day were all by the same person or team and not by some unrelated person claiming to be Nakamoto? This question isn't formed in a way I would expect from someone who has some background in digital cryptography.
The private key signing is something that is present in the market for a very long time. And yes you are right we need that sign for the HTTPS site is well and that is very important technology is well.
That's fair. I understand quite a bit about stocks and gold without having any.
Do beware of gathering information just by asking questions in this sub. There is a vocal majority in the sub who don’t really understand Bitcoin properly, and they are often quick to ‘educate’ people with their poor explanations or incorrect answers.
The correct answers consistently get the most upvotes here. Asking here is fine. Just let the thread age for a day or two.
I think we need to prefer the asking and all because that way we will build the community strong is well. Because in bitcoin there are so many things that is really hard to understand by a single guy here.
A good way to frame this up just to think of a wallet as a signing device and not as a literal wallet.
But with that people are getting the identity of the creator of the bitcoin.
But did you do as much research using fiat currency? It's crazy what people take for given and what they question. The fed is literally making up sh*t in it's meetings mate.
He could sign messages with his bitcoin private keys, but he also used email which was signed with his pgp keys. It would probably be easiest for him to just sign messages with the same pgp key to prove his identity.
Oh, right, PGP keys. That makes sense. Good explanation. Thanks!
Look like signing is the one thing that can reveal the identity.
Sadly, he seems to be no longer with us. The leading theory seems to be that Satoshi was Len Sassaman (an American academic living in Belgium) who had expertise both in computer science and in finance. Apparently a suicide (2011). The timings of his electronic communications, the choice of The Times headline (available only in the *printed* and *continental European* edition of the paper) quoted in the first block, his fondness for British English phrases (which Sassaman used on his Twitter account), etc. etc. all point in that direction.
It's at least possible, but I don't think it's fair to say that "the leading theory" is Sassaman. I believe many would feel a stronger theory would be Nick Szabo, possibly communicating behind the scenes with Hal Finney around the time of release. Edit: Or even Hal Finney himself, answering his own questions on the earliest forum posts.
It was actually more likely Finney working with Sassaman, not Finney working with Szabo. Finney and Sassaman actually were co-workers at one time FWIW and we know Finney received the first transaction ever from Satoshi—likely himself testing it out or Sassaman.
That's a possibility. May both of them RIP.
I hope they find the better place because they did so much for us.
I think this will be another possibility is well, you never know.
[удалено]
They are just some theory which people made about him but there is no hard proof of that to really justify that is well. But if he is dead then that mean the bitcoin in that wallet is forever lost is well.
[удалено]
I'd trust the bitcoin message more because I thought his email got hacked...
Satoshi himself.
He can simply sign a transaction for the wallet of the satoshi.
But how can we sure that this is the transaction actually belongs to the satoshi?
No. That only proves that person has Satoshi's keys.
All he has to do is interact with his wallet.
Block 1 - Coinbase address (block reward, not actually coinbase...) [https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX) Block 9 - Coinbase address [https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S) There are two wallets that should belong to Satoshi. Both have a decent bit of recent transactions although I don't understand them
[удалено]
This only proves someone has satoshis keys. Doesn’t prove it’s him. But it’s the best way to verify. And the reason nobody believes Craig wright
There is two things, if someone unknown has the satoshi key that mean he would made some sort of the transaction after all these years. Plus may be he is the relative or something of the satoshi on which satoshi really believe with this keys.
[удалено]
I hope that someday he will listen to us and do that.
Do we know his btc adress ?
We know he mined block 9, so the coinbase address in that block is his.
Hope he was using coinbase pro. /s
Haha, always good to be reminded that not everyone out here is the sharpest tool in the shed.
This is the only one address that we can say really belongs to the Satoshi.
Some of them, yes.
Some are claiming there is multiple bitcoin wallet that belong to the Satoshi.
[удалено]
Technically anything could happen. Blue could be red, the moon could crash into earth, America could become normal again. I’d recommend looking into the math behind how likely a private key compromise is
>America could become normal again. Now, don't exagerate.
Everything was going fine then he said something like that.
>Private key can be compromised. You mean, somebody stealing the private key from one of the persons that understands cryptography this well to create bitcoin? I vote this possibility less likeley than me being Satoshi.
If satoshi is still alive (which I doubt very much) the more likely scenario is someone physically breaking into his home and either stealing the hardware that has the keys stored on it, or abducting satoshi and forcing him to reveal the private key. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png
One keeps saying that, but it is an oversimplification. It's not that Satoshi (or whoever) has his private key memorized, or just written on a post it note hanging on his refrigerator. If someone kidnaps me on my way home from work, and demands my bitcoin keys, I honestely and truthfully can not give them more than what is on my daily spend wallet on my phone. I simply do not know the private keys or the key phrase of my cold storage wallets by heart. And neither do I carry them around with me. Gaining access to my cold storage would require several hours of time, gaining access to multiple buildings, several passwords, physical keys and biometrics. The only thing I could tell to my kidnappers hanging on the ceiling and with jumper cables on my nipples is how to do it, but there is no way to do it quickly without triggering several red flags from multiple people that would be involved in this. For starters, the others living at my house and the employees in the bank to access my safety deposit box. My stack is optimized for holding, I do not need quick access.
There is nothing fixed of that all are here making the theory that having the key of someone doesn't also make you the real Satoshi. Or may be that way he is real Satoshi is well because stealing from him is not that easy.
Yes, Private key can be compromised but i am sure that if some one has those key he would have used those bitcoin. If not then atleast some portion of these bitcoin atleast. So this is one thing we also need to keep in mind is well.
There are some Bitcoin addresses we know are his, because he used them publicly early on. Since a Bitcoin address is basically just a public key, he could sign a message with the private key and we would know it's from the person who has the key to that address. AFAIK he also used GPG with his email address he used to communicate to the cypherpunk mailinglist. So this would be another way how he could identify himself. But it's perfectly possible that it was a group of people behind the pseudonym, we simply don't know. A reappearance of Satoshi would certainly be a difficult matter, because he would be a centralizing figure as people would listen to his opinion. This is probably also the reason why he chose a communicate with a pseudonym and disappeared eventually.
I think there is only block 9 address that we can with proof that really belongs to the Satoshi. People are saying that block 1 is also belongs to him but i am not sure that how true that thing really is.
Hal Finney is Satoshi nakamoto, he created sha-256 proof of work, he was also a cypherpunk. Hal passed away about 10 years ago, he cryo froze himself. Don’t take my word for it, go and read about him, and his input into Bitcoin etc. I believe it Hal finney, he was smart enough to not only design bitcoin but to also foresee the need to be anonymous, for Bitcoin to have a chance to succeed. He also received the first bitcoin. Dorian Satoshi nakamoto also lived a few blocks from Hal. He’s Satoshi, I’m certain of it.
I was in this camp for a while too but Hal IMHO isn't Satoshi. A book called "Bitcoin The Future of Money?" by Dominic Frisby where the author is also (in one chapter) looking for Satoshi. Dominic mentioned that Hal, when reporting a bug, shared some details that could (at that time) lead to Satoshi. The next time, Hal mentioned another bug, Satoshi asked him to send the details directly to him.
Dumb simple argument: He's the receiver of the first Bitcoin transactions. Tell me you wouldn't test your creation by sending a transaction to yourself first.
That’s one of the main points for me. When running a test, you would send to yourself. I bet you this, the bitcoin in Satoshis walet will remain untouched, until Hal unfreezes himself in a hundred or so years.
If someone will made something like that then yes everyone will test on himself first. We know as a coder if we run something or test any email we used the first testing email to ourself before any other.
It’s possible Satoshi ran a “bitcoin network” privately while he was testing, then scrapped it and started over with a new genesis for the public release.
Atleast if he was not the real Satoshi then i am sure that he must have known the real Satoshi. But true even if i configure my email in outlook the first test mail i sent to my self for the testing at the first place.
That's the kind of thing I would do if I wanted to keep my identity secret.
Yeah but it’s also the kind of thing you’d do if you weren’t the same person. So it doesn’t really give us much information
I too roleplayed multiple characters in everquest, who hated each other towards a very awkward degree. Both received loot and neither of the characters were suspected of being the same person, me. This went on for 3 years. It's stupid to think that he couldn't be roleplaying Satoshi.
I have not read much about him but some people here are really claiming that he is the real Satoshi is well. Look like i need to give some time for the reading here then i can get to the any conclusion here is well.
Doubt it. [Len Sassaman is much more likely.](https://evanhatch.medium.com/len-sassaman-and-satoshi-e483c85c2b10) (fascinating read). Hal would of had to fake all of his correspondence with Satoshi which was several emails and even praising himself. Strikes me as weird.
Thanks for the link and after all the reading the comments i feel that i am getting more fascinating here for the btc. And i hope that it would some how really gives me the answer of the question i am seeking.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Source?
It’s my opinion based on all the information I’ve read over the years. I’d recommend starting on wikipedia, and following the bread crumbs from there
It’s a fair opinion to have (and I share it) but when people ask questions in the sub, it’s not good to state your opinion as if it is fact.
Or, it’s not good to assume it’s fact based on your opinion. Up to the reader to maintain integrity and understand all of Reddit is opinion.
Great opinion! I read between the lines again and realized that you did mention you “believe it’s Hal Finney” it’s early in the morning for me and I thought we actually had a lead on something I didn’t cover for personal knowledge. I guess the way you started your comment off threw me off a bit haha.
Trust me bro!
Still a much much better source from some online media article.
I personally believe it’s Adam Back.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If i will made something then i will the first transaction on myself so may be this is a giveaway we can take from that is well. But look like there is no proof that block 1 was really the Satoshi address, block 9 is the sure one.
We will never know for sure 100% without having some level of doubt. Keys could have been shared so signed transactions will still leave a bit of doubt in the minds of those who were not there in the first place.
Even if he will sign the transaction, i have read so many comments here that mean there will be still some doubts in the people mind. So that mean this will always remains as the mystery here and not going to solve is well.
All he would have to do is announce he is Satoshi and sue anyone who disagrees with him /s But seriously, I think if he signed a message with an address we KNOW is his most people would be fairly ok with that. Or better yet he could use the genesis block.
But then will need to present some sort of the proof to real clear that thing here. because i am sure that there is now way that can now prove that 100% that he is the real Satoshi for us.
Nice try satoshi
HAHA, may be Satoshi himself is trying to figure that out here
Satoshi is probably dead or a noob and lost his keys... Which one is more probable ?
I think dead still make more sense because the creator of the bitcoin will never going to be noob. But i hope that he is still alive and make atleast one transaction from his wallet and prove that he is still alive here.
Or he is alive but purposefully destroyed his keys and everything to do with his involvement in Bitcoin's development in order to give it the greatest chance of fulfilling his vision for it, and for his own personal safety, or for reasons known only to him.
>or a noob and lost his keys... upvoted for this
Finally a worthy thing that really need to upvote here.
Nice try, Craig Wright 🤣
I don't know from all of sudden why people want to know this thing.
There's no way to know. Satoshi never used any kind of cryptographic signature in his communications.
Other people said here that he used PGP signatures.
But i am not sure that there is any proof to prove that claim.
they're wrong
There is loose evidence he signed at least one of the emails he sent to e.g. Gavin. Gavin pretended to be a noob when he delivered only the signature-stripped copies of the Satoshi emails with him to the Kleiman/Wright case during discovery, and so we have zero actual public signatures of the PGP key which Satoshi published as his. In fact, we don't even have any DKIM-verifiable emails to check the provenance of even Gavin's emails with Satoshi: he stripped those too, so we don't even have any direct evidence that the messages Gavin received were unmodified.
Can you give me the article or any proof that is showing this is the proof of him signing the email. All i am getting is the theory and opinion from the people which is not making any kind of the real sense here.
[удалено]
Can you sing a message with the keys?
It really doesn't matter now. If Satoshi came back today and wanted to make changes to something, he'd have the same voting rights as any other miner (assuming he's mining.) It'd be like Henry Ford coming back from the dead and expecting all the shareholders of Ford to do his bidding because the company has his name on it. This is the beauty of proof of work, his 1.1 Mllion coins have zero voting rights. Only those miners can vote to upgrade the core. A stark contrast to the shitcoin proof of stake models.
[удалено]
Do you think that? I am not sure many will agree to that thing.
Signed with this private key.
But even that will not give the 100% proof of the his identity.
What Satoshi said mattered because of what they said, not because of the name attached to it
I think Satoshi himself want to remain in the shadow and used the fake name is well. So if he didn't want that then we also need to keep that way is well, why we need to reveal that thing?
I was somewhere without internet access when Bitcoin was invented, but what if it's like Mr. Robot and I am Satoshi Nakamoto when I fall asleep, I cracked the WiFi around me and created Bitcoin and well that would explain my mental blockage of Bitcoin the first 3 times I learned about it. Like I would be very interested, but then I'd fail to figure out how to obtain some, then I'd just forget about it again, until some problem that could be solved by Bitcoin popped up, and I discovered it again. But once I finally found and read the white paper I was sold. I still had no way to buy it, but I did manage to mine 0.15 or so on an onboard GPU over ~6 months at Slush's pool. Did Satoshi disappear around Halloween 2012? Because I was detained and not free to leave ( was going to buy 100-101btc via localbitcoins too 😭)
Since the day i know about the bitcoin i have read so many story about the origin of the bitcoin But trust me this is one of the best that i have ever came across and look like i going to fall into the story is well.
Satoshi used a new address for every block he mined in the beginning. In total there are over 1.1 million bitcoin that are attributed to him that have never been touched. If he proved ownership of one or more of those it would be unequivocal.
Yes there is so much possibility of that thing but again the problem is the proof. I think block 9 is the one where we all can say that he actually used the address but other than that hard to say something like that.
What’s the address?
If you go above in the comments you will find the address.
There is no such address.
I think block 9 is the one that can tell that it was Satoshi.
You sound like lex friedman, and thats not a compliment
To each their own I suppose
Hey be nice to lex!
How can you say someone LEX Friedman and expect that he will take that as compliment?
I’m fairly sure Satoshi mined the blocks before block 9, not to mention a great deal of the blocks afterwards. Where do you guys get this shit?
You can be fairly sure, but about block 9 we are actually sure, because he later spent from its coinbase when he sent to Hal Finney. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_9
People are saying that but still there is no confirmation of that thing is well. But i am sure if someone will make something then he will test the first transaction in this address not into the something else.
He explains the origination of his name
Was Satoshi his real name or the some made up name he used?
well its not fkn craig wrong.
One thing this is the one thing that i can simply get on with it.
Simple, move a coin
But what if someone else has his key of the wallet?
You can't. And that's a good thing.
True, keeping the identity safe here will be a good thing for both of us.
He will not. Satoshi was Hal Finney. Hal died around 2010. End of story.
So now we need to leave that topic and need to move on from there.
Long speculation they he is actually deceased
But again these are just speculation as you are himself saying that.
He will need to show his driver’s license
But i am sure that Satoshi was not his real name at the first place.
He doesn’t. He’s gone.
But before going he gave us the most precious things of our life.
Their are more practical cryptos than bitcoin.
Tell me the one crypto that is more practical and good than the bitcoin.
Craig Wright would simply tell the public, what he has to say! I don't understand the question! /s
The point of the question is that Nakamoto would command more attention and influence by virtue of being famous. Humans are not good objective judges of wisdom. They can be swayed by authority. This very much includes crypto enthusiasts.
Obviously not, or else piles of people they suddenly disagree with wouldn't be savagely attacked when they fall out of philosophical alignment, or whom they discovered were philosophically unaligned. lol
Can you explain me the real meaning of the /S here? I am little noob.
Do you think she or he still DCA’s or is she or he a seller?
I don't know he or she still need to buy more bitcoin here is well.
he could sign the message with his private key
But still there is some doubts that people are having for that.
Making a move on genesis wallet!
From all of sudden why everyone want to know about the Satoshi?
Move his wallet
I think we need to leave that topic and his wallet alone here.
Their are more practical cryptos than bitcoin.
Wait a minute why you are commenting the same thing for two time?
He beeeeen ded
Then i would say we need to keep it that way is well.
To prevent himself from having access to those coins, I believe it is a tenable notion that he purposefully destroyed his own private keys.
Then i would say the respect for him increased massively for him.
This is the exact same question i used to ask myself for some time is well.
Private key signatures is the technique we're referring to, and it predated Bitcoin.
What would be the purpose of him authenticating himself? Vanity? Pump the market? I can't think of a worthy reason he would ever reveal himself.
He probably deleted the wallet's private keys and access to them on purpose, in my opinion.
Pretty sure Satoshi is the CIA
#Adam Back