Bitcoin Forum

Is it possible, that Satoshi used for his ''early mined coins'' precalculated SHA256 addresses and not random addresses like we do it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4788671 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4788671)?

Possible?  Perhaps, but extremely unlikely.

If you take a look at the things that Satoshi posted, and the decisions that he made, there is no reason at all to think he would have done such a silly thing.  He would have no reason to do so, and lots of reasons not to do so. He almost certainly was using the same Bitcoin node/wallet software that he released for everyone else to use, and that software generates random private keys.

That the released wallet generated random private keys is clear. But did he mention, that he is using that wallet software?

It's what he created.  Why would he use something else?

Also, since Bitcoin didn't exist before he created it, there wasn't time for anyone else to create something else for him to use.

Why would he create a strong and secure miner/node/wallet for everyone else, and then create a separate less secure miner/node/wallet for his own use?

If he did create a separate miner/node/wallet software that used non-random keys, then why wouldn't he have released that software for others?

Not only to use non-random (pre-calculated) keys but also to adjust the hashrate and other things to let the network run.

Others didn't even know what mining (blockchain) is and the wallet for them should be easy to use.

I think the only question you have to answer is this: Why would Satoshi want you to grope their money?

The standard Bitcoin miner/node/wallet software that he released already adjusts the hashrate and other things to let the network run.  There would be no reason to run different software.  Additionally, the consensus system of Bitcoin requires that ALL nodes behave EXACTLY the same regarding any rules about valid transactions or valid blocks.  If he did create separate software for himself, he would have risked introducing a difference in behavior of that software and causing a fork.  Again, there is no reason for him not to use the software that he created, and all the reasons for him to use it.


First, it was not "easy to use".  You needed to download the source code and compile it yourself.

Second, why would he want to create or use "difficult to use" and insecure software that did the same thing as the "easy to use" and secure software that he released?

Satoshi wanted us to mine and get their money. Why?

I meant easy to understand the new technology. (blockchain and mining)

Maybe: The core software was the same like the downloadable wallet. But his-her-their version had some features eg. use a precalculated list of addresses. Why? He could store the private keys before mining.

It's not their money. It's yours if you mined it and theirs if they mined it.

That is clear.

Satoshi could have set the rules so or run lots of hardware, that they mined 99% and we 1%. But didn't do it. Why?

Which reminds me of the first question. What makes you think they'd want a smartass who would have no life other than guessing their keys?

Would you ask that question to Satoshi too?

There are, obviously, cases where you can't question the person who'd give you the answer you want. In these cases, you'll have to try answering it yourself based on the context. In my opinion, based on what I've understood from their serious attitude towards the project, I find it extremely unlikely from their side to not choose random keys as they'd never want to leave room for an impersonator.

Also, I would characterize it “unfair” to give those smartasses the chance to reward themselves in an other way than mining. It promotes nothing, but immorality. The fact that Satoshi hasn't move their coins for over a decade shows me that they didn't want them to be into circulation in the first place.

In my opinion it would be unfair ''from their serious attitude towards the project'' to mine coins, mark them and let them unmoved, if that was their intention. Because there is always the possibility, that they can move these coins. They could have mined or moved them to a ''burn address.''

Why would it be unfair to give people ''the chance to reward themselves in an other way than mining'' if we have thereafter a better distribution?

What can I say? They may just died and had the intention to burn them or spend them. I also have lots questions to make, but since this person is long gone, I'll only bring conspiracy theories to the table which never helped none.

What matters is that I find it highly unlikely and thus, won't spend my valuable time searching for Satoshi's supposedly purposely chosen keys to earn money. I consider more likely to become richer by digging the ground arbitrarily, searching for oil, diamonds and gold.

How would that be a better distribution? Few folks who saw themselves as the kings of the treasure hunt become billionaires. Their keys will be demanded from Faketoshis like Wright, who'll then pretend to be Satoshi with evidence. How does that sound to you?

He had to use a bit different version in some cases, for example to mine the Genesis Block. It could be almost the same code, but some little changes here and there were needed to make it, but of course after doing first steps he could start using the same version to check if everything works as he planned.

Less secure versions were first, then more secure versions were created. For example, in pre-release version the difficulty for testing was set to 20 bits for testnet and 40 bits for mainnet. That may be also the reason why the Genesis Block meets 40-bit difficulty. It is quite unlikely to hit that low block hash and not hit any 32-bit hashes first, but it has to be confirmed by re-mining.

Because it could be present in pre-release testnet, but removed in mainnet. If you test something, you need some workarounds to check things quick, for example lower difficulty. You could also need easier keys in some cases, it depends on your tests.

I doubt he wanted it. Maybe it was needed in testnet, but in mainnet there was no reason to make that system insecure. But it had some holes, for example "OP_TRUE OP_RETURN" or Value Overflow Incident. Every software has bugs, but if Satoshi just used random keys from OpenSSL, it is unlikely that his keys are non-random. It seems he didn't know even about key compression or DER signature encoding. Also note that setting non-random ECDSA key was not that easy in OpenSSL, so I doubt there are any non-random early keys.

For non-programmers it was the case, but as a developer, he constantly wanted to improve his software, fix bugs, etc. So there probably were some cases when he was trying to test something and used some different version before making next release. Also, it is quite likely he used his testnet with 20-bit difficulty just to double-check things before releasing that to the public, he said he wrote some code first, then wrote the whitepaper, and then published pre-release version, and finally the first official version with the currently existing Genesis Block. It is quite likely he did that many times, not just once before "setting things in stone".

There definitely were some features, for example in "market.cpp" file, where Satoshi tried to do some eBay-like P2P market, also notice the code for poker game that was in the first release. So he definitely tried to do some things that were not active in the official version, there are some traces of that, because he probably forgot to remove them before making a release.

Because that kind of system would be unfair and people would go somewhere else. Today you can see many projects with premine or where developers can decide about a lot of things, just because they want. Trying to get people attention was difficult, because Bitcoin was a very inefficient solution to the double-spending problem. People thought that there must exist some kind of system, where things are similar like in centralized systems, where you can simply remove old transactions after some time, where you don't have to know about everything what happened in the whole network. When you read the whitepaper and have performance in mind, you can easily think for the first time that this kind of solution is the worst you have ever seen and simply cannot be used in practice.

That's why the owner of around one million BTC is called Patoshi and not Satoshi. I don't see any connection between Patoshi and Satoshi, so far it is not clear if that's the same person or not.

So, to sum up: I think that Satoshi's keys are random, but he probably used some different versions, just to test things, bootstrap things (the Genesis Block), test new features, and so on.

The question was: Is it possible, that Satoshi used precalculated addresses and not random addresses? (And this was an honest question.)

If so, then someone will find the path to one address and move the coins. Then we will know that this was Satoshi's intention. Because, if they chose random addresses, it wouldn't be possible to move them. Thereafter others will follow and move coins. Some will publish the private keys and how they did it. Some of them would ''pretend to be Satoshi with evidence'', but we knew, that anybody could have the private keys. And nobody would be able to get the private keys to all addresses at once, so we hadn't billionaires. There would be competition.

That sounds good to me, very good. And very fair, Satoshi like.

Thanks garlonicon, for the explanation.  


My opinion: Patoshi = Satoshi
Reason: We know that Patoshi marked the coins. How can one understand blockchain, mining and the wallet software in that short time to adjust it, that the mined coins can be marked?

No. That sounds like a bunch of speculation without any arguments. Even your reasoning makes no sense.
What is the difference between precalculated addresses and random addresses? You still need a private key to sign the transaction. And what do you mean by "someone will find the path to one address"? There is no such thing.

https://news.bitcoin.com/online-sleuths-believe-satoshi-nakamotos-bitcoin-stash-is-a-blockchain-treasure-hunt-meant-to-be-found/ (https://news.bitcoin.com/online-sleuths-believe-satoshi-nakamotos-bitcoin-stash-is-a-blockchain-treasure-hunt-meant-to-be-found/)

And we went one step further, saying that IF THEY DID, it wouldn't create a fair wealth distribution. (And would also give impersonators the chance to pretend they're them with proof)

What you're asking is answered. It's possible, yet highly unlikely by any means, judging by the arguments.

How can you really make this conclusion? Aren't they users of the system? If you witnessed a transaction which spends the coinbase reward from a very early block, do you conclude that someone found Satoshi's keys? Isn't it possible that the owner of those keys (who may not be Satoshi) just moved their money?

A randomly generated address is an address whose private key can't be predicted by any way. For instance, your wallet generates unpredictable entropies and hence, addresses. A pre-calculated address isn't that one. For instance, if you hash the “BlackHatCoiner.com”, you'll get this number:

Which gives this WIF:

And if you import it in a wallet, you'll get:

So you just created an address in a non-unpredictable way, which is obviously vulnerable to people who brute force such stuff.

---

Adding this quote, which is relatable;

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I thought the OP was referring to some pre-generated vanity addresses.

Anyhow, I agree with Occam's Razor on this. It is all just a wild theory without a lot of logic behind it, just like those conspiracy theories.

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?
(New thread for this question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5370618 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5370618))