Bitcoin Forum

By we, does he mention each and everyone of us or the group he was working on with to make Bitcoin?
I see he have mentioned "we" 20 times in the whitepaper. Just putting a screenshot of conclusion, page 8 of Bitcoin Whitepaper.

https://i.imgur.com/mVjugJQ.png
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

 ::)

Perhaps Satoshi might be referring to the cyber punk communities, specially Wei Dai's "b-money", and Adam Back "Hash Cash". He had this two in his references and others as well.

Cyberphunks manifesto:

https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknow. It can be a he, she, a group of people like Cyperpunk, a company, a governmental agency, whatever.

I think we don't have to find real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto because after 13 years and Bitcoin has grown good enough without the engagement of Satoshi since 2010. It will grow more very well without any engagement of Satoshi because it was designed to be decentralized from protocol design to network hashrate.

It's probably the group he's working with.

I am not surprised that at this point we are thinking about this mysterious character Satoshi: if it was one person, if there were many...

The "we" proves nothing:

He can be simply using the Majestic Plural.

As far as I can see, in English it is not so common, but in other languages it is very common to use it, for example in academic articles, and we do not even know if Satoshi's native language was English.

In our language style, in the country of Indonesia. The word "we" has almost become a standard word as a pronoun for "I" because it is used in writing official letters or proposals which is considered more polite, even though it does not mean representing a group or company. Maybe satoshi is from a country that is also used to using this pronoun or maybe he's actually from Indonesia. LOL

We can have any meaning. We can refer to the community that he was expecting to get attached with Cryptocurrencies or we could be nothing but a sort of self but an adjective being used for self majesty. It's hard too guess the meaning of this we. Definitely one possibility could be that it's referring to set of people involved in the project. But to be honest I am in the set of group which think that it was definitely more than one person because this isn't really a task for one single person.

If I wrote a paper myself, even if I made use of different resources, I would still have used the pronoun I. I would still have used I even if I consulted people every step of the way before reaching to my conclusion. Perhaps I would still use the singular first person subject pronoun even if there are others who share the same view with me, if only to emphasize that I don't represent them, that I'm not writing on their behalf, or that I'm not assuming that they're completely with me.

It's indeed interesting that Satoshi didn't use the pronoun I. Even in the introduction itself, Satoshi preferred to write, "In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using..." even if what followed is an idea coming from himself.

Yes its possible, also given the fact that he also holds a lot of coins its unsure who all has it now from him, may be they are together called as satoshi nakomoto..?

I think you are reading too much into this, "We" is the term that is commonly used in papers to refer to self. It doesn't necessarily have to be a group of people. Of course English is my second language but from hundreds of scientific papers that I've read, I don't remember ever seeing someone use "I".

Satoshi made extra careful moves to hide his true identity. The use of "we" is a redirection to hide the fact that he might truly be just one person. I actually believe Satoshi was Hal Finney, who posted back and forth in the forum with himself using two accounts, Satoshi and Hal, just to hide that he was actually Hal Finney.

Probably just another way for him to hide his identify. Even in his post in this forum, he often misled his readers by the time he logs on this community, sometimes Satoshi will use American and then British English. So we shouldn't take this literally, even in some well written article throughout history, you can find similar pattern from the authors.

Let the conspiracies flow.

Satoshi isn't a man. It is an idea. An organisation made of thousands of people. They can see you but you can't see them because satoshi is everywhere and also satoshi don't exist.

Satoshi serves your food, cleans your hotel room, drives you to the airport.

You just don't mess with these guys because you'll never know if there is a satoshi among them.

Possibly, but not necessarily.
"We" gives more power to a documentation. Sometimes I use it myself, even if maybe I worked all alone on that project.
Plus: it can be related to the fact he did ask around in the community for information and he wanted to give some credit to that.
Again, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Sorry to disappoint you.


LE: As Hero member I was expecting that you already know that this kind of research was done 1000s of times with no clear result, so you're simply wasting your time.

"We" might be pertaining to something but we can't deny that using "We" could be describe a group, an organization or multiple number of persons on the bitcoin project.

It's been how many years now that we are trying to decipher who Satoshi Nakamoto are. Every clues we find are validated and discussed but we are very far from knowing who is Satoshi Nakamoto. I think it would be good if we just wait for a miracle that Satoshi Nakamoto (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3) open his account again. I'm sure it will be grand!

logic, common sense and alot of looking into by lots of people come to this conclusion:

satoshi was one person...
no one else used his pseudonym

but he did talk to and get idea's from other people and get different aspects of features from different sources.

he simply was the magician, and smart guy that pieced it all together. he made the decisions of which cryptography, what numbers, how many bytes, etc.. and pieced it into a form none of the other cypherpunks or economists or anyone previously in time could have thought of.

he was writing the white paper towards a community of cypherpunks. which he felt part of. so like most communities when talking with them he would write we

There are already many topics and articles about Satoshi's real identity, and we don't know which is correct. Even on bitcoin as you said they wrote 'we' which means maybe Satoshi is a group of because or an organization where they don't want to reveal their actual identity but that's just theory and we don't know if it's correct or not because we know bitcoin always getting developed buy some people and not only one person and when we talk about getting developed buy many people that's normal to say 'We' in the whitepaper even if Satoshi is only one person.

I agree with this theory. As well as the use of language so as to avoid taking all the credit for such a technological advance. It's similar to the use of the "royal we" in English to some respect. I wouldn't look into that much really. After all it would sound strange reading the whitepaper, based on a decentralised protocol, whereby someone describes it with "I", as it requires numerous participants to succeed.

I may agree with Satoshi being one person, but who created Bitcoin and the whole system, I don't believe it was a single person. I believe it was a group of persons and one of them was Satoshi. My reasoning is that, I don't believe, even if you were one of the brightest persons on earth, that you could alone create the system he/they created knowing that you needed to be an expert and excel in quite a few areas of knowledge! And those areas are themselves quite extent in the sense that they cover too many aspects for someone alone to be able to excel at them all. I 'm referring for example to finance, economics, computer science, math, cryptography, computer programming and I'm sure those are only a few of them! So, this said, the "We" could very well be the group of persons Satoshi was working with to create Bitcoin!

I am of the opinion that maybe this is exactly the reason (in addition to the other mentioned things) that Satoshi used "we" in the whitepaper, because it is known that he drew his ideas precisely from the works of some other people who, in some way, long before him had ideas about to what he finally implemented.

In addition, considering that Satoshi was a man who was aware that he could not do it alone, I believe that in this way he wanted to repay those with whom he cooperated after Bitcoin came to life. Therefore, he never wanted that project to be something that would be associated exclusively with one name, he knew that Bitcoin would never succeed and be what it is today.

If Satoshi wanted to create an illusion that there was a team, then why he hasn't been consistent with it - outside of whitepaper he only used "I" and there was only one account doing communication in the early days. I think we'll never learn the truth, and it doesn't really matter, because it changes nothing whether Satoshi was a team or a single individual.

True and I guess there is no right or wrong basing on our interpretation here. And from the beginning he didn't get all the credits Satoshi even had conversations with Wei Dai if I'm not mistaken.

Or maybe Satoshi is using 'we' as his pov (point of view), some writers to have this kind of writing style as well. Nevertheless, it doesn't change anything though, all his writings are here in this forum and we can dissect it whether he used "I" or "We", will not matter right now.

There's no decisive answer ti this, but what we need to remember that the comunity back then was nonexistent and that we probably ment both the people the people involved in the project as well as the small comunity thta would make use of it.

From my point of view, I think that the use of the expression "we" was an orientalist vision of the future by Satoshi, I mean that he believed that his program would turn into a universal formula accepted by everyone and working to develop it, so the word "we" may mean anyone who comes in the future who pursues the mission that has begun By Satoshi until Bitcoin turns into the formula Satoshi always dreamed of. Here we are already witnessing the realization of this future vision, where we find thousands and millions of people believe in Bitcoin and are constantly working to develop it to reach the goal for which it was created.

I think the community is already there, they might be commuting already, maybe old BBS or something. But not as big and prominent as this one we have today. But 'we' might pertain to a group of people, not necessarily contributor to the code itself, but people who inspire Satoshi to create his own invention (might not be the first), but it became successful in its first 10 years.

With the way Bitcoin works it will be kind of difficult to claim ownership of the Network or project as anyone can participate, help support and keep it functional... It's not like a company that an individual or few people own and choose who can be part of them.    I assume if you want to write a Whitepaper for a shared Network like Bitcoin it becomes important to acknowledge other participants, atleast to give a sense of belonging.
There is also the possibility he was referring to members of his team he knew who could be both online and offline.

It's business as usual, the document is important because SN wrote it or it's important because it's the whitepaper. I don't know! sometimes I think that Sato, Chi, Naka and Moto are the people who made the whitepaper, so that's maybe the reason for "We"...

That's right! He probably pretended to be Adam Back, then the next week, he'll pretend to be Nick Szabo. It's also possible that he changed his coding style, and actually went through the struggle to code the first versions of Bitcoin in Windows instead of his "possible usual" Unix-based system? Were there cypherpunks during that time who coded in Windows?

Yup, that’s worth it. Its been ages now since when crypto is all about transactions, new ideas, projects, trading firms, institutional and individual investment firms and BTC ATM and what not! Nobody cares anymore whose Satoshi Nakomoto or what is Satoshi Nakomoto.

The end result is simple, it worked. The idea behind that man, woman, group or organisation worked and it shook the world we live in!

Doesn’t matter its we or singular.

Agreed.  In my past studies I've also found the use of "we" in the academic papers: math, physics, cosmology, etc.

It turns out that the use of "we" is simply the polite way to write the paper, whereas the use of "I" or "my" comes off as too arrogant and thus detracts from the topic in the paper, and so, "we" is predominantly used when presenting the results of an experiment, since it is meant to show that it is also the experiment that produced the data and not necessarily just "me".

https://www.enago.com/academy/we-vs-they-using-first-or-third-person-in-a-research-paper/

(this of course, suggested to me that Satoshi was working within some university setting, or possibly some national laboratory, while creating bitcoin.  :) )

This is the case for sure. He/She believed that it was something that we will do as a whole, as a group, and not something that people would do alone. It means that it wouldn't really be something he achieved himself, it would be a group effort. I mean let's face it, he created it but that's about it and nothing else. Would bitcoin be this great if other people didn't pick up on it and started to care for it? Of course not.

This is the situation at hand and this is how we should approach it. I believe that we are not doing something that satoshi created, we are responsible for it, we all are, every single one of us that ever did anything in crypto. We are all responsible for it.

I believe we was meant for both the group (he) was working with at the time as well as for those who would wind up being future participants and supporters of bitcoin and the network.

You have to remember one thing..... Satoshi Nakamoto is a Master of disguise.... and someone that will use "smoke & mirror" techniques to disguise his true identity... and he also worked with other people in the Cyber punk communities. "We" might have been used to strengthen the support for the technology ....so that people might believe that a whole group of people were working on the project.  ;)

We see a lot of these smaller gambling sites popping up all over the place... and a lot of them are run by individuals... but when they post something ...they will also say "We" to gain people's trust.

The conclusion is an official summary of Satoshi's intents and been that it is meant to serve as a world base digital currency he sorted for a way he will relay the operational features of the coin without sounding monopolistic or possessive. Satoshi wasn't disclosed to anyone if the name was for a group of devops or a single entity. This is what i feel.

what Satoshi has proposed is a sort of "continuation" of a work that others had already proposed over the years. scientific paper doesn't born "alone" but always refers to other previous research. this clearly justifies the use of "we".
BTW considering the precision in protecting "his/her/their" identity, I would not expect an error "so trivial" ::) ;)

I would say it's important because it's a whitepaper and every cryptocurrency project won't be completed if without this single document and I think it does not matter if who wrote it.

That is what they say. They say that the name satoshi nakamoto is only just an abbreviation and it can be a separate name of different people. There are those who are crazy and think that satoshi nakamoto stands for sanyo, toshiba, naka (I forgot this one), and motorola lol but how come when those company are already popular and huge? And why will they create a digital currency which is decentralized when the nature of their company isn't like that.

Maybe he means the royal "we"? :P Obviously he is royalty to us at this point.

But jokes aside, I do not see why there shouldn't have been an entire team working on Bitcoin. As much as we like to think that Satoshi Nakamoto was one individual it could have been an entire team of n amount of people. New technology with such sophistication rarely is created by a single mind.

Or maybe he means us as the community. As Bitcoin belongs to everyone?

That would be a warm idea, would it not?

well, if we will think hard about this facet of bitcoin, it would take forever to uncover the truth behind this creation. and we will have a never-ending debate on this topic as the real satoshi nakamoto, won't be disclosing his/their identity/identities anytime soon. what we can do is just be grateful for this creation and just do what you can to support this technology.
even if we decipher word for word the whitepaper, we won't be getting the real meaning of it unless, the creator will disclose himself.

Read some older books on investing.   You will discover many of them use the royal We when referring to self.   its a writing style.

or maybe Sastoshi was really one person who was very intelligent enough to use the word "We" in the whitepaper to or in reference to the entire crypto currency community and supporters back then, in a bid to make tracing who he is even more difficult.
"We" in the Bitcoin whitepaper can mean many things,
-It can mean that Satoshi Nakamoto was a indeed, a group of persons who with their knowledge and hard work put together, they invented Bitcoin.
-It can also mean that Satoshi Nakamoto was just one man who was overly intelligent, and to cut or make traces to who he is very difficult, when he was writing the Bitcoin whitepaper, he decided to use the word "We" instead of "I" to create this mindset or consciousness in the minds of his readers that the writer of the paper is a group of persons and not just one man, doing this makes it even harder to trace his identity.

The "We" used in the whitepaper can mean a lot of things, and we can not decide on one meaning yet unless Satoshi himself comes out to tell whether the word "We" he used in the whitepaper meant that they were a group of persons, or it was just himself but use that word to make his identity more difficult to trace.