Bitcoin Forum

Satoshi - Sirius emails 2009-2011
https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/ (https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/)

Skimming through those makes me so nostalgic...

Next time somebody complains about the version of SMF on bitcointalk.org, I have a great excuse!

Thanks for this. Another set of reading for my vacant time.

Anyway, I'm a little bit surprised to know that despite the popular belief that Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared since December 12, 2010, these emails are saying it isn't true. Satoshi actually continued to respond to emails even in 2011. The last email coming from Satoshi in this compilation alone was already in February of 2011. And there must probably be more. God knows who else Satoshi corresponded with away from the public.

It seems there's still a lot more to uncover. This appears to be the silver lining of all these lawsuits initiated by the clown CSW.

Thank you for mentioning that, Darker45 - I also noticed the dates and was also quite surprised. However, I initially thought maybe there was something I didn't know (and I know for sure that I don't know a lot!). I agree that these ongoing lawsuits bring up new information that can help us better understand the history and the people involved - it's a silver lining, as you mentioned, in an otherwise contentious situation.

This quote is very interesting:


Did these anonymous 'donors' know Satoshi's true identity since they seem to be open to trusting him with funding?

If it's from the boss himself that says this then there's no other way around but to follow his wishes. I have a question, does it still count as not violating Satoshi's wish if it goes 1.2.x or 1.x.x? Because in a way, it's still version 1 right?

Just started diving into this historical correspondence between Martti Malmi and Satoshi. The first thing that caught my eye was the forum name anti-state.com! It highlights the anti-state sentiments behind Bitcoin's origins. Almost having FOMO of being born in the wrong place and wrong time...

Frankly theymos I hope the look of the forum never changes. I can't help but think when people come here to read satoshi's old posts, they want to read them exactly the way they looked when he posted them.

Might be kind of weird or off-putting to see historical posts in a different, "modern" format.

It's no secret that Satoshi continued to communicate privately with some people long after he left the forum, and the alleged last communication happened on April 26, 2011, at least according to Andresen. Perhaps the time has finally come for all private e-mails that do not threaten Satoshi's privacy to be finally published - and for those who collaborated with him to once again contribute to the truth about Bitcoin.

---

@theymos, you once mentioned the possibility that private forum messages belonging to Satoshi will one day be published, is there any chance of that happening now or in the near future?

I can feel you, but that spirit will never died, we are still here...


I can understand that there is people who don't like it, but for me it looks good as it is, i like so much this forum style, pretty simple and clean and everything works as expected, keep it like it is forever!!!  ;)

I can see why people are interested, but I worry that the more information that gets released, the more likely someone is going to fit the pieces together and establish an identity.

While I choose not to publicly speculate about Satoshi's identity anymore, reading these emails is certainly causing my to reconsider my privately-held theories.  And there's a strong likelihood that hundreds of other people have invested far more time and consideration into pondering this mystery than I have.  There's no way of knowing how close someone might be or what new clue might finally solve it for someone.

---

Ooh, is 'Email #100' referring to that mysterious 2nd ever forum account that nowadays "does not exist"?

It is possible that someone may be able to establish an identity but it is also possible that it won't happen if the information doesn't contain anything that can make it possible. If it ever did and an email name may have linked to a name but I think it would be useless if the email itself is no longer existed that means people can only search other platform and the results may be the same as other without a connection to it like what happened on 2014 about a man dorian satoshi nakamoto (which he denied that he is satoshi nakamoto the founder of Bitcoin). Who knows what will happen in the future.

The initial comment from theymos was that he possibly would release those messages in 8 years, which would have been 2021, but later on theymos confirmed he would not be releasing those messages afterall, maybe in 50 years now;

So basically Sirius was a CS student back then and Satoshi, seeing that Sirius was talented, decided to let him do the website and the FAQ? Doesn't it look very easy on Satoshi's behalf? I mean, obviously Sirius is a well established dev nowadays, but back then, it looked like Satoshi trusted him very easily. I would never dare judging this decision, but I mean Satoshi must had been very capable of identifying talented devs.

Satoshi is full of wisdom, am still thinking how he manage to understand that they will look for him one day. He is truly the epitome of genius, he is so talented that, he no one could trace him.

With all the effort put in place for years to know who he is, I must conclude that , it is impossible to figure it out anymore. It maybe possible that he is also discussing with us here.  I respect his kind of person. So humble enough to hide his identity.

I don't think so... Sounds strange for a forum account to have "permissions". Usually, OS users have that, and since it's talking about ssh and Linux, chances are it's a user in the server that was hosting bitcoin.org. Then, in email #103, you can see Satoshi used that to install a file manager:

Reading new Satoshi messages gives me chills. I thought every important email discussion was disclosed already.

As I perceive it, Satoshi saw a young man who was thirsty for programming. He must have respected how Sirius recognized Bitcoin from the very beginning. I remember that most people were a little doubtful at first, looking at the mailing lists, forums. That wasn't the case with young Sirius.

---

So, as it appears out, Sirius was registered under the pseudonym "Trickstern" in an old, anarchist forum called "anti-state.com". Oh boy, conspiracy theories on Satoshi's identity will continue.

 Hi,

Do you know what has happened to that,   old anarchist forum called "anti-state.com ?

Were you a member there  ?  I was looking for that forum for the last 10 years.  Any information ?  Thanks.

Amazing read, and he is not sounding so academic like in public, but he is just one of us ;)

It's also interesting to read his thinking about the word anonymous and why it was later removed from Bitcoin.
Anonymous sounded a bit shady to him.

Satoshi:

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/02/25/Y9Gsw.png

Also Satoshi:

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/02/25/Y9M79.png

Some things that I found interesting after a quick read:

- It took Satoshi about 18 months of work to get to roughly the first version of Bitcoin.

- Satoshi tried to buy bitcoin dot com first, but it was not available since a professional domain speculator bought it first. I wonder how Roger Ver ended up buying the domain, or if Satoshi was referring to him here.

- It appears very clear that he was doing this work by himself, and then started to contact other people, one by one through email, and by groups through email lists. Based on the emails, Bitcoin really doesn't seem to have been created by a group as some people speculate.

- Satoshi mainly used Windows and was not great with Linux, but used MinGW as the main compiler (MinGW provides GCC to Windows, which is a Linux compiler), and only the Microsoft compiler (mentioned as VC) for debugging.

- The use of the word "goofball" makes me think of at least some American heritage.

Amazing read, thanks for this.

Maybe Satoshi had knowledge of the law so he didn't want people to think Bitcoin was a network used to anonymously transact, which would attract attention from governments.

Email #3
I was really impressed with Satoshi's calculations when determining the total supply of BTC was 21M.


Email #137 & #138 Fri, 25 Dec 2009
Satoshi Nakamoto worked on Christmas Day, it seems like Satoshi really wanted to contribute more to Bitcoin, like Satoshi knew he didn't have much time left.

Sorry, this seems to coincide with Hal Finney as he had ALM and only lived 2-5 years. This makes me more confident that Hal Finney is Satoshi Nakamoto. If this is true, Satoshi was truly great when he spent the last time of his life developing Bitcoin.

At least, that should give us a perspective why most governments are playing the attack game on Bitcoin. Most of those who supported its creation never hid their displeasure with the state. Perhaps, even those who created it too.

He understood the nature of what he was getting into from the word go. Anyone who's into a venture that will liberate the people should know that the state won't be happy with them. Satoshi understood that and that's why he masked his/their identity from the very beginning and did all that could be done to remain untraceable.

and here we go with another "coincidence" about that HF is/was SN, i could not agree more with you, there is LOTS of "coincidences" about them...

Check the life of HF and you will discover a good and a very intelligent man, even in his last days of life.

Satoshi mentions Hal here (and other places):


I just don't see how Satoshi would create a second persona, specially given how much he wanted to reduce duplicity of things.

For example, Satoshi went with the most permissive type of license because otherwise someone else would implement it, duplicating effort.

It just doesn't make sense in my mind. Hal was involved, but Hal was not Satoshi as far as I can see with the public evidence.

I am surprised that someone has not thought to use readily available AI apps like EmmaIdentity (or something newer), to compared Satoshi's large amount of emails to other early Bitcoin advocates discussions to find out Satoshi's identity. I would think this would now be quite simple and fast to do.

There have been all sorts of linguistical analysis comparisons done over the years. For example, this is a thesis/dissertation (https://theses.cz/id/x3hbif/Levyova_-_Finding_Bitcoins_Creator_Satoshi_Nakamoto.pdf) that was posted in the BSV scam thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg60848081#msg60848081) that compares Satoshi's writings to those by Craig Wright, Gavin Andresen, Hal Finney, Adam Back, Mike Hearn, and Nick Szabo. Spoiler alert: the only thing it definitively concluded was that Wright is farther away from being Satoshi than any of the others.

For sure, way too many people are doing it, even now - I constantly see countless AI linguistic analyses related to new Satoshi emails on Twitter and other corners of the internet. The good thing is that whatever any such analysis shows, it's irrelevant, as it will never be definitive and is destined to be lost among billions of other analyses and 'educated guesses'. Sincerely, I can't understand why some people who clearly respect Satoshi can't also respect his/their evident desire for privacy and security. I understand why malicious entities like criminals and states would want to identify Satoshi, and he/they have covered his/their tracks well to evade such entities (hopefully). And this should clearly signal 'leave me the f%^&* alone' to anyone who appreciates his creation, even just a little bit.

I really hope Mpamaegbu is right and Satoshi understood the nature of what he was getting into from the very beginning.


Being a smart person, Satoshi was likely exposed to at least some authors who predicted or fantasized about the scenario, such as Lord William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson's non-fiction book "The Sovereign Individual" (1997) or Robert Heinlein's sci-fi novel "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" (1966), etc. which vividly warned about state actions in the transition period long before 2009. It's clear that Satoshi had to be fully prepared for this scenario and took steps to protect himself/themselves, and the least we can do is respect his/their will to remain anonymous, imho.

Thanks for this buddy.
I hope that CSW won't claim that he has exchanged that many emails with Sirius. Even if he claims that I guess he will say that he does not remember these things because he is an autistic patient. Or maybe some other excuse? I don't know how I should specify this, Fortunately, or unfortunately, old-timers do not want to reveal private information related to Satoshi. Some bad people like CSW are trying to take advantage of that. Theymos knows Satoshi's IP address but he never shared Satoshi's IP address because of the privacy. That MF will always find out some excuses.

I 've heard in a podcast, where they were unravelling the discussion between Satoshi and Sirius, the phrase "Satoshi seemed to be a bitcoiner". It felt kind of funny  :P The argument was exactly that! That he was sounding very casual, despite his academic background.


Well Satoshi made some mistakes, trusting people who, in my opinion, he shouldn't. But  yeah, with Sirius it looks like he hit the jackpot.


The person that talks with Sirius, the real Satoshi, is polite, technically savvy and respectful.
CSW is arrogant, selfish and highly unlikely to have any technical knowledge regarding Bitcoin.

Spot the differences  :P

Anyone who claims that Hal Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto should read the research done by James Lopp in which he proved that while Satoshi was active online Hal was on the other hand active in real life running races. Unless Hal had an associate who "played" Satoshi for him, this is very concrete evidence that Hal Finney was not Satoshi.

Not only that, but there is also an argument that Hal wasn't very competitive in C++ but more in C and Bash. But, this argument can be easily discarder because nobody can really say how much knowledge in a programming language is enough.

To me it is clear that Hal Finney wasn't Satoshi. It's also obvious that it would take too much time for someone to develop a conversation between him (Hal) and himself (Satoshi). So, Satoshi and Hal can't had been the same person. Satoshi wanted to be hidden, not by tricking people to think he was someone else, but by following all the cypherpunks tools that allowed him to stay reasonably private. In fact, Satoshi Nakamoto managed to make no mistakes, unless he has but we were unable to see them. Satoshi managed to accomplish true anonymity, which is, in my opinion, infeasible in the digital space.

Yeahh i know it mate and thats not the only one thing that could make you think that HF is not SN, was just an opinon take it easy mate, but nobody should underestimate the intelligence of a man who would like to do everything he could to not make himself known  ;) there is always someone more intelligent than you/me...

In the end "everything is plausible", more or less probable in mathematical terms ofc... except that CW is SN :P


Anyway, ty to the OP for this piece of history, i really apreciate it.

Well, we know that. I guess the judges also know these facts and even they know that he is not Satoshi. Even his lawyers know that they are working for nothing. They won't be able to prove anything with those fake documents. Yes, he is trying to be in the spotlight with those dramas. I cannot imagine how stupid a person could be. How many insults a person can take.

The fun fact is, that his lawyer was saying that he attempted suicide because he wasn't able to prove that he was Satoshi. I don't think this stupid did something like that. These are just pure lies. We all know that. But this stupid has some money and want to waste.

After reading the research I'm also pretty sure Hal is not Satoshi, unless he had someone helping him be in two places at the same time. However, some people will still believe it, because Hal was one of those who is very connected to Satoshi and regardless of the evidence that exists and some new ones that may appear in the future, he will still be the best candidate for those who they are looking for Satoshi.

---

Look, I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe anything, even that CW is the real Satoshi - but when the evidence clearly points to the fact that it isn't, then we need to take it into account before trying to convince ourselves and others of some false conclusions. Most of those who have seriously investigated this mystery agree that Satoshi was an individual and not a group of people.

All good bro, dont worry. ;) also im not trying to convince anyone about it, i just write my opinion about it, thats all, dont be wrong with me please, peace.

But what for you is clear evidence, for me is something that a man of that category could have solved in many ways...


As you wrote, if there is at least one remote possibility that it could happen, then we cant discard it...as i wrote, i can imagine others ways to solve it...

pd: this conversation have nothing to do with the main topic, so im sorry about that, i will not continue it, i think my position on what I think has been clear, but I'm not saying it's the only one truth, correct or perfect, is just an opinion, as valid as any other.

Suppose the real Satoshi appear in the Court and provide his evidence that Craig is fraud who is impersonating his Japanese pseudonym for defrauding investors the what Craig wright will do ? 
or If Craig Wright decides to contact the real Satoshi and repent his sin and convince real Satoshi to lend him a signed message from Genesis Block then how COPA is going prove that Craigs Wright is wrong ?

The truth is COPA and Craig are mutually staging this case to a secret purpose which the real Satoshi knows the truth, but if Craig really repent and request the real Satoshi, he might forgive Craig and let him play the Bitcoin drama for more few years.

Not sure about everyone else, but I'd rather this topic didn't degenerate into another inane "who is satoshi?" thread.  We've got hundreds of those already.  I'd politely ask if everyone kept the focus to the historical interest aspect (and definitely don't engage with deranged shitgibbon LeezHamilton, because that's a sure-fire way to ruin a topic rapidly).  Faketoshi does not belong in this thread.  Talk about him elsewhere, please.

Thank you DooMAD.

Switching topics back to the emails, I've been reading them quite carefully (and therefore slowly) for a better understanding. What do the esteemed ladies and gentlemen think about https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19 (https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19), where Satoshi's email confirms that Bitcoin was meant to be a digital cash, not an investment tool, as outlined in the Bitcoin white paper title?


Also, I'd appreciate your thoughts on https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-3, specifically his response to a question about scaling.

I also discovered that Satoshi himself discussed this topic right here on the forum:

As I delve deeper into these emails, I get a peculiar feeling that Satoshi might have opposed much of what Bitcoin has become and what it represents today...

That's also something we've had an awful lot of topics about, heh.  Maybe keep this discussion brief as well.

Ultimately, if Bitcoin had retained the "1 CPU = 1 Vote" concept Satoshi had, scaling would be a far simpler question.  The idea was simple.  In the long term, you would either be a miner or an SPV user.  And, conceptually speaking, there was nothing in between (there was the option to run a full client without mining, but that was never intended to be a class of user the network relied upon).  Scaling would be simple, as miners would get paid more as blocks became larger, so it wouldn't adversely impact their costs of running a mining node.  However, mining became centralised at a rate far quicker than Satoshi had anticipated.  As such, the need for non-mining nodes became essential to keep a reasonable degree of decentralisation.  Notice how there's no mention in the whitepaper of non-miners relaying transactions or enforcing consensus rules.  They were never part of the design, but we now rely heavily upon them.  It's because of these nodes that scaling is a far more nuanced and delicate matter.  Unlike miners, there's no financial reward for running a non-mining node, but they do help to secure the network.  Ergo, making it more increasingly more costly to run something that earns no rewards is a difficult ask.

The transition of bitcoin from a digital cash concept to an investment tool is a natural evolution driven by several factors that have unfolded since its inception. While SN initially designed Bitcoin with the vision of it being a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, its use and perception have shifted over time.

Fiat-currency uncertainties, mainstream news SoV narratives, and speculative interests have all shaped bitcoin's current image.

While the original intention of Bitcoin may have been as a digital cash system, its journey through a decade of development, market dynamics, and changing perceptions has led to its predominant role as an investment tool.

You are right. We shouldn't have derailed the thread like that.

The main purpose of the topic, for me, apart from providing information about satoshi's ideas, is to help us realise whether Bitcoin has severely diverted from the original version.

To this extent, I am looking forward to hearing everyone's opinion.

Oh that's very interesting. I never knew that. I thought non-mining nodes were always part of Bitcoin. Thanks for teaching me something new today DooMAD

Any really good "hard" money like Bitcoin is going to be useful for both of money's main two uses: transactions and storing value. Considering the fact that being useful for transactions is the final phase of adoption (because you literally can't transact on a mass scale until there is a large enough mass of people willing to be paid with the currency), it makes perfect sense that in these still early days of Bitcoin its main use is as an investment/store of value. This is very straightforward.

Payments on any sort of a large scale don't come until much later in the adoption of Bitcoin (or any currency growing organically from the ground up). There has been no transition from Bitcoin's original idea to a different idea. Bitcoin is simply following a natural growth cycle where one part of money's use case comes before the second major use case.

The natural growth cycle is:
1. investment / store of value
2. payments AND investment / store of value

We are simply still fairly early in the first phase. Of course the second phase is happening at the same time but it takes much more mature growth to achieve so it's use case growth naturally lags far beyond the first phase. So if Bitcoin is say 10% into phase 1 it's only maybe 0.1% into phase 2. And it's not until Phase 1 gets to a very mature point that Phase 2 can really start to take off as Bitcoin ownership and acceptance reaches a critical mass allowing people to start readily paying for things with it.

Satoshi's idea of Bitcoin being p2p cash is still very much alive, it just naturally happens to be the use case, or the part of the ecosystem, that takes the longest to develop.

It is a transition.  Right now it is more of an investment with other use cases included.  Once bitcoin reaches an equilibrium with fiat pricing then it will be much easier to use as digital cash.  That is another few orders of magnitude away and at that point (if not before) one hopes that you don't need to "get out" of bitcoin and can just remain in without needing gatekeepers to convert.

Perhaps my post was a little absolutist and I'm giving the wrong impression.  I was speaking conceptually.  There was certainly an option to run a client without mining.  In practice, there probably would have been a small number of users with outdated CPUs who may not have benefited much from clicking the 'Generate Coins' button.  And the code to do SPV didn't exist at the time the network first launched.  So non-mining nodes have always been a part of Bitcoin, but weren't initially an integral part of the concept.  


From 2010 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179.msg1472#msg1472):

I'll amend my prior post to try to clarify things.

As someone who runs nodes, relays, bridges, and mailboxes for some projects, I think I can offer a personal perspective on the issue of rewards. For myself and several friends who share in these efforts, running a node transcends any monetary gain. It bestows a profound sense of expanding freedom and liberation in the world—a feeling so potent and invaluable, akin to love (which no amount of money can buy!). This is the essence of increasing total freedom: a united stand against the limitations enforced by governments globally. This feeling is priceless and motivates me to not only forego potential earnings but also to invest my own resources - I buy hardware and allocate both funds and time—all of which hold financial value—to support these projects. From my personal viewpoint, the 'reward problem' arises only when a project shifts from being a platform for the dissenting voices of the people, from a collective resistance to malevolence, to becoming a vehicle for wealth accumulation for 'HODLers' and institutions. After all, no one wants to labor for free while watching the 'rich get richer.' If it's no longer about a selfless collective standing against tyranny, injustice and state, it becomes a service—and services require compensation. Practically speaking, Bitcoin needs to consider implementing a financial reward mechanism for those operating non-mining nodes in the long term.
One cannot help but ponder why preemptive measures were not taken to mitigate the centralization of mining power, such as introducing deterrents to ASICs, similar to the RandomX algorithm?

Yeah, I agree with this.

Visa for example has a relatively similar amount of "nodes", and it makes sense for them to run them because they get paid through their fees.

In Bitcoin, the fees go completely to the miners.

In the whitepaper the idea was that the miner and the node where the same machine, so probably this issue wasn't really important back then. But now, miners are a completely different industry, and they are the ones making all the money.

Still there are dozens of thousands of Bitcoin nodes that are running securing the network, without getting any financial incentive.

It reminds me of landmark open source projects like SSH for example, which are used by millions of people but maintained by a handful of people for free in their spare time.

Open source is probably one of the best inventions in human kind, and yet it pays almost zero to the people developing it. Instead, useless and bloated software based on open source gets millions of dollars.

Interesting

Email #211 19 Jul 2010 "Donations in Bitcoin are helpful and can be sent to 14EXchS9j3AAfim6mL4jtw6VWMosSUiG5U"

The one and only donation they ever received at this address in Apr 2018. Was 10000 Satoshi from the man who purchased two Papa Johns pizza's using 10000 Bitcoin in May 2010

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.msg1195#msg1195

BTW: Donations to me 1LotuszyDXjZYhcNAVhPJYvWMAbfSZdq68

That man who bought the two pizzas also helped making the mac port, and open sourced the first GPU miner...

He is of course only remembered for buying pizzas with Bitcoin only.

Maybe the 10000 Satoshi donation in Apr 2018 was meant to be a remainder of that to ?

I was unaware of that, thanks for pointing out. It's unfortunate, but it's also normal. I mean, the story with pizzas seems very intriguing even for someone with zero knowledge in Bitcoin. Unfortunately the open source work he has done is only appreciated by a few people... Thats life...

Well, your post made me angry!
Are you stupid? Even if you are stupid, a real satoshi is not. There is no way to contact the real Satoshi. If it was possible to contact the real Satoshi, there are a lot of people who contacted Satoshi before, they would have been able to contact him. Think about Sirius, theymos, and others who had a direct connection with satoshi before he left the forum and all other platforms.

Why do you think that real Satoshi will give CSW his genesis block's address private keys or a signed message? Satoshi is NOT a stupid. People who can assume these things are pure STUPID.

That AI will give you a false positive that will make the hunt much more difficult because there's more people that's going to get involved that aren't even remotely linked or is even Satoshi plus I don't think that pattern recognition for writing style is difficult to be called accurate, think about this, the story Bourbon Kid doesn't have any author and even if you investigate the writing style, you're probably going to do an impossible because there's going to be a lot of comparison, it's the same with email comparison. If we never perfected the identification of a person through their writing style then how do you think would an AI be able to do that if there's no frame of reference? And that AI can't be scouring all the email out there because that's invasion of privacy to the most glorious fashion.

On the contrary, although i don't know if am right, but I think the emails since 2009 till 2011 pointing to the existence of Satoshi is brought about by the case between COPA vs Dr. Wright.  The case has been dragging on with Dr wright bringing forged documents as evidence to support his claims of being Satoshi, the brains behind the Bitcoin idea and implementation.
One is to expect several of such real or unreal evidences to surface so that this man claiming  to be the real Satoshi and has the blue print or white paper to the whole Bitcoin idea would be shamed and made to pay good fine for claiming to be something he is not.

I think now some one should ask Marti Malmi and Adam Back to provide prove of evidences that Satoshi Nakamoto actually wrote and email to them. As any one can construct and email like that and claims that Satoshi Nakamoto wrote this email to them. They must provide authentic proofs - of - evidences with that claims. I mean electronic evidences with IP addresses.

Other wise I myself or some one else can debunk those claims and establish a false narratives even some of those emails are genuine.  Any body can hacked and hijacked Satoshi's Email Account and send emails to Adam Back and Marti Malmi as Satoshi Nakamoto. Therefore, what is the truth ?  Did Craig Wright send those email to them ?  Craig Wright always can use a double standard to claim saying, Yes he wrote those emails, or he can say no he dib not send those email to them. Its mean either way he can claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

but as far as the truth is, Craig just a fraud or thief. If he proof that he has sent those emails to them then it is time for the expert to authenticate the Satoshi's Email Account of satoshin@gmx.com and satoshi@vistomail.com and Satoshi@annonymousspeech.com.

Who registered those email addresses ?  it is Craig Wright or Some none else ? There is meta data and Satoshi's IP address of those email accounts as well as those emails.

You cannot just claim to receive special message from God, and cannot tell or bring any proof that God exist. You might received messages from Satan the Devil who us impersonating the  pseudonym of God.  This is what the Christian Priests blames regarding Prophet Muhammad.

Some say Jesus was crucified and some others say some one else was causticized on behalf of Jesus. What is the truth ?
The truth is Jesus was crucified on ground of terrorism by the  by the Roman Governor Pilot but Jesus did not die on the cross but was unconscious and survived and came out of the tomb and are fish and migrated bac to his fathers Kingdom in Paradise Kashmir with 360 0f his followers.

In the case of bitcoin and Satoshi Nakamoto, The governments agents hijacked Bitcoin and Blockchain from Satoshi Nakamoto, and few of those agents impersonating now to scam people because Bitcoin and Blockchain is the proven tract record of Satoshi Nakamoto that Central banks have been debasing our money for centuries. 

So it is time for a financial service reformation. The fiat financial elites d not like it because Bitcoin has challenged their fiat scamming in the financial service industry.  Either you are are one of those fiat financial elite's agent or a genuine Bitcoin adopter,  the truth will be unfolded if whether you are a genuine disciple of Satoshi Nakamoto ?  Satoshi  Nakamoto knows his sheep, and he does not milk his sheep or send to the Baith'Laham which is the House of the butchers.

Just leave Satoshi alone.




   

 

I am learning about ‘plausible deniability’ as it appears Satoshi didn’t sign those emails… did he?

I'm pretty good with writing at times yet not great with coding.

If I could be a coder that would had been a computer scientist's dream. Satoshi Nakamoto (the mastermind) on the other hand succeeded. With cryptography and created the alpha blockchain, which is yet to transition from one state to the final to become the ultimate omega

cUfZz8: "sorry to be a disappointment. Iam not, an AI. IAM HI".


Few of slices to go around. For Satoshi and I. Just the two


A node's tool is a miner

Funny how these types of threads bring the loonies out of the woodwork.

Amazing how BSVers can see stuff like this and continue their belief in Faketoshi unphased:

https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1762570223083827577

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHXoRs_XIAEAOFH?format=jpg&name=medium

We have dynamic blocks for processing payments at relatively good speeds for a utxo model called Blockchain. And there we also have the GhostDAG. Combination of the two??

You are right.

But an email usually leaves a digital footprint in multiple servers.

Once you send something, it is copied in multiple places at different organizations.

It is not the same as for example a post on a single website.

But yeah, cryptographic proof is stronger than an email.

I have read almost every single line in these emails and I cannot understand if he's American or British. However, I have came to a conclusion that Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever he was a lone developer and wasn't a group of people. Also, I saw Lopp's Theory on Hal Finney not being Satoshi Nakamoto and it's kind of true. He wasn't. I always thought it was him. He spent 18 months of his life on such a great invention, I love it.

I find it interresting that after all of these years, we still find gems like this. Satoshi Nakamoto might have decided to step back into the shadows, but he left bread crumbs on his journey for us to follow his vision.

I hope this trial will unearth a lot more emails like this, so that we can debunk all CW claims.  ;)

The forum discussed in the Satoshi - Sirius emails

https://i.ibb.co/h9Jxf08/Bitcoin-forum.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/CBcsFmQ/Bitcoin-forum2.jpg

Interesting, satoshi, sirius, and an admin account, which I think they shared.

No other members from early to late June. This must have been 2009, already a few months after Genesis.

So that forum was removed, and then replaced with this one, right?

Here are the first 4 registered users of this forum:

admin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1), Registered November 18, 2009

deleted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2)

satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3), Registered November 20, 2009

sirius (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4), Registered November 20, 2009

Why they changed the forum after a few months? technical reasons?

That probably strengthens the theory that "Satoshi" wasn't one individual, but a group of several individuals?

Plus what was the date of the email? Was 2011 the time that Bitcoin has already bootstrapped miners, services and the community? Those "donors" were probably those early miners and builders? I imagine that that was a very small community, I heard some of them were in contact with the developers in IRC.