Bitcoin Forum

Dear all,

I've read recent articles pointing that linguistically that Nick Szabo is likely Satoshi who either singly created the original Bitcoin whitepaper or had some assistance.  Apparently, this is his website (http://szabo.best.vwh.net/index.html) and this is his blog (http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/).  The email listed prominently is nszabo@law.gwu.edu in those places.  However, I cannot find Nick Szabo at George Washington University.  I found a couple of other Szabos.  I could not find any Szabo Econ Professor here (http://economics.columbian.gwu.edu/faculty), or elsewhere.

So this naturally leads me to a couple of questions.

1. What does Nick Szabo actually look like?  All the articles that reference him somehow lack a picture of him.  This is unusual because universities very often post public pictures of their professors.

2. How do we know that Szabo actually worked at George Washington University or was ever an Econ Professor there?  An email address is not absolute proof.

3. How do we know that Nick Szabo or Nicholas Szabo is his real name?  I have seen proof from his Wikipedia page that Nicholas was ever confirmed anywhere.

4. Where is Nick Szabo now?  He hasn't posted since November 2013 and this was before the first string of articles around December 2013 came out suggesting that he was Satoshi.

Any help would be appreciated.

whats the response from that email id  ?  bounced , no reply

I'm pretty sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't create Bitcoin. Therefor, someone with a WWRD wristband would probably not create Bitcoin.

Who is Satoshi Nakamato? ==> Who is Nick Szabo? ==> Who is ___ ?

How far are you prepared to go down that rabbit hole? I think a common level of protection is 7 abstraction layers of proxies. Good luck Alice.

This is the official website of Nick Szabo. Don't know whether it is updated regularly or not.

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/

And this is his blog:

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com

Anybody can edit an article on blogger after the fact to make it look like it was prophetic, but reading this, I can't think how anybody can't make the connection between bit gold and bitcoin. 

http://unenumerated.blogspot.kr/2005/12/bit-gold.html (http://unenumerated.blogspot.kr/2005/12/bit-gold.html)


Bit gold by NICK SZABO

A long time ago I hit upon the idea of bit gold. The problem, in a nutshell, is that our money currently depends on trust in a third party for its value. As many inflationary and hyperinflationary episodes during the 20th century demonstrated, this is not an ideal state of affairs. Similarly, private bank note issue, while it had various advantages as well as disadvantages, similarly depended on a trusted third party.

Precious metals and collectibles have an unforgeable scarcity due to the costliness of their creation. This once provided money the value of which was largely independent of any trusted third party. Precious metals have problems, however. It's too costly to assay metals repeatedly for common transactions. Thus a trusted third party (usually associated with a tax collector who accepted the coins as payment) was invoked to stamp a standard amount of the metal into a coin. Transporting large values of metal can be a rather insecure affair, as the British found when transporting gold across a U-boat infested Atlantic to Canada during World War I to support their gold standard. What's worse, you can't pay online with metal.

Thus, it would be very nice if there were a protocol whereby unforgeably costly bits could be created online with minimal dependence on trusted third parties, and then securely stored, transferred, and assayed with similar minimal trust. Bit gold.

My proposal for bit gold is based on computing a string of bits from a string of challenge bits, using functions called variously "client puzzle function," "proof of work function," or "secure benchmark function.". The resulting string of bits is the proof of work. Where a one-way function is prohibitively difficult to compute backwards, a secure benchmark function ideally comes with a specific cost, measured in compute cycles, to compute backwards.

Here are the main steps of the bit gold system that I envision:

(1) A public string of bits, the "challenge string," is created (see step 5).

(2) Alice on her computer generates the proof of work string from the challenge bits using a benchmark function.

(3) The proof of work is securely timestamped. This should work in a distributed fashion, with several different timestamp services so that no particular timestamp service need be substantially relied on.

(4) Alice adds the challenge string and the timestamped proof of work string to a distributed property title registryfor bit gold. Here, too, no single server is substantially relied on to properly operate the registry.

(5) The last-created string of bit gold provides the challenge bits for the next-created string.

(6) To verify that Alice is the owner of a particular string of bit gold, Bob checks the unforgeable chain of title in the bit gold title registry.

(7) To assay the value of a string of bit gold, Bob checks and verifies the challenge bits, the proof of work string, and the timestamp.

Note that Alice's control over her bit gold does not depend on her sole possession of the bits, but rather on her lead position in the unforgeable chain of title (chain of digital signatures) in the title registry.

All of this can be automated by software. The main limits to the security of the scheme are how well trust can be distributed in steps (3) and (4), and the problem of machine architecture which will be discussed below.

Hal Finney has implemented a variant of bit gold called RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work). This relies on publishing the computer code for the "mint," which runs on a remote tamper-evident computer. The purchaser of of bit gold can then use remote attestation, which Finney calls the transparent server technique, to verify that a particular number of cycles were actually performed.

The main problem with all these schemes is that proof of work schemes depend on computer architecture, not just an abstract mathematics based on an abstract "compute cycle." (I wrote about this obscurely several years ago.) Thus, it might be possible to be a very low cost producer (by several orders of magnitude) and swamp the market with bit gold. However, since bit gold is timestamped, the time created as well as the mathematical difficulty of the work can be automatically proven. From this, it can usually be inferred what the cost of producing during that time period was.

Unlike fungible atoms of gold, but as with collector's items, a large supply during a given time period will drive down the value of those particular items. In this respect "bit gold" acts more like collector's items than like gold. However, the match between this ex post market and the auction determining the initial value might create a very substantial profit for the "bit gold miner" who invents and deploys an optimized computer architecture.

Thus, bit gold will not be fungible based on a simple function of, for example, the length of the string. Instead, to create fungible units dealers will have to combine different-valued pieces of bit gold into larger units of approximately equal value. This is analogous to what many commodity dealers do today to make commodity markets possible. Trust is still distributed because the estimated values of such bundles can be independently verified by many other parties in a largely or entirely automated fashion.

In summary, all money mankind has ever used has been insecure in one way or another. This insecurity has been manifested in a wide variety of ways, from counterfeiting to theft, but the most pernicious of which has probably been inflation. Bit gold may provide us with a money of unprecedented security from these dangers. The potential for initially hidden supply gluts due to hidden innovations in machine architecture is a potential flaw in bit gold, or at least an imperfection which the initial auctions and ex post exchanges of bit gold will have to address.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic...

Bitcoin creator is 100% Satoshi Nakamoto or we don't really know? Also how Satoshi Nakamoto and Nick Szabo are related? Do you think Nick Szabo could be the creator of bitcoin?

He looks like a turtle. So is there zero pictures of Szabo?

There is another possibility. Szabo wrote his essay about Bit Gold in 2005. What if Satoshi Nakamoto plagiarized parts of his essay and incorporated some of the ideas in his paper on Bitcoin in 2008?

Generally what I do if I want to find someone is first start with the closest link and work back.

Who do we KNOW worked with or must have worked with Satoshi, start with them, go back.

Really people unless Satoshi is  gov project and is in fact a real individual, he/she/they are able to be found.

I mean who founded the foundation, how did Jed start using the coin, who helped him, there are many leads to foloow.

I think we wouldve found him by now. He obviously wasnt sloppy. The biggest mystery is the unspent coins.

I've never heard about Nick Szabo but thanks for giving me an idea how to call my new song. The name will be "is he is who he says he is?" ;D

Possibly only because if he/they went through so much trouble to stay private that any spending would create a trail.

Or they already sold out? Or it is gov backed so will never be spent or spent downt the road or or or...

For me personally I just don't care enough but what we need to know is the first hint of their use was when... Jed?

Start with that, has anyone ever asked Jed how he discovered them and how he developed a platform to trade them? He MUST I mean MUST know something.

Maybe this has been asked but it seems clear people must know something more and just haven't said. Be it money or threat of death, both likely reasons lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo

He might be dead. If he's several people I wonder if it will make him easier or harder to track?

He might be dead. If he's several people I wonder if it will make him easier or harder to track?
[/quote]

On one hand harder and on the other easier. More people, more talk, more leaks etc. It has pros and cons.

I found this a good starting point, taken from Wiki. So question, who owns this forum at that time, why don't they expose the IP addresses, who caught vulnerability and had power/auth to fix it. I mean was this just a community hey anyone join in growth or what?

Creation[edit]

In November 2008, a paper was posted on the internet under the name Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. This paper detailed methods of using a peer-to-peer network to generate what was described as "a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust".[8][9][10][11] In January 2009, the Bitcoin network came into existence with the release of the first open source Bitcoin client and the issuance of the first bitcoins,[9][12][13][14] with Satoshi Nakamoto mining the first block of bitcoins ever (known as the "genesis block"), which had a reward of 50 bitcoins. The value of the first bitcoin transactions were negotiated by individuals on the bitcointalk forums with one notable transaction involving a 10,000 BTC pizza.[9]

On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the Bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions weren't properly verified before they were included in the transaction log or "block chain" which let users bypass Bitcoin's economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins.[15][16] On 15 August, the vulnerability was exploited; over 184 billion bitcoins were generated in a transaction, and sent to two addresses on the network. Within hours, the transaction was spotted and erased from the transaction log after the bug was fixed and the network forked to an updated version of the Bitcoin protocol.[17][18] This was the only major security flaw found and exploited in Bitcoin's history.[15][16]

i do believe nick szabo is satoshi
or the most likely suspect of being satoshi
but i would respect satoshi's request for privacy so lets not get too deep into finding satoshi

Nick is the inventor of bit gold, which in theory is absolutely the same as bitcoin even the name looks like. The bit gold post is from 2008. If he is not Satoshi, they had some connection.

I don't care for the linguistics, the bit gold post is enough.

Why don't we have a single photo of Szabo and no record (that I can find) of him working at George Washington University? !

Conceptually it is not identical e.g, it is missing the automatically adjusting difficulty algorithm that keeps the bitcoin production rate, constant regardless of the advancement in proof-of-work hardware. (Szabo mentions that as a possible flaw in bit gold right at the end.)

That was just a summary of a concept, it was not supposed to be rich in pratical details or definitive.

I think Nick has to explain how he came with the whole concept of bit gold, and why he abandoned and never wrote anything about it again. Maybe 'cause he started writing as Satoshi Nakamoto?

The partial image above is not the correct nick szabo.

I found a twitter poster claiming to have an old picture of him.

  https://mobile.twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/456922865992863744/photo/1

I also wonder why he never blamed Satoshi for stealing his idea and even his brand name? BitGold and BitCoin.

Perhaps he was happy to hear that his idea was getting widely adopted. Or may be, he never heard about the Bitcoin and its inventor, until the price rose to $1,200 in 2013.  ;D

Picture doesn't work.



Looks like a video still, but what gives this picture any credibility?

I am Satoshi Nakamoto

http://www.accringtonobserver.co.uk/news/local-news/former-soldier-nicholas-szabo-loses-3318262

The above partial picture is that.  That is the wrong Szabo.

Regarding the twitter picture.  Can someone tweet that guy to ask where he got it?

He is not Satoshi. 

His allusiveness adds to his enigma though. It's weird that  there's no pictures. Maybe he wants it that way.

What I fined humorous is the almost diagnosable social issues these men have. I am starting to think secrecy is not the most important thing because of the work they do more so than their own psychological issues.

Just adds to the stigma.

Thanks, removing the picture. This man is as secretive as Satoshi.

There is one more thing wrong, Szabo claimed himself to be a law professor at GW University.

"UPDATE: According to George Washington University, it has no record of Mr. Szabo ever working at the school as a law professor. An earlier version of this post stated that Mr. Szabo was a former George Washington University law professor."

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/04/16/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-unmasked-again/

The only reason to hunt someone down is if they've personally harmed you. Satoshi has done a great thing and wants to be left alone. Why can't people respect that?

That's not how journalism works.

Yes, these language analysis people don't have proof. Szabo is/was the main expert on cryptocurrencies and he published a lot about it online. The Bitcoin paper is EXPECTED to use the same words/termiology as Szabo and Bitgold. It's also perfectly possible that the Bitcoin paper avoids mentioning Bitgold just because it's heavily influenced by it. I've seen people do this all the time at the Universities.

The language analyses point out things like using timestamped as a verb and phrases like "trusted third parties", "for our purposes" and commas after and and but.

According to this I am likely Satoshi Nakamoto in the same way the narrator is Tyler Durden in Fight Club. This way of writing appears to be just normal to me.

If I had to bet my money on who is Satoshi Nakamot, I would still put it on Szabo, though.

That's what Leah McGrath Goodman told herself.

A individual can call himself a journalist but it doesn't change the indecency or consequence of their choice to violate a good person's privacy.

sounds like Nick Szabo may be a pen name , who may or may not be Satoshi.

I am Satoshi Nakamoto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q)

Satoshi is not Hal Finney, leave the poor man alone.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/

Good finding, but it seems Hal was not the only one to use double spaces. Look at this e-mail. The person he is replying to also does use double space.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openpgp/current/msg04987.html


Going thru' the list there are other users using double spaces after periods, looks like it was a usual behaviour in that mail list.

Double spaces after end of a sentence?  I do that too.  Isn't that normal?  That's the way we were taught in school.

like you said, its not proof of anything (obviously).

A better question is does Nick Szabo even exist, rather than is he who he claims to be. We have no photos of him, and the University he claims to work at denies he was ever employed there.

Is he a real person, or just another pseudonym like Satoshi Nakamoto? If he really is/was a professor, then surely students who went there would have had interactions with him and can verify that he exists.

What proof is there that Nick Szabo is a real person?

Nick is the second layer!  :o

Handful to go lol

The only reason someone would go through all this trouble is they are A) A nutter B) The Government C) Truly and honestly believe their life would be in danger for an idea that hadn't yet been successful.

My guess is B.

Why this search of "who is" for Bitcoin its better if Satoshi stays a myth at this point maybe later, maybe never IMO

So stop the witchhunt!

The reality is the real Satoshi has an incredible amount of wealth and power.  People say, "It doesn't matter who created bitcoin," but it certainly does.  It doesn't affect the code, that has been checked and rechecked.  It doesn't affect us "why" he did it.  What does affect everyone is that he owns 10%.  Satoshi was a creater, an inventor.  All inventors love to invent.  What if...... he left bitcoin.  What if he started working on a new project that was even better.  If he wants to take ALL of the wealth in the bitcoin community to his new creation, he can easily do that.  He sell out every buy wall, and drive the price down to $0.01 per bitcoin and keep it there.  And when it is that low, nobody will buy.  Then he can take all the money he made and transfer it into his new project.  Everybody thinks he wouldn't do that.  Steve Jobs moved Cube to Apple.  That is just one example.  Lots of inventors have turned their back on a previous invention only to incorporate it into a new product they feel is vastly greater.  So yes, it matters who he is as long as he owns 10%.  If he burns it, then it doesn't matter.  If he even so much as touches a single block, the price will go down a lot.  He can instantly devalue everyone's worth by 10% if he puts up a high wall.  Everyone's money just lost 10%, but in reality more.  And if he clears all the walls, which he can do, it is game over for bitcoin.  So yeah, I would like to know who he is and what is plans are.  

I would assume people have a bigger incentive to buy if the price is relatively low. I would definitely buy a few thousand BTC at $0.01.

Satoshi, whoever you are, thank you, you really worked hard for everyone. Otsukaresama

Maybe it would be better to spend less time trying to find satoshi, and simply promote his ideals. 

If you try to find satoshi, it will only give him troubles and waste his valuable time.

I feel that is something nobody here would like to do.

I agree, but someone made the argument that if the real satoshi comes forward, especially if he/she/they are spectacular in some way, the news would go nuts about it and tons of people would hear about Bitcoin. Imagine the media frenzy it would cause.

[/quote]


Then again, if that mass people hears about Bitcoin, it will still be to difficult for a lot of them to find where and how to buy them. There has to be more easy to understand information.
I don't even want to know who Satoshi is at this moment.

Like .. hey guys, I'm Satoshi!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/GeorgeClooneyHWoFJan12.jpg/220px-GeorgeClooneyHWoFJan12.jpg

The only thing they would have in common is their smugness, but Satoshi really does have a reason to be smug though maybe he's to meek and humble for that.

Where is he based? Anyone know?

What if Nick Szabo is an Advanced A.I bot? Quietly promoting the ideals of Bitcoin, wouldn't that be awesome? A decentralized automated accounting system being maintained by autonomous A.I workers... crazyness. :)

The will remember satoshi longer than this guy..lol

I thought this was strange- an obituary for Nick Szabo on a UK based funeral home site- same photo on that site as the one from his wikipedia page-they must have posted the wrong photo :o
http://bartonhallworth.co.uk/2013/04/nicholas-nick-szabo/

Satoshi is from the future. In his timeline, he was very poor and bitcoin was invented in 2012 by someone else.

He sold everything he had and bought a one way ticket to come back in time to start bitcoin himself, so his future self would be a trillion-air and not need to travel back in time.

Years later, someone else would decide to sell everything for a one way ticket to the past so (s)he could invent bitcoin, and the history would repeat again :).

Bitcoin created by intelligent extraterrestrial turtles CONFIRMED.

I think the above is far more likely than Szabo being Nakamoto himself.

This could be reasonable. I guess there could be a completely logical reason to not time-travel to the most major events we've had in Earth's history (assuming they weren't already tampered with) - so even though we might discount time-travel theory just because we haven't noticed it, it's possible Bitcoin was the first event considered important enough to tamper with. Starry-eyed, I know. In a FTL future where Satoshi may've come from, events are likely much more significant to many more people (assuming the number of people on Earth over the past tens of thousands of years doesn't create any exponential function with regards to the number of humans colonizing in space in the future, which seems plausible). Fiat has absolutely no place in the FTL era. You go visit a moon on YX-0038 with a briefcase of USD or rubles and they might pay its fuel value... so maybe a micro-satoshi, or just a beer to cheer you up. Crypto can be sent far into space already -- there's really nothing preventing extremely long travel, though you'd probably want a particular individual planet to handle most of the actual transaction processing due to latency -- actually, I guess it'd make sense to have unique cryptos for each "sector," ironically bringing back one of the same issues Bitcoin was supposed to solve: geographical boundaries restricting value flow. I'd be surprised if there weren't already a paper or few on intergalactic Bitcoin, though.

More likely, though - Bitcoin was never invented in the "previous past" - at least, it wasn't open-source. If it was already invented and open-source, it would've been silly for Satoshi to not copy-paste the future past's code and to instead give us a kludgey, insecure client. Since he didn't copy-paste, he probably slapped together the code after a couple crash courses and tried to reverse-engineer what happened in the future, and in that case, Satoshi would not have needed all the input he took during the time he was developing. OTOH, it's also very possible the code of the future relied on so many not-currently-invented dependencies, it had to be re-coded from scratch. Satoshi may've been a coder from the future but didn't count on having to write Bitcoin in such a now-obscure, archaic language, though the original daemon being Windows-only would imply Microsoft will probably always dominate the OS market (or it was otherwise the only OS Satoshi could find a copy of in the future).

ok a history lesson

satoshi
hal finney
nick szabo

all frequented some cryptography and tech forums prior to january 2009 and yes thy all talked and mingled and came up with idea's. but it was the one entity known as satoshi that put all of these idea's together, formed the white paper, etc.

now to get closer to january 2009, satoshi ( a single entity) along with a few others all joined force to make bitcoin 0.1, yes hal finney szabo, even theymos helped out.

theymos made this very forum to allow the group to start cultivating idea's together. but it remains that satoshi is a single entity,

later others joined to help such as gavin andressen, luke jr and jeff garzik.. amongst many other names.. but yet again satoshi was one single entity.

to put it into a better analogy.

everyone thinks steve jobs made apple what it is.. but if it wasnt for steve wozniak, and a couple other friends tinkering around and helping out. apple wouldnt be in the position it is now,

.. but imagine steve jobs didnt make himself public, but instead stayed fully anonymous. then this 'mystery' would cause 500 topics to be made each trying to say that wozniak is jobs.

or that jobs is some elusive NSA agent or that jobs is some japanese mastermind.

either way, if you want to know about bitcoin, ask any of the bitcoin dev's about bitcoin. the identity of the single entity known as satoshi is not worth endless topics and speculation

who says satoshi is nick. there are many correspodence between them. what about it?

Was Nick Szabo ever a part of this forum ?

nope

hal finney was

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.msg1643833#msg1643833

oh and by the way nick Szabo had an american education, and satoshi had a british education..

.. should anyone actually bother to do the research rather then create myths that they are linguistically the same.

If Satoshi account was controlled by a group of people, then no specific education applies to that entity.

satoshi's account WAS NOT controlled by a group of people.. will you all please atleast do the god damn research by atleast searching for his posts.. they are well documented.

why oh why are there hundreds of threads on this very topic, yet people are still trying to spout out incorrect theories without any sign of actual investigation

the bitcoin creator is not Dorian satoshi nakamoto..

the bitcoin creator we simply refer to as 'satoshi'

as for Nick Szabo.........
nick is american taught, and although they were on the same thought process, where nick got maybe 90%+ of the concept, but it was satoshi (different entity) who with other people on the p2p and tech forums finally knit picked the in's and outs of a concept which satoshi (single entity) made into a finalised and workable white paper,
imagine it like a group of people that wanted to solve world hunger some said supplying seeds, some said teach them to fish. but it was satoshi that ultimately came up with the plan to make a farming school that taught and supplied everything to get people started.

it was then satoshi, hal finney and a few others that grouped together to help make  the first versions of bitcoin and slowly more people helped satoshi (the single entity) such as gavin andressen jeff garzik and the other motly crew of devs.

now then.............
satoshi (the single entity) was not a group of people using one name. satoshi was just one person, although others helped under their own names..
satoshis education was british based not american, and although he knew alot of things he didnt know much about linux and that stuff. so satoshi was no Uber god.

all of this stuff can easily be found if people actually looked at the posts by him and not just spread fud and opinion over 500 threads.
atleast read his under 600 posts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3 to learn a bit about how he talked and what he knew or didnt know, and how he interacted with people.

these FUD threads are a little annoying now

I think you're missing the point everybody when you look up Nick Szabo you find nothing verifiable them online I can't find any proof they were still work at the university I can't find any verifiable pictures of him as far as I know we have no idea this person actually exists under that name.

oh well it seems you have fallen off the path. so let me lead you back
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/485970285254815745

you're not answering Bill's point at all just because you linked to a twitter post.

If you're leading to Satoshi figure, Newsweek looked into it, they concluded Nick Szabo can't possibly be Satoshi: his name is not Satoshi. Case closed.

Here's the thing, if he didn't create bitcoin, he'd be screaming bloody murder that someone stole his idea. I find it strange that he's completely silent about something that falls right into his expertise on so many levels.

Some minor additional evidence if someone still is not sure about Nick/Satoshi...

- Check how he use 'btw' here on bitcointalk. Nicks usage of it: http://unenumerated.blogspot.se/2011/05/bitcoin-what-took-ye-so-long.html
- Nick uses double spaces just as Satoshi (look at the source on his blog linked above)
- He uses 'wrt' both here and on his blog. Not that common.

Hi, I've been doing some digging around about Nick Szabo as well and ran across some things that lead me to believe he is indeed a real person - Also, there is one photo of him online, i'm not sure it's verifiable but if you google "Nick Szabo Public Figure facebook", you will find it.

Anyhow, check the links this guy posted- Especially the last one, linking a prior address of his to a cypherpunks party is pretty convincing to me - i say Nick Szabo exists. Maybe someone can call him up and ask him?   (Just kidding)...  Also, Hal Finney posted on BCT in that now-famous post that he actually met him in person, and Hal seemed like a pretty honest guy through and through to me at least.   Anyhow, judge for yourselves. I'm not saying he is or is not satoshi, i'm just saying hey, it appears he is a real person, with a home/address/phone number etc... not hiding too hard, if so... :\

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/205396/seth_roberts_on_nick_szabo_being_satoshi_nakamoto/cfzw92y (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/205396/seth_roberts_on_nick_szabo_being_satoshi_nakamoto/cfzw92y)
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #A1O4jaTPm7ln18Ob

No one finds it odd that these people are so secretive?

What is there to hide, are they criminals, pedo's, government agents or just highly intelligent socially awkward people?

Either way it does not matter, bitcoin has taken a life of it's own, good or bad.

...by criminals, government agents, socially awkward...

Not really, no. Phil Zimmerman was investigated by the US Customs Service for (allegedly) breaching munitions export regulations (you'll recall that that was because PGP was being "exported" (i.e. downloaded by people outside the US). Peter Gutmann has written about his career "smuggling munitions" (crypto stuff, again), etc. Cryptography pits "these people" against powerful (state) actors who have demonstrated their willingness to arrest, investigate and harass. I find it odd that they found the strength to keep going and maintain any kind of public profile!

A combination of highly intelligent socially awkward people and criminals by government standard (crypto export).

With the latest round of news ID'ing Nick Szabo as Satoshi... it seems that provides only an illusion of discovery, because no one seems to know the real-life identity of Nick Szabo either! Or close to it. Is there any evidence of someone having met him, or know where he lives, etc.? Nick seems almost as much a phantasm as Satoshi. Probably a good thing too, or that rabble that assaulted Dorian this spring would be on his doorstep now.

I'm betting Nick is also a pseudonym, from what I've read of old emails of his, etc. So instead of solving a great mystery, if "Nick" is "Satoshi", we may just have a deeper mystery. :-)

+1, Years from now when the world has became an Orwellian nightmare a hacker called Satoshi discovers how by using quantum entanglement he could not himself go back in time, but could send some code back in time to create BitCoin, soon after the authorities in future discovered this and now Satoshi is fleeing the oppressive regime in the future, our ability to have crypto succeed over fiat will determine his and our collective fate  :P

why are you care so much about him?

Probably not, I think we are all in agreement it's a pseudonym.

 

 I believe it, you'd be amazed at the capability of A.I. I want to Decentralize it, democratize it so that everyone has access to verified factual information, with Neuromorphic assistance. Just think about how long it takes for us to master a subject... this thing can do it for us in a few days. Humanity needs this, we have no choice; This capability is currently limited to a few Pure Geniuses across the globe but most of us aren't so genetically gifted.

 Right now we are in a emerging depression caused by years of Chinese overstimulation of the market, The economy is overheating and it's not a bunch of numbers with infinite growth... there is a saturation point where everything we build, quality or not becomes worthless because everyone has one; incidentally diminishing competitiveness of dedicated businesses. Whenever the collapse comes, no one will be able to adapt fast enough. A Neuromorphic assistant in the palm of your hand can give us the edge to stave off a Catastrophic Failure of Society on a personal level.

A Blockchain Knowledge Base Artificial Intelligence; this synchronized database with all human knowledge programmed into it, available to everyone could synchronize robots, computers, equipment, programs, etc allowing people to collectively guide their future with maximum confidence.