Bitcoin Forum

So who is Satoshi Nakamoto? Information on their identity remains unknown. Bitcoin has since evolved without their input, put forth for anyone willing to experiment with the technology. Satoshi’s last call was to deemphasize his unknown identity.

When Satoshi had the basic foundation of the bitcoin client built, he transitioned the responsibilities to a group of early enthusiasts and withdrew back into the shadowy depths of anonymity. Nothing tangible has been heard since, although they’re widely regarded to still be alive and keeping a pulse on bitcoin developments.

Read The Full Article (https://diginomics.com/?p=4244)

You sound like the kind of person who denounces the state as a legitimate authority.

So why then, do you then continually equate 'identity' with only government-approved identity?


Satoshi's identity is known - it's Satoshi Nakamoto, inventor of bitcoin, author of the bitcoin whitepaper, etc.

The inventor of bitcoin isn't anonymous - we know who created it. Satoshi Nakamoto did. We just don't happen to know the government-approved name this person has on some stamped piece of paper that his parents got from the state.

I don't equate identity exclusively with government-approved social security numbers, birth certificates, etc.

I believe we should always have the option to go back to our original state, that of the identification with man and nothing more.

Read Why Anonymity is a Human Right (http://news.diginomics.com/why-anonymity-is-a-human-right/).

The system is open source, the identity of the author is henceforth unimportant.

As written in the article:

"Satoshi claimed to reside in Japan, although searches and inquiries into his true identity turn up few results. Facts that were uncovered seem to be contradictory and purposefully led followers on a false trail. In his early days working on the project, Satoshi was known for a business-like demeanor and very seldom revealed details about himself, instead dedicating himself feverishly to the bitcoin project."


For me this is enough, but a lot of people are curious.

I dunno. I think the real Satoshi is probably incredibly pragmatic. He'd probably get a major kick out of reading these posts because they seem so extreme in characterizing him as their "god" or messiah or even martyr or whatever.

satoshi might be gavin or andreas.

Do you have a proof for your "judgments"? Or is it only your personal opinion?

It is. People is obsessed with egos and attaching faces to projects. Since open source was invented we don't need all this ego shit. It only leads to fights and having "a leader" is the worst thing that can happen specially to a currency.

No not sure he has proof because Satoshi "'might"' be Gavin or Andreas  :)

I would go with personal opinion imo

I think Satoshi 'might' even be a lady who pretended to be a man, master of misdirection and you will never find him/her.

OP, Satoshi felt his identity was not important so i think we should go with the flow and just love his baby like our own he may well show his face one day  ;)

I notice that you use their word "their". So do you really mean to imply that satoshi is not an individual rather than a group of people?

and
Exactly this.

And besides, Satoshi's idea is important, not his identity.

In this ego and image related society, it looks like people always want a visible face to worship. Go to NK you freaks! ideas is all that matter, not the person behind it.

Sure, if you want him to get killed, it is important.

Don't Let Anyone Tell You Satoshi's Identity is NOT Important

It's not important. I think bitcoin is better off with him remaining unknown, and clearly he wants it to be this way.



More likely imprisoned than killed, but the press would likely hassle him to death.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3

I wonder what's Satoshi's password. Anybody with a lucky guess? :D

He invented the blockchain. Im sure he used a complicated ass password not worth trying to guess.

The account is permanently locked to stop people from trying. You'd need to prove you were satoshi to theymos to get it back.

It would still be interesting to know the password.
Bitcointalk stores probably just hashes of passwords so it is not possible to know the passwords from them.

There's this thing called singular they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they).

then actually who? I am confused and do not know

In this case maybe for a reason of respect. However I don't like to know who has invented "bitcoin" it is better to keep them (him) secret.

Even if they kill him, they couldn't stop Bitcoin.

...

A new book, The Age of Cryptocurrency (2015, Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey -- the two of them are Wall Street Journal reporters) is out and available at Barnes & Noble everywhere.  The book is good, but I will discuss that more elsewhere and later.

Vigna and Casey wrote several pages on the hunt for Satoshi's identity.  A number of people were thought of as possibly the man (?) himself.

Vigna & Casey also wrote that the Bitcoin community typically was against this search, arguing that we should leave him alone, respect his privacy.  And there is an excellent case for that.

But, the authors also are looking ahead, looking down the road.  To be accepted in a massive way by society, the masses must be convinced that BTC is legitimate and secure.  An anonymous founder does not inspire confidence among the masses...

A snippet from Vigna & Casey (emphasis mine):

"It might even be better for bitcoin if Satoshi's identity is eventually revealed.  Initially, the absence of an identifiable founder meant enforcement agents couldn't find Satoshi and shut down his fledgling project before it gained attraction.  Now it's a different phase.  More than six years into bitcoin's existence, with a global community formed around it, the project is looking to undertake the ultimate community expansion exercise and embrace the wide, all-encompassing "mainstream."  For that exercise, the lack of transparency over bitcoin's founding is a hindrance.  It feeds doubts in the minds of government officials and lawmakers, making friendly regulation that might smooth bitcoin's development a harder sell for cryptocurrency lobbyists.  The same goes for the general public.  Coming clean would put to bed conspiracy theories that bitcoin was created by the CIA or the NSA or the IMF, or that the whole thing is an elaborate scam."

That's a great excerpt, thank you for that.

Have you read their new book and if so, what did you think of it overall?

https://i.imgur.com/TxK0kn3.jpg

I could see Satoshi not wanting to share if that was the case, too many sexist people in the world. ;)

Both these government officials and lawmakers, as well as the general public, are wrong.

Even IF Bitcoin was created by the CIA or the NSA or the IMF, so frigging what? The source code is public, everyone can see what it does and how it works.

And how the f*ck could the whole thing be "an elaborate scam". If you understand Bitcoin, you understand there's nobody who could possibly pull any scam, or be scammed. It's just as stupid as saying that chess (you know, the game) might actually be rigged, and is probably fake, because we don't know who invented it.

The idea is out there, the genie is out of the bottle, that's all there is to it!

...

Kazimir

The snippet you reference is from a book just out.  It is the opinion of the two authors.

There are good arguments on both sides of this question.

*   *   *

Theory: It ought make no difference who Satoshi is.  Nor who invented BTC.

Practice: In the minds of the general public (the masses), it might make big a difference!

The general public does not know much about Bitcoin.  There is a "reasonable probability" that the general public will not use it if there is a good chance, in their eyes, that BTC could be an NSA plot or a giant criminal scam.  You can say it isn't so all you want, but will the public believe it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883213.0

Finding Satoshi

Y'all are acting like one of my college roommates, who, when he got drunk enough, liked to sniff root beer because it made him see a beautiful purple color so bright and vivid  that it could never exist in the real world.   He spent weeks, when sober, looking for paint that reproduced that impossible color, trying to find the HTML hex code for it, etc.  But there was never anything that satisfied him, because "root beer purple" was always brighter and more vivid and more dynamic than anything found in the real world. 

The idea that Satoshi "is" someone is like the idea that the scent of root beer has a color.  A compelling illusion if you're drunk, but otherwise a waste of time.  A 'nym which has been used, successfully, without leaving traceable evidence, remains sealed forever. 

The person who invented Satoshi has probably sealed the 'nym, and deleted all the keys when the need for Satoshi was over.  If so, then nobody - not even him - will ever have any evidence to tie that 'nym to anyone's identity. 

And therefore, there is no such identity. 

Click bait article; don't be suckered.

Bitcoin is a system governed by its software, -- mathematical in nature, its operation is fundamentally transparent.  If Bitcoin is good, it's goodness if available for your discovery and analysis, and likewise if it is not.   It does not matter if it was created by the CIA or whatever.  Any alternative identities of its creator are fundamentally uninteresting in any practical sense as the whole value of the system is its autonomy, its independence from its creation (and any other person or institution). If you think the details of its creation matter, you've failed to understand the system.

The only utility of that information is pointless tabloid gossip, or fodder for Bitcoin's political opponents who would use the humanity behind its origins to discredit it in the eyes of the public which has been too long seeped in opaque trust-based systems where the integrity of the origin has considerable predictive power.

More fundamentally, it just isn't any of our business. That people are constantly so cavalier with the insane allegations (just about every long time Bitcoin user has been accused of being its creator at one time or another; including ones that barely understand the technology) without any consideration of the physical risk of harm these allegations can bring is a constant source of disappointment for me.

If you want to show respect for the Bitcoin system and demonstrate a real understanding of its nature; say no to speculative bitcoin-creation-myth tripe and save your drama-gawking for the scam of the week where it might actually do some good.

I think the being is not a personal experiment.

Some people think it's an open-secret project of four groups of people. Toshiba, Motorola, Nakamichi, Samsung.

The nature of the four companies, I do not mentioned much here. However I have noticed few things, who can do this well. If for first step of decentralization, then Nakamichi is currently the finest. While Toshiba is good at making worse for the unauthorized, Motorola is good at device design, Samsung is multi. Perhaps Storage?


And they use suffix and prefix to form a 'person' plus there are at least sixth combination based on the reading.

The solution is not another feeble attempt to identify Satoshi (by whatever definition of 'identify' you prefer), but by explaining to the general public, over and over again, that Bitcoin is an idea, and now that it's out there, for everybody to use and understand, it doesn't matter who originally made it up.

Again, does it matter for the general public who invented chess, in order for them to play the game? What if the inventor of Chess 'comes clean' and it turns out to be made by the NSA, or some Nazi, or evil Roman emperor, or whatever? Would that change the game? Would the same rules of Chess now suddenly be interpreted differently? Would people worry if the game is actually rigged, or that Chess is actually a scam?
Well, same with Bitcoin!

I'm glad OP is considering the really important questions. Not what does the future hold, but **who is the person(s) who coded some software**? The ironic part is 90% of the community could hear a name of Satoshi's identity and not know who it is due to never venturing out of the Karpeles, Ver, Shrem circle of names: perhaps reading stuff related to the tech based functions would be more educational than wondering what size shoe God wears

For argument's sake, let's assume that Satoshi Nakamoto is actually identified, and found out to be Joe S. Campbell from Urbandale, Iowa, born July 25, 1967, and worked as an accountant at a local library.

Now what the fuck would that change about Bitcoin?

Here's what: NOTHING.

Ding!  We have a winner. 

Joe S. Campbell, however, would have a drastically changed life, starting with harassment by the IRS, the Mafia, the Paparazzi, and every other kind of parasite attracted by money or fame.  It would kind of suck to be him in that case.

It's quite nice to know who really is the person behind this great creation. We know him by the name 'Satoshi Nakamoto', but we do not know his real-life identity. if bitcoin's purpose is to be anonymous, wouldn't it be nice to leave the founder alone and let him remain anonymous as well? Curiosity is there, but if he want to remain anonymous, we might as well respect his decision to do so.

Satoshi has a dream.
He will definitely let his son/daughter or someone close to him know about him before he dies.

Why the hell would he do that?  What possible purpose would it serve to burden someone with that secret? 

Also, see definition of "secret" -- something known to ONE person.

...or a readily available likeness of his persona. Which begs the question: Does Satoshi own a mirror?

Yes as mentioned above his account is locked to prevent people from attempting to access his account. You are not even able to search for his profile using the search function.

In theory theymos and other admins have access to what satoshi's password was via forum backups.

The passwords are hashed/encrypted so I don't even think theymos has access to the passwords but he can reset them.

He would obviously need to have the seed that is used to create the hashes of the passwords therefore he would be able to access the plaintext versions of passwords if he really needed/wanted to.

It is extremely bad security protocol to access plaintext versions of passwords as well as to change passwords therefore he will only reset password via email.

I would guess that in the event that satoshi were to return that theymos would probably not reset his password via email but would unlock his account and change the password to one of his choice

In standard operation, there is no "seed" that Theymos or anyone else could access.  The hash is calculated from  the password, but only the hash is stored. 

satoshi is a special case anyway, but I'm sure he likely still knows his password so would just have to prove it's his account in the first place by signing an address to get it unlocked.

I would say it is more likely that he would need to sign a PGP message as opposed to an address, as all of his addresses are not 100% certain to be his.

Although both have a very small chances of happening, there is probably a greater chance that satoshi has lost access to his private bitcoin keys then his PGP private key

+1  props

This guy not only gave us public coin but also an example for quality of publication and scientific endeavor.  Step 1: remove small ego and petty political motivation. 

he might be dead now no one knows :P however the system is open source and not controlled by anyone its dont metter much to get his identity

Still waiting to see a single argument that delivers a sound explanation as to why we should know Satoshi's real identity.

Satoshi is not a single person. Satoshi is the "identity" of a billion-dollar multiple-year plan to have authority over ALL the money on the world.
When all fiat is converted to BTC, we've lost.

It's just a theory, though, and I don't believe in it myself.
Still an interesting predicament.

I went into hiding as a hermit, up on the top of an obscure mountain, just so nobody could come up to me and tell me that, Mr. Nakamoto's identity is not important.

 ;D

How can Bitcoin give its creator authority over its users? The protocol is designed in such a way that you can only control your bitcoins if you know your private key.

Studies have shown that, on the average, Southeast Asians are about 10 IQ points above Western Europeans and Americans. The same studies have shown that spikes in IQ among Western Europeans and Americans are much higher and much more frequent than such spikes in Southeast Asians.

The point? There was probably one Southeast Asian person (Satoshi) who had a high IQ spike that was way above anything anyone else in the world has ever had (excluding Solomon in the Bible O.T., that is). This spike in IQ caused him to be able to build several virtually-invisible-to-the-rest-of-us back doors into the whole Bitcoin program, so that he could, if he wanted, immediately take control of the whole Bitcoin protocol everywhere, all at the same time.

The thing that Satoshi is doing now is quietly positioning Bitcoin throughout the world in such a way that it will collapse the banking system, unexpectedly, all at once. After the banking system collapses, when Bitcoin has become the dominant method for easy value transfer throughout the world, then Satoshi will take over the world.

I only hope he allows the rest of us who are Bitcoin adepts, to position ourselves near the top of the wealth before he takes over.

:)

As Cyberdyne pointed out, we do know it. 

It takes a god-like self-control to create a technology that can change our world and to remain in the shadows. While I am curious to know the real-world identity of Satoshi, I reluctantly must accept that if the creator of Bitcoin does not decide to publicly reveal their identity, then I may never know. The steps Satoshi made to keep their identity private says a lot. We should respect his, her, or their wishes.

I don't think I ever observed any sign of egotism in SN's stuff. 

He never gave a damn who got credit.  Never bragged on a darn thing.  Had nobody he wanted to prove anything to as far as I know.  Never said "I told you so" about anything.  And was just as hard on his own code and ideas as he was on anybody else's.  He just wanted to get stuff done.  Anytime you wanted to have a conversation that wasn't directly about getting stuff done, he'd just drop it and go get stuff done.

That is all it takes to remain in the shadows.  It's not godlike self-control; it's just a commitment to purpose over ego.