Bitcoin Forum

Friends this isn't a joke...

Very strong circumstantial evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18502866#msg18502866) that John Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto!

Read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18502866#msg18502866)!

He is dead, and to me it appears they firebombed his taxi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18460434#msg18460434).  :'(

Oh, noooo... Satoshi is dead?

Bitcoin is going to CRASHHHHHHHH...!!!!!!
SELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL AHHHHH...!!!!!!

That has nothing to do with why I did the research jackass. Your presumptions of my motives are entirely wrong.

I am intellectually curious.

SELL AHHHHHHHHHHHHH, SELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boo hoo, I can't believe Satoshi is dead.   :'(

Is it true that Satoshi dissapeared when Gavin Andressen said that he is going to CIA?

This isnt funny at all and it was shocking. But I dont think John Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto at all. Even those evidence are not sufficient enough to back up the claims that he is the real Nakamoto. But in case that he is the real Nakamoto it will never be the end for bitcoins. The community has survived without even knowing Nakamoto and even if he is gone, which is very sad if it is true,  bitcoin will continue to survive.

We all are !

''I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi. (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011936.html)''

Here we go again! another serious research thing about Satoshi? but your research was quite accepting with the evidence you have presented and the number of time he is involve in certain and major transaction between different country that will certainly pump up is idea currency and presenting the good benefits it has with the economy, I think you had a point in your research but there are still a big question mark in these, the real truth if Nash really is Satoshi? well one man can not certainly take a step in saying it and change our beliefs right?

@OP you may have put so much time to make that evidence but for me none of them are convincing. And i think many other also feel same about your evidence.

Satoshi must remain anonymous, nobody wants him to get detected because that can trigger panic on market.  ;)

I have a feeling that it's what Iamnotback wants exactly, considering the gist of his posts - to trigger panic on market

While you cluckity-cluck-clucks are maligning my motives, your tiny chicken brains were unable to contemplate that maybe BTC will rise if Satoshi is dead.

---

Nash was conscientious. He would have destroyed the private key before he mined the coins.

Has anyone tried to check if Satoshi's addresses correspond to an unspendable public key?

I have read carefully what you have post, and by what presumed in your research, but you can not blame us in not believing you right? just because you got a good research at hand to show us some proofs of who really is Satoshi and I salute you by doing so, but you can not blame me if I am very tired in this kind of topic about satoshi! well sorry for that though and I am still here gonna see this article proceeds because deep in my heart I also am curious in what is the real identity of satoshi if he is just a one man or group in depends on him to share the truth about him.

Why was according to an eyewitness, Nash's taxi "firebombed"?

Why was this one month before @traincarswreck's coindesk article came out linking Nash to Satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18503028#msg18503028)? The implication is that someone was observing that our community was getting closer to DOXXing Satoshi.

May be rise maybe drop, where I said that it will not, you should study some logic, essential quality for programmer who you are pretend to be

I don't know whether to trust my instinct or to trust the Op facts. As much as my gut tells me, that he is not dead but the proof that op has put here is compelling me to believe he is right. Maybe the world was getting smaller and if this does turn out to be true it shall be really sad for the community. I don't know whether we will ever be able to confirm if this is true or not. I only wish we could cause if it were indeed true, we need to pray for him. I wish some consensus is reached on this, and I don't care if the price is effected or not, we need to find out if this was indeed satoshi.

You have not said the price will not drop:


And I have not stated that you said the price will drop.

there's such a thing panic buy...

I did not preclude your possibility to imply that when I quoted the following:


I think you are the one who needs to learn logic and what is and is not stated (i.e. degrees-of-freedom).

You're 'backsplaining and I just checkmated you bitch.

what didn't you understand? I mean, that as altcoiner you may get some profit from market what ever panic may be, buy or sell, and you start atackin me with unlogical conclusions... not you're not a programmer :D

I didn't attack you. You are attacking me. I quoted your reply to the other guy (along with quoting him) who said I wanted to cause a downward price panic which you replied to emphasizing I might want to cause a panic.

Now you're 'backsplaining that you meant up or down price panic. Yet in my post that quoted you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18503980#msg18503980), I didn't write anything that would preclude the possible interpretation of your statement being up or down panic. Thus the logic error is yours.

Can't you fucking read man? Where in my post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18503980#msg18503980) did I write the price would go down?

Your evidence might be described as compelling. But as you also say in your first post, it is circumstantial. So there is no proof.
The idea though, I find ideal pondering.  ;)

ok have it your way, just chill out  :)

Aren't you curious about the thinking of the Satoshi? We get new insights into his thinking now that we know with high confidence that Satoshi was John Nash, the 86 year old mathematician who won a Nobel prize and the most prestigious Abel award.

For me it is a very intellectually interesting discovery. It opens a whole new realm of learning about and thinking about Nash's theories.

---

Difficult to chill out when so many people want to attack me for being intellectually curious and very active.

If this news is anything to go by in terms of how truthful it is, then I expect quite an amount of its effect on bitcoin but the reverse is what I am seeing from my end as the price is now tending towards $1200. However, we need to educate ourselves that bitcoin has grown beyond the dream and work of a man that everything ties around him. Bitcoin has grown to the point where banks and even countries are adopting the technology with several research going on concerning the subject matter for to come to an end as a result of the death of the founder if that is even true.

You can kill a man, but not an idea or a protocol unleashed.

hello

i always love seeing Satoshi Nakamoto related topics here, just to see people waste their precious time chasing their own tail :)

i always wonder how much longer does it take before they start accepting the fact that Satoshi chose to stay anonymous and it will stay that way until Satoshi decides otherwise.

meanwhile it is a fun thing to watch the endless arguments with so called new evidence leading to nowhere. i should get some popcorn ;D

I, am Satoshi Nakamoto.




And I have the keys that match!

Yawn...it's all just signature spammer fud...as usual.

You'd think the campaign managers would look at the crap people spew to scam campaign funds.

Who is satoshi? Nobody know who he is and where he is living? Perhaps he will never be present at this world . He can live with many many bitcoins which he is owning and just that's enough for him to have a very very rich and beautiful life so nobody can dream like him . The rumors are only rumors and we continue to buy and sell bitcoins everyday.

The prospect of Satoshi being dead wouldn't cause panic on the market.  He didn't partake in Bitcoin development after mid-2010 and stopped posting on the forum around the end of the year, so him dying several years later in 2015 wouldn't affect the market at all.

Regardless, iamnotback is clever enough to realise that his belief that John Nash was Satoshi won't make everyone else believe it.  There was an article on bitcoinpricelive (http://bitcoinpricelive.com/john-nash-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin/) and an an article on CoinDesk (http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/) arguing that this was a likely possibility years ago, but people didn't jump on the train because the "circumstantial evidence" provided is not, in fact, quite strong enough to prove that he was Satoshi and it can't actually be reasonably proven without Nash himself signing a message with the Genesis block (which he can't - he's dead).

in my opinion, its better that satoshi nakamoto remain in the dark and so no one will know who is he and let it be but we should be thank you to satoshi nakamoto for introduced bitcoin to us. myself is not bothered who is the real satoshi nakamoto and i think he don't want that people will know who is he so he still cover his real identity. there are many reason for satoshi nakamoto itself to remain silence and not introduce his self to public and i am sure that he want to live with peace without any media know.

Well, honestly I don't care about where is sathosi nakamoto right now. Who is he, is he dead or still alive or any questions like that. I just want to thank God for created Sathosi and give him intelligence like that to create a new financial technology and made this coin.
I am enjoying what he created, and if he want to disappear and leave the party, we have to respect his decision.

Thank you. At least someone else understands.

The creation of "satoshi nakamoto" was just a distraction anyways...something to keep the fools and children busy to give the adults room to work.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcIIcIGqQ5hHfXG32k_lgHtn74lVIu37Wk3kzob6u7i6klVoI7Jdio4aPH

"I'm Satoshi, and so's my wife!" ;D

well if it were nash it would certainly solve the "problem" of the satoshi mined million coins suddenly being sold and crashing the price of bitcoin.

but as someone else pointed out (sorry forgot who) wouldnt nash known of that potential problem and  publicly burned the coins as they were mined. xfer then to an unspendable address or something. i mean if perfect money were the intent it shouldnt have the risk of a price crash built into it.

its as if satoshi didnt realize how important bitcoin would become. nash would of.

Occam's Razor applies.

Take into account the next post I will make in this thread also.

Who would have been genius enough in game theory and then you have the other correspondences in the evidence I supplied.

You have not been paying attention. Read on...


You don't seem to understand what Nash meant by asymptotic ideal money (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18493393#msg18493393).

Nash didn't mean an asymptotically limited money supply.

Bitcoin is Nash's very clever plan of providing a reserve currency for altcoin experimentation, which could have the potential to create asymptotically ideal money. I had stated back in 2014 that I expected Satoshi was so genius that he had outsmarted the elite who were tracking him.

The elite loved what Nash was saying about ideal money because the Rothschilds thought they would be the one to control the weightings of the IPCI which all the nations' currencies will float against. This is why there has been talk of backing the SDRs with a weighting of national currencies, precious metals, and commodities as Nash had written about.

But Nash was fooling them. He knew damn well the IPCI wouldn't be stable in the world empire context. So that is why he wanted an asymptotic number of stable currencies that would develop via an evolutionary process (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18493393#msg18493393). He wrote those exact words, but the elite weren't exactly understanding that that entailed.

When Nash created Bitcoin, Rothschild rejoiced because of the math I showed that Bitcoin will eventually become concentrated in one entity (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1858873.msg18488493#msg18488493). But Nash had fooled them, because he had figured that Bitcoin's open source release would set off an evolutionary process in altcoins (guaranteed by the very genius immutable game theory he designed that prevents Bitcoin from being "upgraded" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1858873.msg18501479#msg18501479)).

You guys are failing to read my posts carefully.

Murdering Nash (assuming he was murdered and he was Satoshi) would obviously not be to stop Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is already released.

The point of murdering is so that it can't be confirmed who Satoshi was.

The elite think they will control all of the Bitcoin per the math I showed that shows all Bitcoin would become concentrated in one entity if it were the most stable money. So they want the people to think of Satoshi as some mystical God. And they want the people to whoreship Bitcoin as some sort of ideal idolized money. It is part of the NWO plan.

But as I explained in my prior post, I think Nash outsmarted them any way. So the murder of Nash was entirely unnecessary. But the elite aren't so smart.

There is a potentially simpler explanation for why Nash would be murdered before he could be confronted about whether he is Satoshi. That is to prevent any reduction in the mysticism/idealism/idolism that keeps flocks of greater fools coming into Bitcoin.

If we know who Satoshi is, then Bitcoin becomes just another altcoin or blockchain. It is reduced from magical to just technology. I think this is why I've been attacked/vilified for presenting this evidence.

Also murdering him would relieve him of perhaps being kidnapped and tortured and worse things than way he died instantly.


No one is perfect or absolutely undiscoverable when they leave so many information tracks.

I suppose you were one of those who would have killed any one who was intellectually curious about the earth not being flat.


Have you even clicked my signature. I am not being paid anything for posts.

You lie about me, because you are a WHOREshipper of the idol Bitcoin.

You've been manipulated like a dumb cow.

My purpose is not to prove or to convince, but rather to measure the behavior of Bitcoin retards. To document it as a form anthropology and market research.

The lack of attention to detailed due diligence and thus the nonsense spoken and voted.

Most of you haven't even begun to scratch surface of analysis of this issue.

My vindication always comes later. Such as when I warned about the centralization of mining in China last year and was told I was crying chicken little. Then I was correct and everyone admits it now.

I have a vindication coming soon on a recent altcoin analysis I made.  ;)

Nash designed Bitcoin so that it would be replaced or competed with (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18506101#msg18506101).

Satoshi has never spent a single BTC.

I laugh at the comments people make when they get all their basic facts wrong.

---

As I wrote before as quoted above, I think he'd probably left it as a puzzle to prove that his addresses are a hash of an unspendable public key.

Because he'd want it to be known later, not in the initial stages of Bitcoin. Something people would get around to later, perhaps much later if computation would be intractable now.

*ahem*


You've changed your tune since, when was it, less than 2 weeks ago?


One day it's "Rothschild created Bitcoin" the next it's "John Nash was Satoshi"


What's next? I suppose you're going to tell us that Rothschild (the whole family ???) is, er, was, John Nash?

I'm genuinely looking forward to your explanation of this, as it's proof positive that you talk so much rubbish that you can't even remember your own nonsense from 2 weeks ago  :)

Hey mate, nothing against your circumstantial evidence that John Nash is indeed Satoshis, this is not the first time the conclusion has been drawn that Nash is Satoshi. I am not too much familiar with the technical aspects of bitcoins so will point out the basics only.

1. The comparison between Nash and Satoshi is drawn because of Nash's theoretical notion "ideal money"

2. Nash has been working on the mathematical and economical aspects of implementing ideal money.

3. John Nash has made contributions to different fields of math and he might have been well versed in encrypting algorithms or cryptology.

There is a book written by Andreas Antonopoulos, The Internet of Money, it mainly deals with the social and philosophical implications of bitcoin, likewise IMO Nash was more into the mathematical or economical aspects of ideal money or lets assume bitcoin, but not technological/technical.

What should I say about his death due to "firebombed", controversial theory is the most apt way to make our hypothesis sound factual to ourselves first and then others ;D

Again some little pointers to help the lazy who don't quite grasp the evidence in totality.

It is amazing to me that they now have a great man to assign to the creator of Bitcoin, but they'd rather WHOREship an idol of mysticism (see the reaction I've been getting).

The human race hasn't graduated from being cows managed religion.

Yeah points noted, bitcoin announced 2008, satoshi stopped being involved with bitcoins since mid-2010. Nash shifted his focus from ideal money to game theory research (April 2006 and then back to ideal money in Feb 2007) Now since 2008 till 2011 Nash was really active (apart from 2009) presenting his concept of ideal money. Bitcoin was made open source in 2009, the point I am missing is if Nash is indeed satoshi why would he go to Germany, Pennsylvania and Hong Kong presenting ideal money, bitcoin has been made open source, what is the purpose of it, might sound illogical, but still ???

How can John Nash be satoshi? he was too old, I doubt he couldn't even code, he looks like the type of guy that reads a ton of books but doesn't code much. Satoshi was a single guy that combined existing work including by John Nash and then released BTC. I dont buy the conspiracy theories.

You haven't studied the evidence. There is evidence of him doing coding. Also I think you fail to understand how capable Nash was. @traincarswreck documented that his collegues were amazed at how much he gotten into computers lately.

I linked to an evidence where Nash had remarked at the importance of computers in proving Fermet's Last Theorem.

Nash wasn't 86 in 2006. He was in his 70s.

Also Nash's son is also a genius and was in is 40s at that time and lived in the same house with Nash.  ;)

Johnny Nash may hold the key to finding out, but it is purely speculative whether Nash's son would be involved in any way (probably not).

Wow, excellent find.
But There still might be the possibility that John Nash is a Rothschild.

Now seriously I spent a few minutes on this (to be read wasted) and the amount of evidence is just astonishing, probably one of the worst case about a "Satoshi" persona.

How about we let this guy alone.
Maybe when the time travel machine will be invented we will find out that his mysterious disappearance was a damn car accident (hope not).

No I already explained how both the elite and Nash are both involved (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18506101#msg18506101).

You don't really think anything Nash was doing wasn't being monitored by the NSA and/or CIA do you.  ::)


P.S. I have Carlton on Ignore. He knows that. So I can only read if someone happens to quote his nonsense. You can see once again he failed to read before posting.

Note that Nash didn't really switch entirely back to ideal money promotion until summer 2008 when he went bezerk promoting it like crazy right before he launched Bitcoin. I can see he was very excited about the Bitcoin he was preparing to unleash onto the world.

You guys still don't understand the cat and mouse game Nash was playing with the elite who knew what he was doing. I already explained it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18506101#msg18506101).

So Nash had to promote ideal money so the elite would think that Bitcoin was good for the elite. He was fooling the elite!

Analogously, I had also documented that the scientists had lied to DARPA in order to get the Internet started (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3335).

This is my personal opinion so you should take it as it is
Once you have people on ignore you can't argue about having a true discussion.

Now from my point of view, every time I hear about CIA  NSA stuff I tend to yawn...
How about we stop.Simply stop.

I want so much to hear a story about satoshi without the CIA NSA 13 bloodfamilies (is tomtom still around?)  and other.
Cause in my humble opinion there is a bigger chance the satoshi saga is in reality a pretty dumb story

I pleaded with Carlton numerous times to stop making insulting ad hominen. I gave him about 10 chances. He will never come off Ignore.



You tell me not to Ignore, then you stick your head in the sand. Lol.

As if the CIA and NSA do not exist and do not do such covert shit. It's like their mission orders do covert monitoring.

You guys are so rational.

im still laughing from when "iamnotback" was arguing with himself "trainscarwreck"

How much BTC would you like to lose in an escrowed bet on that?

Make the bet, or STFU. Because I am not @traincarswreck nor @dinofelis.

I'll give all the BTC won to @traincarswreck, to entice him to participate and prove he is not me.

You guys can't discern reality from fiction.

I heard a lot and seen a lot of movies where in the scene, a rich guy proclaimed dead but just hiding to protect and to have his privacy. I dont believe on this drama. The bitcoin creator is alive, just hiding himself.

Yeah right, OP, the story looks like fabricated. Its so easy for a billionaire to buy an unclaimed dead body from mortuary, dress it like satoshi, insert it to a car. And put a lot of explosive materials.

Once the bomb explode, body is very hard to recognize. Bitcoin owner is now free from allegations and death threats.

If i am satoshi nakamoto then i would also say those things. I would also try to make some evidence that it is me even if im not. Tho the case about sat is too broad

I honestly thought you'd have more evidence than basically he wasn't active with another project during the time that bitcoins were being developed and or implemented. I also wasn't doing any active projects then. Am I satoshi?

We can't be sure Nash and his wife aren't still living in hiding.

But that makes no difference whatsoever to the point of this thread.

Nash and his wife have not been seen in public or in their home since.

Get an education (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18506480#msg18506480).

The thought process (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860406.msg18506857#msg18506857) is beyond your level of intellect.

You have not correctly summarized the evidence.

So now we understand that many (most?) of the voters are too lazy and too stupid to vote rationally after spending some hours digging into the evidence.

We live in a soundbite generation where people are more misinformed about everything than cows are about eating grass.

It ain't research. And it ain't a good one either. Nor is there any proof.

All it is, is hypothetical and speculation.

See? His wife and kids are missing. Lols , his wife should be in Nash's wake. What kind of family he has. Anyway they must be relaxing in their private island, creating more ICOs. Just waiting bitcoin to land the moon. :D

You apparently don't know what research is.

So you would have dismissed the speculative research that claimed the earth wasn't flat.

You wouldn't be convinced until you actually sailed around the world. But what if you didn't have any boats that could make that journey yet? So you'd prefer to just remain in ignorance rather than dig into the very strong speculative evidence which I RESEARCHED.

That is your prerogative. It doesn't guarantee you are correct. In fact, I suspect if you and I got into a verbal debate on the facts of this case, I would embarrass the fuck out of you.

You don't seem to understand that Nash's Cooperation in Non-Cooperating Repeated Games research was precisely what Satoshi's PoW is when combined with Szabo's bit gold.

Also the game theory in Bitcoin is so clever, that it has Nash's fingerprints all over it. He was the world expert in game theory. He won a Nobel prize for it.

His wife was with him on the flight and thus also in the taxi from the airport.

So clever that you think they're nash's fingerprints...

Pawns, being pawns...talking about pawns.

Doin' pawn stuff.

Not playing the game but being played by the game.

As intended.

Me and trainswreck been the only guys saying nash was satoshi but annonymint did lots of research once he was shown the light

Of course I have considered that possibility but we never got around to discussing interesting perspectives, because (most of) the dumbasses who commented here are still stuck on their ABCs.

Yeah the elite could be trying to make us think that Nash is Satoshi and to take us off our guard. Or generally that Satoshi is any person.

The might be falsefiable though. If any altcoin rises to beat Bitcoin, then Nash succeeded and the elite failed.

Well if we are nearly getting a hunch on who satoshi really is and Coindesk was one that reports about the activity of Nash then Nash might be satoshi and I think a lot of the news on coindesk was really legit, but in terms with the satoshi topic a lot of people are really not buying it. I think because even if they are curious on who satoshi really is, a lot doesn't really care at all but a condolences to Nash family may he rest in peace.

Putting a list together of one's activities and the (hypothetical) comment on it provided, ain't research. That's an analysis.






Thank you. Nice examples of more assumptions  :)





Thanks, but no. Too many narcissistic traits are being flagged on my end. Sorry about that.

Lol, you missed the research (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18501391#msg18501391). And you are too dumb to assimilate the significance.

Bitch go back to inserting your tampon. It is was you were made to do.

Alright already.. you've convinced me.. that one of the main Satoshi players is dead that is  ;).  I think you've got the wrong dead guy though buddy  ;D

Satoshi Nakamoto.

Sato = name for the masses in Japan
Koto = harmonious "thing" in Japanese

Thank you, for confirming my other points as well. Have a nice day sir  :)

I agree that if Nash could have trusted another person, then it would have been Hal Finney as his collaborator.

Finney didn't have sufficient game theory expertise to do it by himself, unless had been following Nash's work.

I haven't done much research in Finney. Perhaps I should.

Okay just incase the story is true, do we need to worry? Who will continue, or the new owner(s) of Bitcoin? I believe everything is well documented , source codes are kept properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PVzOVMCASo&t=62m57s  You should watch a few minutes into this, it talks about linguistic similarities between Szabo and Nakamoto, how bitgold was the closest thing that existed previously and was suspiciously absent from the reference page on the bitcoin whitepaper.  They also talks about how Szabo went dark on social media at the same time Satoshi disappears, very curious content, would love to hear your 2 cents.

I am very privy to the idea that bitcoin was made by a group rather than a single person, and I think you might be right about Nash.  But what I am thinking is that the person that was actually on the forum, talking to people and answering questions, I think that was most likely Szabo, and that he was working with someone like Nash helping him behind the scenes.  Nash was more of a mathematician than anything else, so having a prolific coder like Szabo or Finney working closely with him makes a lot of sense, and having someone else do the forum posting would have made it easier for him to stay out of the limelight.

Waste of time on false pursue.

You can't just devalue the significance of Nash's frantic ideal money rampage which was also a lifelong ambition. And the timing of his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperating Repeating Games which is precisely coincident with the one advance needed to go from the prior art of Wei Dai, Szabo, and Finney's RPOW to Satoshi's PoW system of consensus.

There is a confluence of many coincident factors.

It is also quite peculiar that Nash never commented extensively on Bitcoin. It seems ridiculous that he avoided elaborating on Bitcoin when asked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4), except by instead pointing out that gold and silver wouldn't work. So in effect, he was saying we don't have any other good option.

That to me is a HUGE factor.

Finney was visible, so Finney can't be Satoshi. Ditto Szabo who is now a real person seen in YouTube videos. Also both denied being Satoshi.

My understanding is that Szabo is not much of a coder.

Also Szabo can't be Satoshi because he is in the public eye of the ecosystem.

Also Szabo doesn't understand game theory well enough, which is why he didn't get it correct with his bit gold proposal.

I have caught Szabo in several technological errors.

Szabo is not smart enough to be Satoshi. (I am not claiming Szabo is stupid, just not genius enough to be Satoshi).

However it is possible that some group created Bitcoin based on careful study of Nash's work, but why did Nash go quiet during the times he did? And why did Nash avoid talking about Bitcoin?

When Bitcoin came about, Nash as the researcher/progenitor of Ideal Money should have wanted to immediately write about it.

But of course he wanted to downplay Bitcoin because:

1. He didn't want to be associated as its possible creator.

2. To make the elite think he was playing along with their plans for Bitcoin.

3. To not alert powerful entities to kill Bitcoin in its infancy.


Not a disciplined enough coder to make Bitcoin. I've never seen Szabo write significant code or a large project.

Nash was very disciplined and stuck with projects over a long time frame to refine and complete them. Which is the trait a coder needs. Szabo is a writer and researcher.

Please refer here ---> https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/is-the-national-security-agency-behind-bitcoin/ (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/is-the-national-security-agency-behind-bitcoin/)


Also refer here ---> https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/flashback-1988-get-ready-for-a-world-currency-by-2018%E2%80%B3-the-economist-magazine/ (https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/flashback-1988-get-ready-for-a-world-currency-by-2018%E2%80%B3-the-economist-magazine/)



Forget about Satoshi. There is no such person in existence.

There are 2 ways the shadow elite can bring forth its phoenix currency.
1) Announce it as the currency of the shadow elite, and end up receiving backlash from the public.
2) Announce it as the currency from Mr. Anonymous that can be used to fight banks and tyrants, and receive mass adoption.

If I were from the shadow elite, I would definitely go for option #2.

Only the blind / foolish / naive fail to see thru this facade, and instead keep focusing on Mr. Mysterious as if that's going to matter a lot, as if finding out the answer would come the recognition as some brilliance of sort.

3) Allow John Nash to do it for them, by exposing him to certain information. So its creation can be appealing to the world.


But... John Nash outsmarts and puts a game theory in it that achieves the opposite of what the elite wanted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=28684

More interesting evidence. Based on this new theory that Satoshi wanted altcoins, lets examine one of the original altcoins, ixcoin.

The dev , thomas naskioto (anagram for satashi nakamoto) hasn't been heard from since early 2015. The ixcoin.org domain expired shortly after in june. It would make sense that this was also Nash.

There is no such entity as "John Nash" in the equation.

In case it is still too hard/complicated/sophisticated to understand the whole issue, then please read and re-read the statement below repeatedly for numerous times until you understand. Thank you. With regards.

Or more simply it was written by Nash who wasn't an experienced coder.

This argument that an expert group (of the global elite or whatever) coded Bitcoin doesn't make any sense. Unless they tried their best to make it look like the code was created by amateurs. Did they try to pin this on Nash's back on purpose? But then why does Nash refuse to talk about Bitcoin when asked about and instead basically answers in a cryptic way by saying gold and silver wouldn't work.

Nash was expert in theory, and had to do the coding by himself in order to keep it secret.

Simplest explanations are the best according to Occam's Razor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4)




The ideal money is no money at all, as monetary exchange only exists among humans that are unfair to each others and yet emphasizes fairness from each others.

When humans finally learn that prosperity does not need money, then the money god will die.

If @Dorky will continue spamming this thread, then I will just repeat my same post over and over also.

@Dorky please stop trolling.


You can't just devalue the significance of Nash's frantic ideal money rampage which was also a lifelong ambition. And the timing of his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperating Repeating Games which is precisely coincident with the one advance needed to go from the prior art of Wei Dai, Szabo, and Finney's RPOW to Satoshi's PoW system of consensus.

There is a confluence of many coincident factors.

It is also quite peculiar that Nash never commented extensively on Bitcoin. It seems ridiculous that he avoided elaborating on Bitcoin when asked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4), except by instead pointing out that gold and silver wouldn't work. So in effect, he was saying we don't have any other good option.

That to me is a HUGE factor.

Finney was visible, so Finney can't be Satoshi. Ditto Szabo who is now a real person seen in YouTube videos. Also both denied being Satoshi.

I understand the word "trolling" is an overrated word.
May I know what exactly is the meaning of "trolling"?

So if I am very sincere and honest in sharing what I know so that may somewhat broaden your knowledge and might be of help to your decision-making, and as so it happens to be not agreeable to you, thus I am trolling?

lol.  OP is the same guy as 'traincarwreck' and 'dinofelis'

nobody knows who is Satoshi.  could be Nash or many others.  Anyway nash died in 2015.  

next.

Without going in to the proofs you have presented in your actual post, I will say, whatever happens, bitcoin will not die. Even if I believe that Nash had actually created bitcoin, but the growth undertaken by bitcoin was purely possible because of public trust. Many people around the globe has entrusted bitcoin with their own hard-earned money. And that's where the bitcoin magic lies.

It will have no effect on bitcoin pricing because people who have heavily invested in bitcoin will step forward to save the fall. The creator of bitcoin will have no effect on pricing I believe.

Bitcoin is far too amazing to be created by a clever guy. And to be able to pull it off as Satoshi did.

You've never accomplished a million user viral s/w project in your life, so you have no comprehension of the genius it required. And he got it right the very first time he attempted it, with no prior coding nor marketing experience. But that sometimes makes me think it was an expert group, but then why does Nash refuse to talk about Bitcoin? Could it be that Nash knew of a secret group and was the secret consultant?. But Nash couldn't have trusted just anyone because his sanity could be questioned again if he ended up being exposed as working with some scam or what have you. They would have to have shown him credentials that he would trust.

And the game theory in Bitcoin is genius, can't be done by a clever person.

And ideal money was Nash's lifelong ambition. He wrote that if humanity can't learn to cooperate we would go extinct.


Nash was working on crazy new ideas until his death.

And the coding and research for Bitcoin was started when Nash was in his 70s.


What game theory or math theory errors are there in Bitcoin?

I see none.

You are referring to your pet peeve about conflating distribution with security, but it was genius because Bitcoin is designed to be a settlement layer, not other things you think it should be.

I don't really know what to think about this, but the whole story of the "phantom" founder of bitcoin is so interesting. I wonder if we'll ever get actual proof if satoshi exists or counter proof how someone faked it. Excited to find out one day

Ah and the truth comes out. OP is just a trolling kid with too much time. Try getting out in the real world sometimes child. Maybe you'll actually accomplish something rather than rambling threads that make no sense on a bitcoin forum.

TL;DR: he didn't find Satoshi. We already knew that though, didn't we? What an idiot.

Reporting all your bump after bumps btw, L2bitcointalk.

And you have added no substantive information other than complaining about your dick size. Your post was entirely vacuous. Do you have anything to say?

How much BTC would you like to lose in an escrowed bet on that?

Make the bet, or STFU. Because I am not @traincarswreck nor @dinofelis.

I'll give all the BTC won to @traincarswreck, to entice him to participate and prove he is not me.

You guys can't discern reality from fiction.

I just don't understand why "Satoshi" is so important to OP, as if he is OP's long lost biological father.

I don't understand why assholes feel so protective that they have to troll my thread with vacuous posts that add nothing to the topic of the thread.

I am genuinely interested in trying to understand the strong evidence. I have intellectual curiosity.

Why you trolls can't find something else to do yourselves? If you aren't interested in this discussion, then leave the thread. There are many other threads.

I never create moderated threads. But if you fuckers don't stop, I may have to lock this thread and create a new one that is moderated. Please stop being dickheads.

If you want to have a sincere discussion of the evidence, then please participate.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

You sir, are a shitty troll. Try harder.

Btw, all of your double bumps have been reported. Sorry about your enormous spammy post count going down newbie.

Interesting math based quote, from maybe a mathematician?

Edit
Possibly the strongest evidence is this
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1616394.msg18510587#msg18510587

Tldr. Nash's death lines up with the loss of the original .org site, he was paying monthly, died in May, .org is lost in june

Nash was proficient coding Mathematica and presumably he learned Fortran in college. And presumably he was programming at RAND.

But afaik, all his programs were small.

But I also have my doubts about Nash coding a large scale application in C++ (something which he had obviously never done), which is why I never put much weight in the theory, but I was shocked to find the other strongly corroborating evidence I explained.

Why did Nash disappear from publishing and public touring from 2004 to 2006? And again from 2008 to 2010. Why does he never provide a detailed response or account of how Bitcoin relates to his lifelong and recent obsession with ideal money?

The theory of Nash working with a secret group seems most attractive to me. And the group made it appear that Bitcoin was code by amateurs. But how would you get Nash onboard to do such a thing? And would Nash trust such a group? Well Nash is very rational about game theory and he was always emphasizing the benefit of the group in game theory, so perhaps he could have been rationally persuaded.


Yes that is important. And I wonder if Nash outsmarted his elite handlers? That has been my thesis.


If you need to ask, then it would be difficult to explain it to you succinctly. Good programmers know it when they see it.

The pot calling the kettle black.

Still you have nothing to say.

You are just trying to flood the thread with noise and strife like a typical dickhead. Can't you learn to suck yourself? Or use two hands so the keyboard remains free for something worthwhile to use.

Sorry you are incorrect. You don't understand the very strong distinction between these disciplines. @IadixDev and @2112 have made a good point.

oh.. i dunno.. maybe because someone in their late 70s/80s with severe schizophrenia needs to take a break once in a while?  :D

Can you find one shred of evidence to support that? Any report at all that he was tired or having difficulty during those periods?

What do you think of my theory of Nash in the original alt coin scene?

What about finding some people close to Nash's son? I think he could answer a lot of questions regarding this stuff. But we have to take action, not discuss Rothschilds and NSA. Unfortunately, I'm from central Europe, so I can't take action in a way as suggested...

Me? I quoted it to other thread. I don't know what to think of it.

Well, this video was published in 2015... I'm not sure when he spoke but you may have a point, in this video he looks in tip-top physical condition (crossfit maybe?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4

"The Bitcoin might not be it..  but.. if you had gold which is a step towards honesty or silver.. silver..  if you had silver... that was argent..in French.. it becomes intrinsically honest.." -John Nash

Did Nash also collaborate with Coblee on Litecoin ("Silver to bitcoin's gold") ?!?  :-X ("more complex ideas") ???
http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-silver-bitcoins-gold/

John Nash died on May 23rd, 2015 with litecoin near an all time low, still under $2. Note that his death occurred literally days before one of the biggest pumps in litecoin's history when it peaked over $8 during the following weeks  :o

They Found Satoshi?

It that is a question or a statement ?
If it is a question then it should be - Do they found Satoshi ?
If it is a statement then there should not be a question mark (?) at the end.

If it is a statement then my question is who is They ?

There are so many Satoshi in the Bitcoin Space. Which Satoshi are you looking for all these time ?
Is there really any one who is really looking for Satoshi ?

No.

If it's a question it should be.

DID they FIND Satoshi?

You're welcome.

I think since we now have good evidence that nash was him its extremely bullish for entire crypto community. This should drive adoptio  knowing a world class genius was at the helm

Some good thoughts and links in this article concerning Nash, Ideal Money and Bitcoin

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/the-levation-of-ideal-money/

Interesting..

"Nash suggested we are to link our currency system to the ICPI. This often leaves people wondering, if bitcoin is ideal money then where is the commodity basket to link bitcoin to? OR how do we link the currency bitcoin to an ideal commodity basket? But as Szabo explains extensively gold or oil themselves CAN in fact function like perfect currencies even though they are in fact commodities. In this light bitcoin starts to make perfect sense. It is a commodity in the sense that it is the perfect currency, based on an ideal printing/mining schedule constructed from a properly adjusted aggregate of commodities. It also has the benefit of super granularity of today’s paper currency and more. If the authors conjecture is true, Bitcoins are backed by the ICPI based schedule, and so always have the ideal quality that John Nash prescribed to them. (The process ideally backed money creates is referred to as asymptotically Ideal Money whereas the limiting result is Ideal Money)"

From.
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/134/

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/bitcoin-and-coffee/

Boom!

hm.... Even if he is or isn't Satoshi Nakamoto, I think that people should stop searching for him like he's a bigfoot or something. If the guy want's to remain anonymous, leave him be. :/

That's not the point. More interesting reading about ideal money and the relationship to bitcoin. I don't care about Satoshi. I do care about bitcoin and the ideas behind it.

iamnotback

Hi, you seems like doing a serious research to find the inventor of Bitcoin and Blockchain technology. I can see you are spending a lots of time online work. Some one said to you, if Satoshi was your biological father - You have answered him with all your ability. Now, I am here to discuss some serious matter with you. The first things is, you will ask me a question, 'who are you ?'  So I have understood you ahead and answering you. Yes, I am, myself who I am. I like your diligent research. So could you please let me know, why have you created this thread ? What do you want people to know from your thread ? What else do you want to know from the people who is following your thread ?

You will never find satoshi unless she wants to be found. Period.

or dead

if you hold btc it might matter to you.. is it a "ponzi" like your parents say it is or is it part of something bigger.

Roasted! hahaha.

I think that if there is a news confirming these guy, John Nash to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto, then I think one of the biggest mysteries in our world is been solved, that makes on less mystery to think off. And Satoshi Nakamoto being dead can't help the problem of bitcoin these days. But we need to thank him for making such a good discovery.

Explains why he doesnt even stop by newsgroups anymore even in face of scaling issue. I think its bullish.. i couldnt think if a better person to ever be satoshi.. it will add to allure because he was a one of a kind genius

John Nash IS Satoshi Nakamoto.



https://bitcointalk.org/useravatars/avatar_851556.jpg is happy! (look he's smiling)

After feedback from others, further thought and investigation, I now think it is unlikely that the programmer of Bitcoin and the guy who interacted with community through mailing lists and this forum was the famed mathematician John Nash.

However, I think John Nash is still possibly involved unwittingly. It seems it was intentionally made to appear that John Nash could have been Satoshi (which thus of course means Satoshi isn't Nash).

However, it is very peculiar that Nash did not ever speak to the fact that Satoshi's PoW was discovery of a Shapley value for his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperative Repeated Games and that Bitcoin was the better (more stable) gold that his ideal money plan needed to force nations to compete to make their currencies more stable which is precisely what he predicted could happen by a process of evolution.


And that Nash specifically demurred when asked about Bitcoin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4), but then cryptically explained that gold and silver were worse, thus implying that he knew that Bitcoin was what his ideal money planned needed to kickstart the evolution he wrote about. So that is very strange.

And I still have no explanation for the timing of Nash's absence from public activity from the late 2008 to early 2010 timeframe, which coincided with Satoshi's public communication.

Here is evidence that Nash wasn't the Satoshi speaking to us:

1. If John Nash wanted secrecy he would never have embedded his name so obviously in Satoshi Nakamoto. If he didn't need secrecy, then he would have been more open.


2. Satoshi was not working on the source code from 2004 to 2008. The period in which Nash become very active touring again for ideal money in summer 2008, was when Satoshi claims he was still coding:



3. The use of the word 'right' instead of 'correct' is not indicative of someone of Nash's attention to detail in the use of language:



4. As for the claims about the original source code of Bitcoin, note that Hal Finney was working on the code before anybody else saw it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68121.msg800422#msg800422).

Note that the person who was communicating as Satoshi obviously knew some economics because he corrected James A. Donald about the distinction between inflation and debasement (which is a common conflation many retards in our community continue to make every damn day):


The above quote is I think Satoshi trying to defend Bitcoin as a better gold. However, this "Satoshi" also makes statements indicating he hasn't really thought out the game theory of Bitcoin's future very well:




5. Although the "Satoshi" who is speaking to us is aware of the key innovation he has solved w.r.t. to Wei Dai's original work, he explains in terms of synchronization instead of game theory of non-cooperative repeated games:




6. On the marketing side, Satoshi seemed to obfuscate when told his design would not scale to the necessary geek-cool-libertards would want, as Satoshi's only response was #2 quote above:

As I have been explaining since 2014, Bitcoin was created by the global elite who want a NWO. Bitcoin forces the national central banks to become compared to a stable money which has more utility than gold, i.e. a better gold. It kickstarts the process of destroying nation-state fiats. Which is what Nash's ideal money called for as a process of evolution.

The global elite understand the math I showed which shows that all the Bitcoin can become concentrated in one entity, if Bitcoin were to become the most stable global settlement (reserve) currency.

Thus the elite understand that Bitcoin will ultimately be rejected and thus their SDR basket (analogous to the IPCI in Nash's ideal money) will end up being the ultimate NWO reserve currency. Bitcoin may end up in that basket.

I think the elite somehow involved Nash by NSF funding his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperative Repeated Games and influencing him to continue he paranoid obsession with ideal money which was involved in his life long battle with delusional paranoia.

So somehow they were able to structure Nash's activities to make it plausible that he could have been Satoshi.

I think what the elite did was they seeded some secret group to do the coding and interaction as Satoshi. This was within the national security apparatus aka "DEEP STATE".

They surely killed those who did the original coding by now.

But I think they outsmarted themselves. Or the emergent chaos of nature outsmarted them. Because Bitcoin will give rise to altcoins which move beyond fungible money into the Inverse Commons of the knowledge age (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18505797#msg18505797).

Exactly. Trolls like @Dorky can't seem to grasp the intellectual pursuit. Because they have pea brains.

I doubt he has even bothered to read that very important source document you linked to.

---

I have refuted you in another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18510047#msg18510047). You had some really dumb errors in your analysis such as claiming that RIPE160 reducing security. No it only reduces the space of addresses increases potential collisions but only astronomically small probability yet saves a lot of scaling space.


The game theory of Bitcoin is a crab bucket mentality Schelling point (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857162.msg18490584#msg18490584) and nobody can change the protocol, they can only block changes to the protocol. Which is exactly what is happening.

Chinese cartel doesn't control Bitcoin, the protocol controls itself. The Chinese are protecting the protocol precisely as the game theory expects they would.

It is difficult for me to have a discussion with the idiots here in these forums. You guys don't assimilate everything I write.


Thirty idiots who can't assimilate detailed technological research are basically just noise.

I have already explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18514473#msg18514473) that Nash was obviously (but likely unwittingly) involved and explained why.

Idiots are not worth my time.

Then don't comment. Or try to reason with me as you are doing now, instead of treating me like shit and mocking me as you were doing.


And so did I, when I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.160) in March 2013, when I first joined this forum. I also published that at marketoracle (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39704.html) as well.


Because it helps me (us) to understand what exactly their plans are for Bitcoin. Now I know they intend it to be a settlement layer.


I've known about that since 2013.


I've known about that since 2007. For example look at when I mentioned it in 2010 (http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t32p105-changing-world-order#3831).


That is why understanding Nash's role (even if only symbolic) and his Ideal Money is so important.


Did I ever say anyone else's research on connecting Bitcoin to the shadow elite was worthless?


You underestimate how many dozens if not 100s of people read my posts. Just because a few trolls like you think you are so important, there are more lurkers who at least are interested to read what I have to say (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18531448#msg18531448). My technical skills are also legit.


I have secret weapons.

Besides the shadow elite are apt to love the altcoin I will launch, because they will see it as yet another speculation that falls under Bitcoin's umbrella.

This isn't to promote embarrassment or admonishment of @dinofelis. No I just want to spread the information (perspective) contained within my rebuttal.


Everything in Bitcoin was calculated for a reason.

Remember Bitcoin is made by the elite for the elite.

And I had already refuted your excessive hashrate cost argument in another thread. You are quite disingenuous because you continue to claim issues that had already been refuted.

You disingenuously continue to pretend they weren't disproved.

So frankly we are reaching the point where we can't continue to have any dialogue because I don't waste my time with people who are disingenuous.

https://i.imgur.com/cSqSpLd.gif



You continue to repeat that lie (opinion) about Bitcoin having clunky design. Bitcoin has a perfect design for what the elite want.

You will suffer the most because you are not preparing for the fact that Bitcoin is a 666 tool of the elite. And you are not preparing for the fact that the EU totalitarianism where you are will get horrifically worse. You think the crisis is over in Europe. Lol.

For me it doesn't matter who coded Bitcoin, but rather whose design principles Bitcoin was modeled on. And what is the outcome of Bitcoin going to be and its impact on the world.

You think Bitcoin is a silly toy that will fade away. I think Bitcoin will become a key part of the new financial system after the global monetary reset coming in the horrific sovereign debt totalitarianism collapse underway.


Why are you sorry? I hate Bitcoin too (long-term, its okay for my uses short-term). But I know Bitcoin is unstoppable although I wish it could be stopped.


You were disproven. You might be blind or disingenuous and unwilling to figure it out, but that is not my responsibility to fix.


So is the entire fiat system. Have you not seen the $quadrillion in global derivatives holding up the fiat system.

You don't understand what money is. Finance is primary user of money, not the masses.

Bitcoin is the high powered reserve currency money of decentralized finance for $billionaires. You have no clue as to what is really going on. You are totally lost.


Which is 95% of all business.

You don't seem to grasp that Bitcoin is how the banksters-gangsters will carry forward their wealth from the collapsing nation-state monetary system to the new one coming after 2024.


I don't like it either, but neither of us can stop it. You are highly underestimating the evil rise of Bitcoin.


Consider the genius is evil. Then you realize Bitcoin could have been designed by an evil genius. The reason you think it is not designed by  genius, because you don't understand the real goal of Bitcoin. Thus you misattribute clumsiness where the truth is it was cleverly designed that way to serve an evil purpose.