Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto?

[TippingPoint]

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
Which option is the most likely?
Which option is the least likely?

• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched
• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified while he is alive
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

[owlcatz]

My vote would be for Nick Szabo, at least it definitely would be from among those choices.

The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is actually a pivotal concern for the mainstreaming of Bitcoin; if there is no founder found, people who know next to nothing about BTC have yet another very big reason not to buy into it. Having someone to serve as a figurehead of sorts does help.

It's kind of like being first among equals. People just need a face to go with a name.

Having a Bitcoin Foundation, even though it is not officially in charge of BTC or anyone working on it, lends some credibility to the BTC protocol.

Non-tech folks don't trust computer code; they need a human face on an invention. Until there's a person or group associated in public opinion with Bitcoin, going mainstream will be a problem.

Interesting theory, but highly unlikely - If Nick was Satoshi, why would he have dinner with the BTC core devs in March 2014 and allow his photo to be taken with them?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/36hfu4/pic_coredevs_having_dinner_with_nick_szabo/

I wouldn't be surprised if he had something to do with bitcoin, but I really doubt he is satoshi, but no one knows for sure. Let's hope it stays that way, for everyone's sake.

 

[TippingPoint]

... no one knows for sure.  Let's hope it stays that way, for everyone's sake.

 

How does "everyone" benefit from not knowing?  

Does this scenario sound more mutually beneficial?  

• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof).  We get our George Washington (minus the wooden teeth and wig-wearing myths).  Maybe he describes the inspiration process, creation and deployment events, why he walked away, and why so many early Bitcoins are unspent.  
  
  Or we can just create various combinations of Jesus, Jack the Ripper, and the Babushka Lady.

[owlcatz]

... no one knows for sure.  Let's hope it stays that way, for everyone's sake.

How does "everyone" benefit from not knowing?  

Does this scenario sound more mutually beneficial?  

• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof).  We get our George Washington (minus the wooden teeth and wig-wearing myths)

I meant that more along the lines of:

1. SN keeps his identity private as he/she/they obviously want.
2. I'm of the opinion that not knowing the identity keeps all those coins in check, so to speak - Do we really want Satoshi to cash out or leave his fortune to some kid or something, I mean that could happen anyhow, but the chances seem slimmer right now.  

Of course, your scenario would be really cool for all in some ways, obviously it would lend a bit more legitimacy for skeptics etc, but again, what would be the primary benefit to all, or even Bitcoin itself, other than "Just knowing"? What about all those old coins/keys sitting on the chain? Who gets them? Are the private keys gone? Are they going to be cashing them out?  This is where even more uncertainty comes in, so that's why I said "everyone". In hindsight, I suppose I should have said "stays that way for now".

sorry I replied too fast and missed this:

Maybe he describes the inspiration process, creation and deployment events, why he walked away, and why so many early Bitcoins are unspent. 

Yes, all that info would be amazing indeed, so many unanswered questions ...

Cheers.

[TippingPoint]

I think it would lend much more legitimacy to Bitcoin. 

[owlcatz]

I think it would lend much more legitimacy to Bitcoin.  

Maybe. Then again, what if it turned out to be some russian scammer? then it could go the other way and actually hurt it.... (Silly example, but you get the point).

So many theories, I love this topic!

[TippingPoint]

I agree that Memoirs of a Russian Scammer would not be beneficial.

[owlcatz]

I agree that Memoirs of a Russian Scammer would not be beneficial.

Indeed! I only picked that example because there are theories running around about the creator of the Cryptonote codebase, "Nicholas van Saberhagen" actually being Mr. Andrey N. Sabelnikov. (Many also believe he is "Cryptozoidberg", the current lead dev on the Boolberry (BBR) cryptonote coin), but that's getting way off topic.

Edit - sounds dumb, but there are some that actually believe Cryptonote was Satoshi's "new" project... Get out the tin foil hats!

[cellard]

My vote would be for Nick Szabo, at least it definitely would be from among those choices.

The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is actually a pivotal concern for the mainstreaming of Bitcoin; if there is no founder found, people who know next to nothing about BTC have yet another very big reason not to buy into it. Having someone to serve as a figurehead of sorts does help.

It's kind of like being first among equals. People just need a face to go with a name.

Having a Bitcoin Foundation, even though it is not officially in charge of BTC or anyone working on it, lends some credibility to the BTC protocol.

Non-tech folks don't trust computer code; they need a human face on an invention. Until there's a person or group associated in public opinion with Bitcoin, going mainstream will be a problem.

Interesting theory, but highly unlikely - If Nick was Satoshi, why would he have dinner with the BTC core devs in March 2014 and allow his photo to be taken with them?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/36hfu4/pic_coredevs_having_dinner_with_nick_szabo/

I wouldn't be surprised if he had something to do with bitcoin, but I really doubt he is satoshi, but no one knows for sure. Let's hope it stays that way, for everyone's sake.

 

He could have done it for exactly that, so people say "If he was Satoshi, why would he do it?"
If he shows himself as Nick, then people think he is just Nick and not Satoshi.

[Clint]

I've heard in news in China that he is an actually person, just like us, who graduated in MIT years ago. Not much information was released about him, and there is no photo ever recorded. But I can be certain he is a real person, even though it is possible for Satoshi to be a group of people, or even a robot, no one knows. I hope he steps out soon, it will definitely have an impact on our World's economy.

[Dotakels]

I've heard in news in China that he is an actually person, just like us, who graduated in MIT years ago. Not much information was released about him, and there is no photo ever recorded. But I can be certain he is a real person, even though it is possible for Satoshi to be a group of people, or even a robot, no one knows. I hope he steps out soon, it will definitely have an impact on our World's economy.

Yes maybe he is the way how to introduce the bitcoin in world and he is the way to the future of the currency and also bitcoin will the first world currency.

[Anirban Sarkar]

The maker of bitcoin..!!!!

[Father Ted]

I think it would lend much more legitimacy to Bitcoin. 

Or it could have the opposite effect. What if satoshi was a 'criminal' in the eyes of the law, or they managed to tie something to him? I think its better than he remains anon. I like the mystique and enigma of him and what it adds to bitcoin.

[S4VV4S]

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
Which option is the most likely?
Which option is the least likely?

• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched
• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified while he is alive
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Your questionaire is incomplete IMO.
List options 3-6 make no mention of Satoshi's Bitcoins.

So, so far I got this:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

[lister storm]

Satoshi aren't supposed to be uncovered. So regardless of the facts presented it's a selling point for any mystery to stay as is.

[TippingPoint]

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
Which option is the most likely?
Which option is the least likely?

• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched
• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified while he is alive
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Your questionaire is incomplete IMO.
List options 3-6 make no mention of Satoshi's Bitcoins.

So, so far I got this:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

Interesting!  Here are my answers:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

[neurotypical]

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
Which option is the most likely?
Which option is the least likely?

• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched
• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified while he is alive
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Your questionaire is incomplete IMO.
List options 3-6 make no mention of Satoshi's Bitcoins.

So, so far I got this:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

Interesting!  Here are my answers:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

I think it's not likely that he will get indetified after Satoshi dies. He's too smart to leave cues. Only if he wants to do that, it will happen.Which means he would need to plan it, which means if he dies in a sudden accident he would never be able to disclose the information and the mystery would never be solved (I doubt he would trust anyone to disclose the information for him in case that happens).

[hangar18]

It seems that Satoshi was a master of anonymity even before he knew how popular BTC would be.

[bytezero]

That is one of the biggest mysteries in bitcoin, along with  "where is satoshi now".
"bitcoin will raise to 1.000,00 dollars"again ... ?

[thrax]

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
Which option is the most likely?
Which option is the least likely?

• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched
• The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified while he is alive
• The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Your questionaire is incomplete IMO.
List options 3-6 make no mention of Satoshi's Bitcoins.

So, so far I got this:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins remain untouched

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

Interesting!  Here are my answers:

Which option would be best for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified after he has died (by him leaving a manifesto and proof)

Which option would be the worst for Bitcoin?
The creator of Bitcoin is never known.  The early Bitcoins are eventually used in transactions

Which option is the most likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is involuntarily identified after he has died

Which option is the least likely?
The creator of Bitcoin is self-identified while he is alive (by producing a statement and proof)

I think it's not likely that he will get indetified after Satoshi dies. He's too smart to leave cues. Only if he wants to do that, it will happen.Which means he would need to plan it, which means if he dies in a sudden accident he would never be able to disclose the information and the mystery would never be solved (I doubt he would trust anyone to disclose the information for him in case that happens).

He's obviously skilled at coding and could set up a web server with a time delay mechanism timed to release proof of his identity five years after his last login to it. If he had an accident it would reveal his identity five years after his death. He wouldn't have to trust anyone and could obfuscate the code on the server to prevent anyone with access to it discovering his identity.