Has Wired discovered the real Satoshi Nakamoto? (.. this time)

[jbreher]

problem:...
problem: ...
problem: ...
problem: ...
problem:...
problem: ...

I agree that there is much to look at before jumping to a conclusion.

But I want to ask you again about your claim upthread that it is impossible that Satoshi accumulated anywhere near a million BTC. Unless I missed it, you've skipped over the request to explain why you believe this to be so.

sorry didnt have time spending hours redoing old research i just used my memory of the highlights i picked up. im sure google has the answers
but from what i remember, (forgive my memory for lack of detail)
logically for satoshi to accumilate 1mill in 2 years. there would have to be only 5 people mining right up to january 2011 because only 5mill were mined by then
(simple division)
but even before winter 2009 there were about 10 people..

Your logic works only if you can safely assume that one did not have significantly more hash power than others. Rational speculation, but inconclusive as a proof.

then the next point. satoshi was playing with new wallet.dat implementations. along with the fact that if you copied a wallet.dat and then later received 100 tx's... the active wallet.dat would have different addresses added to it thanks to the address pool and copying the backup back would lose addresses.
i remember he updated 0.3 to fix some wallet issues because addresses/coins were being lost. so the only way to have not lost any would have been to manually write down all the privkeys since day one prior to some of the bug fixes, to ensure he never lost a single coin..

Possible, but an unlikely reach. You can't envision a person (e.g.) appending a simple <date string> between 'wallet' and '.dat' in the filename?

i remember you saying you can tell alot from the nonce.

Yes, an analysis was performed of the nonce in each coinbase transaction for the first few years of Bitcoin. If one graphs the nonce against block height, one can clearly see interesting patterns therein. One of the patterns is a simple increment by one of the nonce for consecutive or near-consecutive* coinbase transactions. The sum of the coinbase transactions in these series came to (IIRC) ~960,000 BTC. I find this plausible evidence to assume that one entity scored darn near a million BTC in the early days of mining.

* near-consecutive, as other unrelated transactions -- including some with their own distinctive patterns in the same graphing -- are interspersed.

eta: Syke has located part of this evidence:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

[jbreher]

there is a reasonable alternate conjecture - the private keys were fully entrusted to the other dude before he died, leaving Wright with no means of accessing the BTC1.1M.

I would find this unlikely. Especially considering the fact that as of when the other guy died the value of the 1.1M BTC was enormous and would have likely asked for backups of the keys and/or for backups to be made that would be accessible in the event of his friend's death. 

I find it unlikely as well. However, not beyond the realm of possibility.

[Spoetnik]

Why don't the admins look up the IP of satoshi and locate where he did login from, then U know where the real bitcoin developer came from.

they did.. result=tor node

Exactly. Satoshi went to great lengths to maintain his anonymity. We won't find him putting his anonymity at risk by attending Bitcoin conferences.

Or Registering a bunch lame Bitcoin domains LOL

[Lauda]

Incidentally; there is now more evidence that it's faked. The PGP key being used was clearly backdated: its metadata contains cipher-suites which were not widely used until later software.
$ gpg --export 5EB7CB21 | gpg --list-packets - | grep pref-hash
    hashed subpkt 21 len 5 (pref-hash-algos: 8 2 9 10 11)
Compare to the well known key:
$ gpg --export 5EC948A1 | gpg --list-packets - | grep pref-hash
    hashed subpkt 21 len 3 (pref-hash-algos: 2 8 3)
The 8,2,9,10,11 list was added to the GNUPG code tree in commit e50cac1d848d332c4dbf49d5f705d3cbbf074ba1 on July 9th, 2009, and not released until version 2.0.13 later. This is well after the 2008 date on the key. The 2,8,3 list was the prior list the would have been used in 2008. That they were different at all was surprising, considering that they claim to be generated less than a day apart.
This key was also not on the keyservers in 2011 according to my logs; which doesn't prove it was backdated, but there is basically no evidence that it wasn't and significant evidence that it was. And it's not turning up in any of the older key server dumps.

Looks like I have to repost this. Stop getting tricked by con artists.

[Fuserleer]

If you expected Satoshi to be some sort of a god, then you really did not think this through.

I wasn't talking about me, I was referring to the hoards of other people that do.

I don't follow. Satoshi's (arguably) 1.1M BTC is only ~7% of coins currently in existence. Blowing them out might tank the price down to near-zero -- for at least minutes. It'd be probably back to at least 50% value within a day, 75% within a month, and 200% within a year, as the market no longer would be factoring the possibility into EV. How exactly is that 'pulling the rug out'?

7% of $6,181,000,000 market cap is $432M of value.  Daily trade volume is about $6M currently, there is no way that the market can swallow $432M of value in a day or two.  There is also no way $432M would be put on the exchanges with a sell price of near zero if its been kept safe in a trust for 10+years.  

It would be a prolonged dump over the course of many weeks if anything, carefully calculated to exit that position as quickly as possible whilst still maximizing returns.  It would have to be orchestrated as even a gradual sell off of that much volume within a reasonable time frame would deflate the price and keep it there, which would have the potential to trigger a flash paper panic sell at any moment.

If you think that all of those Bitcoins getting dumped, either quickly or slowly, wouldn't end up in a bloodbath of some kind at some point, then you really did not think this through

[jbreher]

The price would tank to near zero before even 1/3 of that stash is sold, considering all the existing buy orders.
That would deal a deadly blow to the market and recovery would be hard when people know that SN still has plenty of coins to dump

For some value of 'near zero', I could buy 1.1M BTC. And I would. As, I imagine, many others in this space would as well. Thereby leading to that figure of 'near zero' not particularly near zero.

[franky1]

i remember you saying you can tell alot from the nonce. if you mean lack of difficulty to imply that there was only 1 miner for the majority of 2009. well that wont work because "difficulty" was only implemented in version 0.2 on december 16th and the first jump happened december 30th 2009. so before december 16th many people could mine at the same rate without any speedbumps ...which many did.

Browse through Sergio's blog. He has lots of great details into Satoshi's mining.

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

Really informative, cheers for the link, would be really cool if this guy was Satoshi and in revealing himself watching the effect it would have upon Bitcoin. Maybe he will be here with a savior solution for all this block size drama. One can hope

all that link shows is even at block 12 (2 hours after launch) satoshi wasn't alone.. yet the guy in the article still gave it a black dot..

also hal finney joins in at block 70+ so thats like 12 hours after launch.. making 3 people mining bitcoin on day one..

[jbreher]

all that link shows is even at block 12 (2 hours after launch) satoshi wasn't alone.. yet the guy in the article still gave it a black dot..

Well, so what?

First, unless one created some interesting difficult coordination between multiple machines, then multiple mining machines would likely not form part of the same nonce series. Ergo, if Satoshi had multiple machines mining, they would likely be indistinguishable on this graph from one machine owned by Satoshi and others owned by others.

Second, do you have another explanation for this visible evidence that one nonce series results in a stash of 980,000 BTC?

[BigBoy89]

i remember you saying you can tell alot from the nonce. if you mean lack of difficulty to imply that there was only 1 miner for the majority of 2009. well that wont work because "difficulty" was only implemented in version 0.2 on december 16th and the first jump happened december 30th 2009. so before december 16th many people could mine at the same rate without any speedbumps ...which many did.

Browse through Sergio's blog. He has lots of great details into Satoshi's mining.

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

Really informative, cheers for the link, would be really cool if this guy was Satoshi and in revealing himself watching the effect it would have upon Bitcoin. Maybe he will be here with a savior solution for all this block size drama. One can hope

Yes even i feel same but this guy was not satoshi and he cannot be satoshi, Wired did that for their own TRP and to gain more attention I hope satoshi will come back with a solution as you said.

[jbreher]

With all this interesting speculation being bandied about, I'd like to discuss the previously unbroached subject that I find most intriguing.

First, we have no claim of which I am aware on the part of Dr Wright that he is Satoshi. Let's set that aside...

The interesting thing from my viewpoint is his claim that he owns the 15th most powerful supercomputer as per the universally recognized Top 500 list. This here should be a verifiable fact. Has anyone looked into it?

Number 17 of Top 500's Nov 2015 list does list a 'CO1N', owned by 'Tulip Trading' of Australia:

http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/

If the ownership of this checks out, then our Dr. Wright is indeed an interesting and significant character, whether or not he be Satoshi. His claim that he has been using this system to model Bitcoin scalability for several years is vastly more important than whether or not he is Satoshi. Satoshi birthed Bitcoin, which should be enough. But that is the past. Results of scalability modeling may have an important impact on Bitcoin's future.

[franky1]

Your logic works only if you can safely assume that one did not have significantly more hash power than others. Rational speculation, but inconclusive as a proof.

until december 2009 hash power wasnt a big deal as difficulty was meaningless. and it wasnt until someone else made CG miner to utilise GPU power did the game really change. and satoshi was then behind the curb by then.
i remember in december he actually requested a halt on the hash arms race because he liked it that everyone was on an equal par by just cpu mining

[Spoetnik]

Yes even i feel same but this guy was not satoshi and he cannot be satoshi, Wired did that for their own TRP and to gain more attention I hope satoshi will come back with a solution as you said.

because it's their job.. no agenda needed.
all they require is a news tip that is plausible *enough.

[moneyart]

all they require is a news tip that is plausible *enough.

That's the reason why I don't read newspaper anymore and surely not WIRED!

[Gleb Gamow]

https://theconversation.com/profiles/craig-s-wright-3334





Any questions?

[bri912678]

i remember you saying you can tell alot from the nonce. if you mean lack of difficulty to imply that there was only 1 miner for the majority of 2009. well that wont work because "difficulty" was only implemented in version 0.2 on december 16th and the first jump happened december 30th 2009. so before december 16th many people could mine at the same rate without any speedbumps ...which many did.

Browse through Sergio's blog. He has lots of great details into Satoshi's mining.

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

Really informative, cheers for the link, would be really cool if this guy was Satoshi and in revealing himself watching the effect it would have upon Bitcoin. Maybe he will be here with a savior solution for all this block size drama. One can hope

all that link shows is even at block 12 (2 hours after launch) satoshi wasn't alone.. yet the guy in the article still gave it a black dot..

also hal finney joins in at block 70+ so thats like 12 hours after launch.. making 3 people mining bitcoin on day one..

I know you need two computers networked together to mine, but I don't know if they both need to be mining, or if one can be a node and the other can mine by itself. Could the other miner at block 12 be Satoshi's second computer mining blocks? If he needed two computers to start the network isn't it probable that he used both of them to mine?

[vilain]

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/btce/btcusd
Check it out.... DUMP TIME !

Well, it's stable.

I'm wondering now: if this is true, why would Satoshi become public now? This is all so strange...

[moneyart]

This is all so strange...

I don't think it is strange. It is normal and it won't be the last time there will appear a new "Satoshi Nakamoto" in the news.

[keepdoing]

With all this interesting speculation being bandied about, I'd like to discuss the previously unbroached subject that I find most intriguing.

First, we have no claim of which I am aware on the part of Dr Wright that he is Satoshi. Let's set that aside...

The interesting thing from my viewpoint is his claim that he owns the 15th most powerful supercomputer as per the universally recognized Top 500 list. This here should be a verifiable fact. Has anyone looked into it?

Number 17 of Top 500's Nov 2015 list does list a 'CO1N', owned by 'Tulip Trading' of Australia:

http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/

If the ownership of this checks out, then our Dr. Wright is indeed an interesting and significant character, whether or not he be Satoshi. His claim that he has been using this system to model Bitcoin scalability for several years is vastly more important than whether or not he is Satoshi. Satoshi birthed Bitcoin, which should be enough. But that is the past. Results of scalability modeling may have an important impact on Bitcoin's future.

Yes it is confirmed.  Public records.  All points back to Craig Wright.  

And a very sane post which raises important questions will eventually (hopefully) start becoming the more sane and productive focus of discussion after the handwringers get all the drama out of their system.

[Gleb Gamow]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-incredible-career-of-the-australian-scientist-suspected-of-creating-bitcoin-2015-12

“If you need to ever need to know of Dionysus, Vesta, Menrva, Ceres (Roman Goddess of the Corn, Earth, Harvest) or other mythological characters – I am your man. I could even hold a conversation on Eileithyia, the Greek Goddess of childbirth and her Roman rebirth as Lucina,” he says on LinkedIn.

"I can even prepare a one-egg omelette using only half an egg and serve it up with some fava beans and a nice Chianti that'll make you arse sing Dixie.

[Amph]

This is all so strange...

I don't think it is strange. It is normal and it won't be the last time there will appear a new "Satoshi Nakamoto" in the news.

no, it's not normal, as i see it, this is an impostor because the right time for revealing at the public would be when bitcoin will be globally adopted everywhere, with a fully mainstream status

instead doing it like that does not make sense at all, besides being silly and fake, at best he could steal the private key form satoshi, this could be more true...