I "Think" that I found Satoshi Nakamoto

[Gyrsur]

satoshi appeared for the first time in August 2008. he wrote a email to Wei Dai mentioned he have had communication with Adam Back before.

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto#emails

From: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:38 PM
To: "Wei Dai" <weidai@ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Subject: Citation of your b-money page

I was very interested to read your b-money page.  I'm getting ready to
release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system.
Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your
site.
...

the key is Adam Back. try to search with this key.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Back

Adam Back (born July 1970) is a British cryptographer and crypto-hacker.

[1713513182]

1713513182

[1713513182]

1713513182

[Raize]

https://eprint.iacr.org/2007/216.pdf

This paper is definitely interesting, but it appears to cover unlinkability using zero knowledge proofs. This was not implemented in Bitcoin.

[vlamer]

I'm not Japanese.

Edit: Oops I've posted from wrong account.

but good jobs for you @BountyHunter2012 ,for create a new reference

[Rizky Aditya]

OMG! Here we go again! When are we leaving the crew (because it's certainly not a single individual) who created the paper alone? Bitcoin is the product of community developement, not just from a single individual!

Everyone knows that. But I think that OP was trying to identify 1 of those members. Don't dis his work, even though it is completely fictional.

[BARR_Official]

OMG! Here we go again! When are we leaving the crew (because it's certainly not a single individual) who created the paper alone? Bitcoin is the product of community developement, not just from a single individual!

Everyone knows that. But I think that OP was trying to identify 1 of those members. Don't dis his work, even though it is completely fictional.

There's no reason satoshi has to be a group of people. 

We know about Wei Dai, Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Hal Finney, and all the people who contributed to cryptography, public key cryptography, hashing algorithms - all of these people contributed to the ideas behind Bitcoin.  Even the guy who created Bittorrent helped pave the way for P2P networking.  There are countless people whose work made Bitcoin possible.

But none of those people kept their identities secret.  Why would they suddenly all agree to start making their work anonymous?

It's possible that satoshi put together their work into something new, without their direct involvement.  And based on the small number of people mining after launch, it couldn't have been a very large group of people.  There definitely weren't a large number of computers involved, which means it was probably just a few normal people with regular cheap computers and not a lot of money, resources, or connections to help get this project going. 

Hal Finney was probably the closest thing satoshi had to a partner, and his role was mostly limited to testing the first transaction.  He only mined a few blocks.  So if satoshi's choice for the first transaction recipient wouldn't even run a computer to help maintain the network, then where was this supposed group of people working together?

If you think it would take lots of people to help refine the code, then you are correct.  Lots of people from Bitcointalk have been contributing code for years.  Bitcoin was far from a finished product when satoshi released it, and it's still not finished.  So if it was designed by an elite group of geniuses, why have they needed so much constant outside help? 

There's no proof either way;  some people think the evidence suggests a group of people, but the evidence can also point to a single person.

[Gleb Gamow]

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

[AgentofCoin]

...

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

Very compelling with the comparison between the two documents.
Clearly either the same individual or someone plagiarized his work.

I suppose the question is now, if Pawel indeed wrote both documents, why would he use a fake name on the "Bitcoin" version?
What would be the purpose of that? Especially if the first version was published in 2007.

[BountyHunter2012]

satoshi appeared for the first time in August 2008. he wrote a email to Wei Dai mentioned he have had communication with Adam Back before.

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto#emails

From: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:38 PM
To: "Wei Dai" <weidai@ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Subject: Citation of your b-money page

I was very interested to read your b-money page.  I'm getting ready to
release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system.
Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your
site.
...

the key is Adam Back. try to search with this key.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Back

Adam Back (born July 1970) is a British cryptographer and crypto-hacker.

Satoshi sends email directly to Adam and then Adam refers Wei. Both Adam and Wei gets citations on the paper. Story ends there.

[Gyrsur]

satoshi appeared for the first time in August 2008. he wrote a email to Wei Dai mentioned he have had communication with Adam Back before.

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto#emails

From: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:38 PM
To: "Wei Dai" <weidai@ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Subject: Citation of your b-money page

I was very interested to read your b-money page.  I'm getting ready to
release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system.
Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your
site.
...

the key is Adam Back. try to search with this key.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Back

Adam Back (born July 1970) is a British cryptographer and crypto-hacker.

Satoshi sends email directly to Adam and then Adam refers Wei. Both Adam and Wei gets citations on the paper. Story ends there.

Adam Back was one of the first persons satoshi had contact. he went slience after first contact and appeared back in 2013. currently he is one of the most involved people into Bitcoin. story to be continued.

[BountyHunter2012]

There's no reason satoshi has to be a group of people. 

We know about Wei Dai, Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Hal Finney, and all the people who contributed to cryptography, public key cryptography, hashing algorithms - all of these people contributed to the ideas behind Bitcoin.  Even the guy who created Bittorrent helped pave the way for P2P networking.  There are countless people whose work made Bitcoin possible.

But none of those people kept their identities secret.  Why would they suddenly all agree to start making their work anonymous?

It's possible that satoshi put together their work into something new, without their direct involvement.  And based on the small number of people mining after launch, it couldn't have been a very large group of people.  There definitely weren't a large number of computers involved, which means it was probably just a few normal people with regular cheap computers and not a lot of money, resources, or connections to help get this project going. 

Hal Finney was probably the closest thing satoshi had to a partner, and his role was mostly limited to testing the first transaction.  He only mined a few blocks.  So if satoshi's choice for the first transaction recipient wouldn't even run a computer to help maintain the network, then where was this supposed group of people working together?

If you think it would take lots of people to help refine the code, then you are correct.  Lots of people from Bitcointalk have been contributing code for years.  Bitcoin was far from a finished product when satoshi released it, and it's still not finished.  So if it was designed by an elite group of geniuses, why have they needed so much constant outside help? 

There's no proof either way;  some people think the evidence suggests a group of people, but the evidence can also point to a single person.
[/quote]

Very valid points.

1. It doesn't need a group to come up with an algorithm that is unique and never done before

2. Every concept was already available. All Satoshi has to do is join them together. (hashcash, p2p, merkle, timestamp)

3. It doesn't need a group to mine genesis block, few PC's and resources would do.

4. If it was a group, for the kind of fame "Satoshi" have got today and with the kind of money involved, Someone in the group would come up by now to claim it for sure.

It was always a SINGLE person IMHO.

[Gleb Gamow]

...

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

Very compelling with the comparison between the two documents.
Clearly either the same individual or someone plagiarized his work.

I suppose the question is now, if Pawel indeed wrote both documents, why would he use a fake name on the "Bitcoin" version?
What would be the purpose of that? Especially if the first version was published in 2007.

Both documents are the same with the second one (on right) being more grammatically correct, coupled with subtle changes for clarity. I was alluding to the left doc composed by a Pole well-versed in the English language but still missing the mark due to English not being his native tongue in spite of being highly schooled. Pawel either corrected the doc upon subsequent reads or another party making up Team Satoshi Nakamoto helped in cleaning up the prose while still maintaining the spirit of the original white paper. Some time between the two revisions, the term Bitcoin was coin with its domain name registered prior to the official release of the newly titled white paper.

Sadly, we don't have access to the complete original to see what else was 'doctored' (not nefariously), thus, perhaps, cementing or dismissing the notice.

[gmaxwell]

paper submitted to International Association for Cryptography Research (IACR)

This paper is completely unrelated to bitcoin other than using the word's digital cash. It it is typical for contemporary digital cash papers.

[Gleb Gamow]

paper submitted to International Association for Cryptography Research (IACR)

This paper is completely unrelated to bitcoin other than using the word's digital cash. It it is typical for contemporary digital cash papers.

Hey, G, just wanted to let you know earlier today I viewed two YouTube videos of you (presenter; panelist) and enjoyed both your presentations.

[Coaxme]

OMG! Here we go again! When are we leaving the crew (because it's certainly not a single individual) who created the paper alone? Bitcoin is the product of community developement, not just from a single individual!

I am sure that it is a single person. I always said that to me, and if it was proved that it was a group of person, I'd have an heart attack !

based on my reading about him, it looks like he's not alone maybe its a group of Pokemon Fan Hahaha.

[cjmoles]

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

I don't get it???  Where was the paper on the left found?  

I found this paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2007/216.pdf

But, it doesn't match this paper:  https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Am I missing something, or is this another poke at humor?


EDIT:  Nevermind, I get it now.

[owm123]

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

I don't get it???  Where was the paper on the left found?  

I found this paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2007/216.pdf

But, it doesn't match this paper:  https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Am I missing something, or is this another poke at humor?

The left abstract comes from Wei's email. Satoshi send email to Wei asking about citation and with a draft of the Satoshi's abstract in the email:

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto#emails

The full draft version of the bitcoin paper was here (link dead now): http://www.upload.ae/file/6157/ecash-pdf.html

The draft of the abstract from the email is the only thing left now, or at least made public.

[cjmoles]

I could envision a Polish dude well-versed in the English language still requiring a helping hand in clarifying the verbiage more betterer.

I don't get it???  Where was the paper on the left found?  

I found this paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2007/216.pdf

But, it doesn't match this paper:  https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Am I missing something, or is this another poke at humor?

The left abstract comes from Wei's email. Satoshi send email to Wei asking about citation and with a draft of the Satoshi's abstract in the email:

http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto#emails

The full draft version of the bitcoin paper was here (link dead now): http://www.upload.ae/file/6157/ecash-pdf.html

The draft of the abstract from the email is the only thing left now, or at least made public.

Oh, okay!  I get it now.  The left version was Satoshi's original abstract (not published) and the right version is the edited published version.  I was trying to figure out how the left version could be associated with the Polish cryptographer.  I get it now.  Thanks...

It just seemed to me that the thought processes in Satoshi's paper were more similar to the processes published in this paper rather than the ideas published in this paper.

[BountyHunter2012]

I am going with Pawel the student based on comments by Gavin.

 “Satoshi was a brilliant programmer,” Andresen said. “But he didn’t have a deep understanding of all the cutting edge crypto research that’s going on.”


Sebastian is an established cryptographer and knows in and out.

http://crypto.rd.francetelecom.com/people/Canard


https://youtu.be/rtI52BcFUoo?t=1929

[johnyj]

So the idea was invented by Japanese scholars and integrated by a polish student?  And to show the respect to the original creator, he used a combination of their names   That's really decentralization

[avikz]

Detailed research but doesn't really prove anything..it's a directionless and never-ending debate..

I don't understand why people are after his identity instead of enjoying the power of bitcoin. It's pointless.