Serious Question - Nullc, are you Satoshi?

[ckopobapka]

Wow, very convincing article. I told everybody when craig 'came out' as being satosshi I was 95% sure, now, after reading that, 99% sure craig AKA midmagic is our Satoshi.

[1714055073]

1714055073

[1714055073]

1714055073

[spazzdla]

At this point it is very clear the western world will execute anyone who can prove they are satoshi,  I doubt the east will be kind with them either.

[Carlton Banks]

You ever considered that we jumping from one guy to the next, because it's not just a single person... but rather a group of people? Something as brilliant as Bitcoin, cannot just be the fruit of one persons mind.

We regularly have brainstorming sessions at work, and we usually come up with fairly good suggestions, when their is good interaction. I think this is the same thing... A group of guys met online and they had

the same interest and at one stage they got together and discussed this in person. They formulated the White Paper for this idea together, but it was written by one person to create confusion. I still believe that

Satoshi was just the leader of a group of people and not a single person.  

There's a well-known precedent for what you're describing: French mathematicians in the 1950's published a pure maths text under a single name, without any acknowledgement of the multiple authors in the book itself. Not for the same reason Satoshi hid his/her/their identity (they were worried that separate works would get ignored, as they were feeling outgunned by mathematicians of non-French nationality), but I can't help thinking that Satoshi may have been influenced by that group's MO.

[Lauda]

I've outlined a plausible scenario under which deep-state actors created Bitcoin, not as a honeypot NWO currency, but as an inevitable consequence of advancing computer science that must be front-ran, before some guy-in-a-basement cypherpunk comes up with it themselves. Of course, under that scenario, Satoshi being some deep state banking oligarch is still pretty inconsequential, as Bitcoin was clearly rushed out before any tenable long-term design had been established (and the Satoshi coins may end up unspendable as a result of that rush/oversight)

I guess that I haven't read that post, but it doesn't matter since you've made a fair point. I guess it is only rational to say that there's a possibility of this even though it is quite slim. I also agree with the second sentence.

@Lauda - I empathize w/ Greg now.  Go through some of my recent posts here, I listed Greg as preferred Satoshi candidate of mine.

Well, we've had a lot of candidates now, ring from Nick Szabo, Gavin, Peter Todd, to the "self-proclaimed" C.Wright. Maxwell is a decent candidate indeed.

You are correct about not having linked writing styles conclusively - although I'm not sure even the best stylometry software can do that.  I haven't run the software yet b/c IRL duties; when I made the post last night, it was really late. I will also agree w/ you that my initial post is just a musing - I'm not betting Greg is Satoshi one way or another.  I just think it would make sense if he were and that it is plausible.

I'd definitely like to see the results of those tests in the case that you do end up doing them. This could help your investigation.

Wow, very convincing article. I told everybody when craig 'came out' as being satosshi I was 95% sure, now, after reading that, 99% sure craig AKA midmagic is our Satoshi.

If you're serious, unfortunately there's something wrong with your comprehension skills.

[Karartma1]

Okay so maybe the whitepaper and the Bitcoin protocol were created by a group of people but what I am asking now is: was the Satoshi account on this forum controlled by this group or was it a single writing account?
If I was to reply I'd say the satoshi account seems clearly controlled by a single person.

[oblivi]

Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Greg Maxwell, Peter Wiulle... they are all top dogs in the Bitcoin game and therefore they are all realistic Satoshi Nakamoto candidates.

Too bad we will never know at this point. Even if someone came up with Satoshi's keys and moved coins, it would just mean he owns those coins, it doesn't demonstrate that the code was written the person owning the private keys for Satoshi's coins in that particular time.

Okay so maybe the whitepaper and the Bitcoin protocol were created by a group of people but what I am asking now is: was the Satoshi account on this forum controlled by this group or was it a single writing account?
If I was to reply I'd say the satoshi account seems clearly controlled by a single person.

We can't never know. Satoshi most likely used a VPN or TOR and his writing style doesn't show any concluding information on him being 1 guy or 5.

[jonald_fyookball]

no way Greg Maxwell is Satoshi.  

Greg makes even simple communications difficult.
Satoshi was simple and clear in his writing.

Also I'm pretty sure Satoshi would not start
a centralized corporation to try to control
bitcoin development.

[franky1]

Okay so maybe the whitepaper and the Bitcoin protocol were created by a group of people but what I am asking now is: was the Satoshi account on this forum controlled by this group or was it a single writing account?
If I was to reply I'd say the satoshi account seems clearly controlled by a single person.

the pseudonym satoshi was ONE guy.

but he did indeed have help. he grabbed idea's from many people (Wei Dai, etc) and he had the mindset to patch the idea's together into what is now known as bitcoin, with many quoting satoshi's creation as the elegant patchwork of so many idea's that come together to solve a problem perfectly.

he(again single person) had help from a few people to code bitcoin, notable names of early 2009 are hal finney and a few others.
as the months passed of 2009-2010 the number of names helping out increased.
and then he vanished

[Mr Felt]

You ever considered that we jumping from one guy to the next, because it's not just a single person... but rather a group of people? Something as brilliant as Bitcoin, cannot just be the fruit of one persons mind.

We regularly have brainstorming sessions at work, and we usually come up with fairly good suggestions, when their is good interaction. I think this is the same thing... A group of guys met online and they had

the same interest and at one stage they got together and discussed this in person. They formulated the White Paper for this idea together, but it was written by one person to create confusion. I still believe that

Satoshi was just the leader of a group of people and not a single person.  

Yes, absolutely.  See the last part of the article. Satoshi could be multiple people or one person among a group or a lone wolf (including an org). 

At the moment, I think there are a handful of really good Satoshi candidates, some or more of which could have been working together at the time of the white paper (on bitcoin, or maybe just professionally in another capacity - perhaps Satoshi went rogue from the org). Today, I think Greg gets included in a very elite group of suspects that pass the laugh-test.  I think the guy is crazy smart, generally a pretty good human being, but pretty firm in what he knows or believes - I don't think this is atypical for those w/ exceptional intelligence. 

[Carlton Banks]

Okay so maybe the whitepaper and the Bitcoin protocol were created by a group of people but what I am asking now is: was the Satoshi account on this forum controlled by this group or was it a single writing account?
If I was to reply I'd say the satoshi account seems clearly controlled by a single person.

the pseudonym satoshi was ONE guy.

but he did indeed have help. he grabbed idea's from many people (Wei Dai, etc) and he had the mindset to patch the idea's together into what is now known as bitcoin, with many quoting satoshi's creation as the elegant patchwork of so many idea's that come together to solve a problem perfectly.

he(again single person) had help from a few people to code bitcoin, notable names of early 2009 are hal finney and a few others.
as the months passed of 2009-2010 the number of names helping out increased.
and then he vanished

Typical behaviour from the Frankys; nonsense assertions with no actual proof, just a skim through some real events that prove no such thing, but could easily fool someone ignorant/immature into believing.


Satoshi did acknowledge people like Wei Dei, Adam Back and David Chaum in the white paper. Nothing to do with how many people constitute Satoshi, the events are isolated.

Satoshi did get help from Hal, Pieter Wuille, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Gavin etc very soon after releasing the white paper. Nothing to do with how many people constitute Satoshi, the events are isolated.




One interesting aspect of the Satoshi story is what Sergio Demian Lerner discovered with his analysis of the evidence about Satoshi in the Genesis block. Sergio figured out how many 2009 PCs Satoshi must have used, and how long for, to produce the exact block he wanted (i.e. he rejected thousands of blocks before settling on the one he bootstrapped the Bitcoin network with).

Satoshi (apparently) must have been using over a dozen high-end PCs, hashing away constantly, to get his preferred Genesis block. Highly amusing fact: it took 6 days. On the 7th day, he rested .

[Mr Felt]

One interesting aspect of the Satoshi story is what Sergio Demian Lerner discovered with his analysis of the evidence about Satoshi in the Genesis block. Sergio figured out how many 2009 PCs Satoshi must have used, and how long for, to produce the exact block he wanted (i.e. he rejected thousands of blocks before settling on the one he bootstrapped the Bitcoin network with).

See some of Nullc's comments about the computer (on Reddit) he's used to test things recently - its pretty balls-to-wall.

Satoshi (apparently) must have been using over a dozen high-end PCs, hashing away constantly, to get his preferred Genesis block. Highly amusing fact: it took 6 days. On the 7th day, he rested Cheesy.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221334.msg12803522#msg12803522

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

This thread makes me want to laugh, then cry. 

[Carlton Banks]

This thread makes me want to laugh, then cry. 

"That's right Scott, let me taste your tears *slurp*"

[franky1]

One interesting aspect of the Satoshi story is what Sergio Demian Lerner discovered with his analysis of the evidence about Satoshi in the Genesis block. Sergio figured out how many 2009 PCs Satoshi must have used, and how long for, to produce the exact block he wanted (i.e. he rejected thousands of blocks before settling on the one he bootstrapped the Bitcoin network with).

Satoshi (apparently) must have been using over a dozen high-end PCs, hashing away constantly, to get his preferred Genesis block. Highly amusing fact: it took 6 days. On the 7th day, he rested .

lol how much fail.

firstly.. there is no data before the genesis block. only data AFTER the genesis block.
and what sergio found was that over the year of 2009-2010 he could look at the nonces and extra nonces and work out who was mining what

The counter is monotonically incrementing at a constant pace. This is like a "fingerprint" of the computer that was mining.

(different colours=different people, yep he even found gavin and haal and a few others)


he then looked at the nonces and extra nonces of the first <12 hours of bitcoin mining (before hal started) to know which one was satoshi's

I have evidence the same computer AND JUST ONE  mined blocks 1-10

and then extracted just the satoshi nonces and ignored the other people (hal gavin serius etc)


and guess what. it was one machine.
sergio even went to discover that at the start satoshi would stop mining, recompile an updated client and mine again like clockwork every 5 days, but later it then become less predictable when other users/devs started to link him their bug fixes more randomly.

serio even went on to discover that every 5 months starting from may2009 satoshi reduced the amount of CPU power he dedicated to his virtual machine as a predictable tailing off of hashrate due to satoshi not wanting to dominate the hashing network. eventually stopping completely in may 2010

all of which would not be possible if satoshi was using multiple machines of different cpu power.
and ofcourse my first point. lets all laugh at the fact that the genesis block is the genesis block and there was no data before the genesis block to even prove that satoshi "threw away thousands of blocks before he settled on the one he liked"

[Carlton Banks]

I'm talking about Sergio's analysis of the Genesis block itself, not of the early blocks. And I'm not going to question what Sergio said, and that's not what he said. Someone linked the thread above, so, as usual Frankys, your BS is hanging right out. Your arrogance and straw-manning knows no bounds :/


Edit: turns out Mr. Felt was linking something else entirely.



Here's what I've found so far: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176192.msg1834775#msg1834775

Comment I posted in  another thread:

I have evidence the same computer AND JUST ONE  mined blocks 1-10
(edit: or a group of computers turned on exactly at the same time)

Just look at the extranonce field in the coinbase field of the coinbase transaction. (this field is hidden in the input script)

The counter is monotonically incrementing at a constant pace. This is like a "fingerprint" of the computer that was mining.


Also this can be used to find how many computers/threads where mining at  some  time (until they get powered-off). Each thread has another monotonically incrementing ExtraNonce variable.

So from that we can infer Satoshi PC Resources. Those resources allowed him to mine a block with 32 leading zeros every 6 minutes.

Unfortunately, I can't find the actual thread as of yet.

Suffice to say, Franky is full of shit (who is honestly surprised?): Sergio Demian Lerner did work out (well, estimated using reasonable assumptions) how much hardware Satoshi used to mine the Genesis Block, although my memory of it being several machines may be wrong. Looking for the thread Sergio refers to in the quote above.

[Carlton Banks]

Here's Sergio's original thread concerning his analysis of the Genesis block:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172009.msg1789665#msg1789665


So Franky(s), where's your big talk now? Nothing to say?

[Mr Felt]

Here's Sergio's original thread concerning his analysis of the Genesis block:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172009.msg1789665#msg1789665


So Franky(s), where's your big talk now? Nothing to say?

Such awareness:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172009.msg1790805#msg1790805

Since the genesis block was generated with some external code it may well have been rolling the public key... Even with valid ones— though the output of block 0 is not spendable in any case.

I was aware of the suspiciously high difficulty... and when Bluematt last brought it up in #bitcoin-dev I suggested that perhaps he just left it running, saving the best result, while he did the final preparation for the release.

edit - https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/satoshi-machine-one-mystery-is-solved-and-another-opens/

[franky1]

Sergio figured out how many 2009 PCs Satoshi must have used,
Satoshi (apparently) must have been using over a dozen high-end PCs, hashing away constantly, to get his preferred Genesis block. Highly amusing fact: it took 6 days.

lol

(i.e. he rejected thousands of blocks before settling on the one he bootstrapped the Bitcoin network with).

i see no claim about the "thousands of blocks" he rejected.

as to the high hashrate which sergio (initally) and gmaxwell thought was multiple machines used to create the genesis block, turned out to be just one

also sergio done other analysis after that

My opinion is that Satoshi was doing multitasking on 5 threads, but since version 0.1 did not allow internal multitasking, and he didn't wanted to run 6 copies of the client (and store 6 copies of the blockchain) he created a special version of the Satoshi client which sent to 5 other "client" threads some hashing work to be done. But these threads were dumb, and only did the hashing part (no pubkey management, no extra-nonce incrementing). So Satoshi had to split the nonce space in order to avoid wasting work. He chose a range of 10 lsbs per thread because that represents a time (100 msec) that does not generate much IPC traffic and can wait for the remaining threads to finish without killing them if the one thread finds the solution for the block.
Best regards!

then he went on later to dig a bit deeper and his thought processes changed the more he learned..
the nonces, hashrate, etc all matched
the hashrates all curled off at the same time when satoshi's system must have been doing common tasks
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/satoshi-machine-one-mystery-is-solved-and-another-opens/
sergio hints at how the date was locked and other things.. all of which. if you tried harder in your research point to something..

and ill give a hint to you.. "VM"

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Satoshi went on to be called Crumbs. He's banned from the forum.

[Mr Felt]

Satoshi went on to be called Crumbs. He's banned from the forum.

Not impossible

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=490703.0