The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Visionary and Genious

[jl2012]

A  picture is worth a thousand words.

http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

This obviously contradicts every word GMaxwell and DeathAndTaxes said about mining during the first year.

Best regards,
 Sergio.

It is known that the generation of block 9 belongs to Satoshi, and was sent to Hal Finney as the first transaction on the blockchain.

https://blockchain.info/block/000000008d9dc510f23c2657fc4f67bea30078cc05a90eb89e84cc475c080805

Is it one of the "black dots"?

[1715140138]

1715140138

[1715140138]

1715140138

[1715140138]

1715140138

[1715140138]

1715140138

[rpietila]

I believe this is hugely bullish on bitcoin. The likelihood of "early coins on the move", has been reduced significantly. Not a wonder that the price shot up.

[deepceleron]

It is known that the generation of block 9 belongs to Satoshi, and was sent to Hal Finney as the first transaction on the blockchain.

https://blockchain.info/block/000000008d9dc510f23c2657fc4f67bea30078cc05a90eb89e84cc475c080805

Is it one of the "black dots"?

It should be black red if you could see it and the spents are colored correctly, it was spent in block 170.

That is part of the first miner run count up from block 1-14. Nonconsecutive miner joins are at blocks 12, and apparent restarts at 15 and 18, though there is a good amount of start/restart/join/concurrent activity in the first few hundred blocks that can't be seen in the chart.

[BTC Books]

Why aren't you using your skills to do something useful?

I think you mean, why don't you do something that doesn't threaten the bitcoin economy. Confirming or nearly confirming that satoshi does indeed have 1m+ bitcoins is not good news for the knob slobbers.

I meant exactly what I said in my post, as a whole thing - not what you pick or choose to see.

I don't believe any entity with 1M bitcoin is a threat to any of us - white or black hats.  What is the incentive for anyone to damage the source of such wealth?

We've just seen what happens when a million or so gets dumped:  it's annoying.

The coins could be publicly destroyed.  So what?

And those are real actions, not merely the discovery of information; which is what Sergio is doing.  I can see the intellectual attraction of figuring out what Satoshi mined, but personally I find the idea abhorrent - especially when considering that every piece of information teased out of the fabric of reality is only one more step to revealing Satoshi's identity. 

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts.  All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.  On a political level, violating the privacy of someone who has requested it is a construct of the extreme right or the extreme left (which meet, of course, at authoritarianism) - and there is no question in my mind that the undercurrents surrounding Satoshi's expressed desire to remain anonymous are valid:  he would be in personal danger if it were known for sure who he was.

But of course, there are those who believe that their personal curiosity outweighs anything that any other human on the planet might desire for themselves.  To them I offer a subscription to The Enquirer.

[rpietila]

he would be in personal danger if it were known for sure who he was.

I think this is an overstatement at this point. Bitcoin is up and running, and "they" cannot coerce anything out of Satoshi, nor influence the network functioning. There are people with much greater leverage in Bitcoin economy now. As far as I know, no one has been in any danger because of owning bitcoins so far.

Cool if he wants to remain anonymous. What if he is just an uninteresting nerd anyway.. How long do you think the media would be interested? Two weeks maybe. "Mysterious Satoshi drives a Toyota and rolls his toilet paper from left to right." LOL

[BTC Books]

he would be in personal danger if it were known for sure who he was.

I think this is an overstatement at this point. Bitcoin is up and running, and "they" cannot coerce anything out of Satoshi, nor influence the network functioning. There are people with much greater leverage in Bitcoin economy now. As far as I know, no one has been in any danger because of owning bitcoins so far.

Cool if he wants to remain anonymous. What if he is just an uninteresting nerd anyway.. How long do you think the media would be interested? Two weeks maybe. "Mysterious Satoshi drives a Toyota and rolls his toilet paper from left to right." LOL

I believe you may be mistaken.  And I have not in any way expressed that it is Satoshi's ownership of significant quantities of bitcoin that lead him to believe he could be at risk.  Not that it matters to me - simply expressing the desire for privacy is sufficient, as far as I'm concerned.

However... here is but one question, among many surrounding Satoshi:

What are the implications of holding the private key to Block 0?  I assume Satoshi does - and spendable or not, hard-coded or not, it has such a key.  Would anyone who knows more about it than I (a very large cohort  ) care to comment?

[Etlase2]

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts.  All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

[misterbigg]

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

[BTC Books]

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts.  All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

There you are, picking and choosing what you want to see - again - and from sequential paragraphs in the same post, no less.

We've just seen what happens when a million or so gets dumped:  it's annoying.

The coins could be publicly destroyed.  So what?

[Etlase2]

I'm the one picking what I want to see? You are the deluded person who thinks that determining how much BTC satoshi controls is the same as revealing his identity and that is your pathetic reasoning for telling Sergio to do something useful. You are the one that believes protecting satoshi's identity is more important than informing people about the hidden dangerous of bitcoin. Gee I wonder why.

[BTC Books]

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts.  All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

Oh.  And you're a fool if you believe that.

Entirely aside from the fact that I haven't expressed that, and certainly don't appreciate having words put in my mouth...

There are exactly two things that have happened during the rise of bitcoin that - together - have done more for the adoption of the currency than all the others (reddit, Wikileaks, OWS, WordPress, Seals With Clubs, and all the others - more and more; faster and faster).  They are:

The disappearance of Satoshi and 'his' continuing anonymity, and

The purchase of two pizzas for 10k BTC.

Anyone who wants the currency to succeed understands that.  You, of course - from what I'm able to glean from your postings - clearly want bitcoin to fail.

[jl2012]

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts.  All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

Oh.  And you're a fool if you believe that.

Entirely aside from the fact that I haven't expressed that, and certainly don't appreciate having words put in my mouth...

There are exactly two things that have happened during the rise of bitcoin that - together - have done more for the adoption of the currency than all the others (reddit, Wikileaks, OWS, WordPress, Seals With Clubs, and all the others - more and more; faster and faster).  They are:

The disappearance of Satoshi and 'his' continuing anonymity, and

The purchase of two pizzas for 10k BTC.

Anyone who wants the currency to succeed understands that.  You, of course - from what I'm able to glean from your postings - clearly want bitcoin to fail.

This analysis uses nothing but data in public domain. Won't you think CSI has already done the same analysis? Some serious, big investors may have done the same analysis too

[theymos]

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I hope that Satoshi does have a lot of bitcoins. He definitely deserves them, and it's better that he have them than someone else. He mined them fair and square -- this is not equivalent to premining.

I doubt that Satoshi threw those bitcoins away...

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case?  You should never delete a wallet.

[BTC Books]

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I hope that Satoshi does have a lot of bitcoins. He definitely deserves them, and it's better that he have them than someone else. He mined them fair and square -- this is not equivalent to premining.

I doubt that Satoshi threw those bitcoins away...

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case?  You should never delete a wallet.

Indeed.

[jl2012]

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I hope that Satoshi does have a lot of bitcoins. He definitely deserves them, and it's better that he have them than someone else. He mined them fair and square -- this is not equivalent to premining.

I doubt that Satoshi threw those bitcoins away...

Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case?  You should never delete a wallet.

I think by definition black dots are unspent and therefore difficult to be linked with Satoshi. The most interesting is the linkage of the red dots with Satoshi, and their statistical relationship with those black dots. Block 9 is sure, and I think there are possibly other known public transactions.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

How do these graphs help identify him?

[rpietila]

And really, it is Satoshi's identity that lies at the core of these efforts.  All of them.

'He' wants to remain anonymous, and I am ethically constructed in such a way that a request like that - from someone who has done no harm to anyone - is inviolate.

Would selling 1M bitcoins do no harm to anyone? What you want is for this information to remain hidden because it is very damaging to bitcoin's reputation. No one who has not invested in bitcoins gives a shit about who Satoshi is. What they will care about is that this mysterious inventor has the currency by the balls.

Oh.  And you're a fool if you believe that.

Entirely aside from the fact that I haven't expressed that, and certainly don't appreciate having words put in my mouth...

There are exactly two things that have happened during the rise of bitcoin that - together - have done more for the adoption of the currency than all the others (reddit, Wikileaks, OWS, WordPress, Seals With Clubs, and all the others - more and more; faster and faster).  They are:

The disappearance of Satoshi and 'his' continuing anonymity, and

The purchase of two pizzas for 10k BTC.

Anyone who wants the currency to succeed understands that.  You, of course - from what I'm able to glean from your postings - clearly want bitcoin to fail.

Okay, so let me offer a third viewpoint, which is different than either of yours:

Bitcoin's rise in 2013 can be attributed to people like me, who have the $$ to buy in the open market. Therefore my opinions matter, as they represent a large group of very high purchasing power which, when deployed, will raise Bitcoin to a next level. I think:

- It is good if Satoshi's identity is revealed. Sorry for him, in case he wanted to stay anonymous. It was perhaps a coolness factor in 2012, but now we are talking about serious old school people who don't like surprises.
- It is good that the early coins belong to Satoshi, as it seems that they were not generated to be spent, even if it were technically possible.
- Even if the 1M coins were to be sold, it would not have any more lasting effect to the price than adjusting the price by 5-10% while keeping the marketcap. No killswitch lol. I own 5% of a certain company, nobody ever thought I would have a killswitch.

[deepceleron]

The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?

I don't know that the graph supposed to be convincing by itself. It just shows data in the blockchain, and red dots are coinbase transactions that have been spent, black dots are unspent generates. Any interpretation besides "there is one continuously-running strange-code miner with all-unspent coins" is up to you. In fact it's probably best if most people keep their interpretations to themselves.

[BTC Books]

- It is good if Satoshi's identity is revealed. Sorry for him, in case he wanted to stay anonymous. It was perhaps a coolness factor in 2012, but now we are talking about serious old school people who don't like surprises.
- It is good that the early coins belong to Satoshi, as it seems that they were not generated to be spent, even if it were technically possible.
- Even if the 1M coins were to be sold, it would not have any more lasting effect to the price than adjusting the price by 5-10% while keeping the marketcap. No killswitch lol. I own 5% of a certain company, nobody ever thought I would have a killswitch.

Of these three points of yours, we agree on one-and-a-half.

I disagree on Satoshi's identity - not only on ethical grounds, but on pure marketing grounds.  You're heavily invested.  I'm assuming you'd like the value to go up - which essentially means adoption must increase.  Seriously:  can you even buy that kind of marketing tool?  "Shadowy cypherpunk creator, steeped in anonymity..."  It's like the intro to the Lone Ranger, but for the 21st century.

Yes, it is good that the early coins belong to Satoshi.  But I suspect he'll be spending them, by and by.  And it is certainly technically possible for him to do so.

We are in point-to-point agreement on that last.

[misterbigg]

Why is there conflict between Sergio, jgarzik, and gmaxwell?

Why?