New Mystery about Satoshi

[Rampion]

Sergio, in this paper: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/839348/silk-road-paper.pdf , they claim they have found a connection from satoshi to silkroad. I think their conclusions are wrong on several levels, but I believe they are referencing to the following address: 1Nsyx1KBDfTCczg2LmXu2HagyfewQkSPH9 . Do you think this address is related to Satoshi at all?

They are referring to 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv: total received coin matches exactly to the numbers in the paper..

Wasn't that address already linked to "one of the AHA guys" (I won't be more specific for privacy purposes) who admitted to have had cashed out a big amount in 2011?

[gmaxwell]

Wasn't that address already linked to "one of the AHA guys" (I won't be more specific for privacy purposes) who admitted to have had cashed out a big amount in 2011?

Yes.

[Rampion]

Wasn't that address already linked to "one of the AHA guys" (I won't be more specific for privacy purposes) who admitted to have had cashed out a big amount in 2011?

Yes.

And here we have another reminder that Bitcoin is not anonymous at all unless some very specific procedures are followed.

[jgarzik]

Let's not immediately believe every paper we read, especially ones without peer review.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1reuwq/vigorous_debate_over_shamirrons_supposedly/

[jdbtracker]

Let's not immediately believe every paper we read, especially ones without peer review.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1reuwq/vigorous_debate_over_shamirrons_supposedly/

Damn straight: In the immortal words of Timothy Leary,"Think for yourself, Question authority."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5i73-SnLEg

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

(Also posted on reddit)
From the "paper":

"The Bitcoin community believes [9] that the vast majority of the early mining operations were carried out by Satoshi Nakamoto, and that during this early period he accumulated about one million bitcoins (..) by mining most of the first 20,000 blocks. "

[9] Lerner S. D.: The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator, Vi-sionary and Genius, Bitslog, 17 april 2013, http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

This is totally misleading!

From my a post just a few days after that: http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

"Another interesting fact is that the pattern starts just after the genesis block, in block 1. ...It seems that block 12 is the first mined by another user."

So two hours after the true Bitcoin genesis block was released, there were other people mining. And other early miners during 2009 accumulated more than 300K bitcoins.

Also the older generation txs received by that address (block heights 357 and 509) does not seem to be part of the Satoshi mining pattern (this I will re-check today)

So the conclusion of the paper is completely flawed.

Sergio D. Lerner.

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

New evidence of the non-existent connection between Satoshi and DPR:

http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/refutation-to-ronshamir-paper-on-dprsatoshi-link/

Two of the oldest blocks rewards (used by the paper authors to relate DPR to Satoshi) that were collected by 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv and that not part of the Satoshi mining pattern.





Best regards, Sergio.

[Sammey]

I must admit most of the words in your blog post was beyond me at this point. The notion that Satoshi could've left us a message for us to see in the future gives me a thrill for some reason.

-Sammey
/post

[bill.joy]

I think it's simple. Satoshi was using a standard PC plus a custom FPGA (just doing SHA256), so the nonce incremented not very fast. He knew his rig was too fast, he needed to reduce his chance of finding a block, so that other miners could also mine bitcoins. So he left some holes in the LSB of his nonce to reduce his chance of finding blocks.

In summary, Satoshi was clever enough that he mined enough coins without being noticed that he had a powerful rig.

[rarkenin]

That's not necessarily the way it works. No matter which nonce you try, in the end you're goingto have a similar mining success at the same speed.

Imagine buying lottery tickets, and the tickets only having one number to match. Let's say you start buying a ticket each second. No matter how you select these tickets you're going to have the same chance, whether 1, 2,3,4,5..., 2,4,6,8,... 1,2,3,5,8,13,... assuming the same speed.

No number is inherently "more random" or "better".

[bill.joy]

That's not necessarily the way it works. No matter which nonce you try, in the end you're goingto have a similar mining success at the same speed.

Imagine buying lottery tickets, and the tickets only having one number to match. Let's say you start buying a ticket each second. No matter how you select these tickets you're going to have the same chance, whether 1, 2,3,4,5..., 2,4,6,8,... 1,2,3,5,8,13,... assuming the same speed.

No number is inherently "more random" or "better".

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

[gmaxwell]

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

[riX]

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid.

[NewLiberty]

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid.

Under the assumption that profit is the motive

[riX]

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid.

Under the assumption that profit is the motive

No, under the assumption that there is no benefit at all, including profit, of calculating hashes you will not publish. Unless he was testing the randomness of the algorithm, but I doubt it.

OffT: Why don't we just ask this guy? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.45.1255&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[maaku]

Because Naoshi Sakamoto is not even a remotely related name to Satoshi Nakamoto, and if you spoke Japanese you would know that. Please don't give this poor guy the nightmare of public scrutiny.

[NewLiberty]

Because Naoshi Sakamoto is not even a remotely related name to Satoshi Nakamoto, and if you spoke Japanese you would know that. Please don't give this poor guy the nightmare of public scrutiny.

The names are not the same.
Also, they are not the same person.

[NewLiberty]

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid.

Under the assumption that profit is the motive

No, under the assumption that there is no benefit at all, including profit, of calculating hashes you will not publish. Unless he was testing the randomness of the algorithm, but I doubt it.

Yes, or testing something else.
We are still in beta, yes?  This is all just testing so far.

[bill.joy]

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (255-58)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.

No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid.

Under the assumption that profit is the motive

No, under the assumption that there is no benefit at all, including profit, of calculating hashes you will not publish. Unless he was testing the randomness of the algorithm, but I doubt it.

OffT: Why don't we just ask this guy? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.45.1255&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The success of a currency relies heavily on attracting enough smart people to participate. The core competence is still people as a team, who have since worked together and have overcome all the difficulties and dangers along the way. Mining too many coins for oneself is short sighted and stupid. It encourages people to go the other way. That's probably why he didn't even spend the > 1Million bitcoins. The motivation has obviously been the success of bitcoin.

[jdbtracker]

Whatever Satoshi did, you cannot deny that must have been a blazzing fast computer! Powerful computer denotes resources, resources denotes connections.... either that or they GPU mined just for fun!

I agree with the above quote... can't spend them, they have to show integrity... though I sure hope they plan something big for those Satoshi coins... Off topic but, wow just imagine how much good they could do if they unleashed that torrent to charities and organizations around the world: If everyone accepts BTC by then, it will change the world. 16 trillion global trade cap divided by amount of coins = 2 Trillion dollars of globe changing power.