Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 08:33:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: New Mystery about Satoshi  (Read 16083 times)
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
November 25, 2013, 11:47:58 AM
 #61

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?


1512981196
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981196

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981196
Reply with quote  #2

1512981196
Report to moderator
1512981196
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981196

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981196
Reply with quote  #2

1512981196
Report to moderator
FORTUNEJACK.COM[
                            
9 BTC WELCOME PACK FOR 1ST 5 DEPOSITS
FREE 1,000 mBTC daily for LuckyJack winners
[
          
]
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512981196
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981196

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981196
Reply with quote  #2

1512981196
Report to moderator
1512981196
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981196

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981196
Reply with quote  #2

1512981196
Report to moderator
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366



View Profile
November 25, 2013, 01:00:55 PM
 #62

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.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
November 25, 2013, 01:09:50 PM
 #63

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
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


View Profile
November 25, 2013, 08:28:22 PM
 #64

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/


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
jdbtracker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 687


Minimum Effort/Maximum effect


View Profile
November 25, 2013, 11:54:02 PM
 #65

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

If you think my efforts are worth something; I'll keep on keeping on.
I don't believe in IQ, only in Determination.
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 02:41:26 PM
 #66

(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
Hero Member
*****
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 07:12:34 PM
 #67

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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38

abusus non tollit usum.


View Profile
November 30, 2013, 03:29:49 PM
 #68

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 02, 2013, 09:48:07 AM
 #69

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile
December 02, 2013, 11:37:04 AM
 #70

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".



           ▄███▄
        ▄█████████▄
     ▄██████████▀  ██▄
  ▄████████▀█▀   ▄██████▄
█▀▀▀███████   ▄████████▀▀▀█
██▄   ▀████▄▄▄▄█████▀   ▄██
█████▄   ▀███████▀   ▄█████
████████▄   ▀█▀   ▄████████
▀██████████▄   ▄███████████
   ▀████████▌ ▐█████ ██████
██▄   ▀█ ███▌ ▐████   ▀████
█████▄    ██▌ ▐███▄▄ ▐█████
████████ ▄██▌ ▐█████ ▐█████
████████▄███▌ ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▀█████████▌ ▐█████ ▐██▀
     ▀██████▌ ▐██████▀
        ▀███▌ ▐███▀
           ▀███▀

╲╲╲╲╲╲╲╲▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
  THE FIRST    OF ITS KIND
  SELF-GOVERNED    ECOSYSTEM

╱╱╱╱╱╱╱╱▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
   


           ▄███▄
        ▄█████████▄
     ▄██████████▀  ██▄
  ▄████████▀█▀   ▄██████▄
█▀▀▀███████   ▄████████▀▀▀█
██▄   ▀████▄▄▄▄█████▀   ▄██
█████▄   ▀███████▀   ▄█████
████████▄   ▀█▀   ▄████████
▀██████████▄   ▄███████████
   ▀████████▌ ▐█████ ██████
██▄   ▀█ ███▌ ▐████   ▀████
█████▄    ██▌ ▐███▄▄ ▐█████
████████ ▄██▌ ▐█████ ▐█████
████████▄███▌ ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▀█████████▌ ▐█████ ▐██▀
     ▀██████▌ ▐██████▀
        ▀███▌ ▐███▀
           ▀███▀

bill.joy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 02, 2013, 01:20:40 PM
 #71

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
Moderator
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366



View Profile
December 02, 2013, 05:05:13 PM
 #72

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.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
riX
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 328



View Profile
December 03, 2013, 09:42:31 PM
 #73

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.

Sorry, I can't help you with your lost password.

PGP key: 0x9F31802C79642F25
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 03, 2013, 11:24:59 PM
 #74

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

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
riX
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 328



View Profile
December 04, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
 #75

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

Sorry, I can't help you with your lost password.

PGP key: 0x9F31802C79642F25
maaku
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
December 04, 2013, 06:44:43 PM
 #76

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.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 04, 2013, 09:19:36 PM
 #77

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.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 04, 2013, 09:21:13 PM
 #78

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.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
bill.joy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 05, 2013, 05:40:31 AM
 #79

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 687


Minimum Effort/Maximum effect


View Profile
December 05, 2013, 02:15:02 PM
 #80

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.

If you think my efforts are worth something; I'll keep on keeping on.
I don't believe in IQ, only in Determination.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!