New Mystery about Satoshi

[tonto]

Code:

<-----------\
             \
 0            \________This topic
\|/
 /\  <-- Me

[1714165376]

1714165376

[1714165376]

1714165376

[1714165376]

1714165376

[Mitchell]

Code:

<-----------\
             \
 0            \________This topic
\|/
 /\  <-- Me

Nice one. I know the feeling dude.

[callem]

Benford's law, or some permutational artifact?

[NewLiberty]

I like the lab scenario, it's highly likely he ran lots of machines to simulate a small sized P2P network

I believe this also, he would've had to have been almost too insightful with his various "goldilocks" values and also with the innovative distributed database in order to be happy that 0.1 worked well enough, and for none of these values (50 BTC blocks, 2016 block difficulty adjustments, 10 minute average block solutions) to run into trouble in real world use. This mystery of the clue to the construction of the genesis block only highlights this further IMO: Satoshi clearly had a range of self developed software tools that he used to test and develop the system in a networked setting, but only released the source for 0.1 client and the White Paper to the public.

This would have been very much a long term project for Satoshi, whether he was tackling it full time or in spare time. He devoted quite some resources to it. He was also highly motivated to seeding the network and concept amongst the public (or at least amongst interested computer programmers). The (still supposed) effort to produce the Genesis Block he wished for via trial and error also indicates strong motivation.

Satoshi was working on it for many years before the implementation in 2009 and the whitepaper in 2008.  The full architecture of bitcoin predates 2005.

[jdbtracker]

If it is a single computer, we can say that it is a quad core cpu that they were mining on.

so we have the intel quad core and amd phenom x4 also the server editions of these chips xeon,Itanium,Opteron.

if we link the 4mh/s rate we could figure out which of these processors was doing the work, I'm leaning towards a Intel since my old Bulldozer 8150 did 4mh/s when mining with the cpu, so only an Intel processor would be powerful enough to get those number in 2009.

[Carlton Banks]

The full architecture of bitcoin predates 2005.

Interesting, what's our evidence for this? Forum/newsgroup chat from Satoshi?

[NewLiberty]

The full architecture of bitcoin predates 2005.

Interesting, what's our evidence for this? Forum/newsgroup chat from Satoshi?

No.  Just something we can discuss sometime though.

[bluemeanie1]

Something is wrong.

Can anybody replicate my results?

Best regards,
 Sergio.

very nice work Sergio.

I tend to think youre on with this:

B. Satoshi was mining with a hardware very different from a PC.

might give you a clue as to who is behind Bitcoin... who has access to this high-grade crypto hardware?  Might shed some light on other mysterious factors as to the origins of Bitcoin.

It also would suggest something profound: that there is a backdoor to SHA256 and whoever has knowledge of this backdoor could bring down Bitcoin or generate coins at a fraction of the processing cost.

[maaku]

It also would suggest something profound: that there is a backdoor to SHA256 and whoever has knowledge of this backdoor could bring down Bitcoin or generate coins at a fraction of the processing cost.

Really? Because to me that seems totally out of left field.

[bluemeanie1]

It also would suggest something profound: that there is a backdoor to SHA256 and whoever has knowledge of this backdoor could bring down Bitcoin or generate coins at a fraction of the processing cost.

Really? Because to me that seems totally out of left field.

Backdoors to hashing algos have emerged before.  Some even suggest that these backdoors are intentionally worked into our crypto standards.  If you have any knowledge of the way this field operates politically and legally you would know that this is entirely possible.

it's even been discussed on this forum before: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291217.0

given the Snowden revelations you can't exactly say my suggestion is 'totally out of left field'.

[jackjack]

Backdoor to SHA256^2 you mean?

[bluemeanie1]

Backdoor to SHA256^2 you mean?

doesnt matter if it's doubled up.  You don't even need to crack it[1], you just need to find a way to bias the probability of finding a solution to a block.  Once you've done that, than you have a monopoly on mining not to mention other disruptive things(look at the thread link I just posted).

perhaps there are even spooks on this forum participating anonymously and attempting to influence the discussions.

[1] meaning reverse the hash

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

My current thought on the matter :

32 zerobits / 10 min , 4.2 Ghash/block
● Satoshi CPUs: 7.1 mhash/s (aprox)

State of the art 2009

● Intel i7-920 CPU: 6 mhash/s
(@ 4 cores) (Introduced Nov 2008)


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!

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

And I don't think SHA-256 was broken.

The simpler explanation is that Satoshi did have a good state-of-the-art computer. Justified by the occam's razor principle.
 

[JackH]

To have that puts him being someone that has access and resources. Either working for someone, or having amassed this himself, maybe having his own tech company.

You mentioned before some other software we have not yet seen was part of building the genesis block. Do you have more info about that Sergio?

[vesperwillow]

Speaking of Occam's, I would suggest that when you have the figure of Satoshi:

* Leans toward privacy
* Masterminded a lot of what we know today
* Spent significant time on it
* Continues to be mysterious

It would  negate theories such as:

* Lost access to a computer lab
* Uses public computers
* A third of the machines broke and he was like 'lol' and kept trucking
* Needed supercomputers

Though those aren't bad suggestions, they just don't seem likely. Someone bright like him wouldn't plan something this important and leave the likelihood of lost access to the wind, or ignored broken machine input. It's not as if he had a clear deadline, at least that's my thought.

As to the hardware, it's highly likely he simply had some high-end equipment, which didn't take much to achieve 7mh in 2009. Also, individuals like him often do put easter eggs into things, so a message or a simple tag of some sort, is not outside normalcy. The mystery part makes me wonder if there's a reason for it, aside from just because.

Just random thoughts off the top of my head.

[Ente]

might give you a clue as to who is behind Bitcoin... who has access to this high-grade crypto hardware?  Might shed some light on other mysterious factors as to the origins of Bitcoin.

It also would suggest something profound: that there is a backdoor to SHA256 and whoever has knowledge of this backdoor could bring down Bitcoin or generate coins at a fraction of the processing cost.

If the creator of bitcoin knew of a backdoor to SHA256 (whatever this might mean), he wouldn't use a whole chain of hashalgos. Besides SHS we have RIPEMD at least.
And, for sure the creator wouldn't just "backdoor" the block generation and make the other functions (transferring bitcoins, for example) secure? For what, an advantage for early mining efficiency? While risking that everything blows up once, when the "backdoor" becomes public?
Nah.

Speaking of Occam's, I would suggest that when you have the figure of Satoshi:

* Leans toward privacy
* Masterminded a lot of what we know today
* Spent significant time on it
* Continues to be mysterious

It would  negate theories such as:

* Lost access to a computer lab
* Uses public computers
* A third of the machines broke and he was like 'lol' and kept trucking
* Needed supercomputers

Though those aren't bad suggestions, they just don't seem likely. Someone bright like him wouldn't plan something this important and leave the likelihood of lost access to the wind, or ignored broken machine input. It's not as if he had a clear deadline, at least that's my thought.

As to the hardware, it's highly likely he simply had some high-end equipment, which didn't take much to achieve 7mh in 2009. Also, individuals like him often do put easter eggs into things, so a message or a simple tag of some sort, is not outside normalcy. The mystery part makes me wonder if there's a reason for it, aside from just because.

Just random thoughts off the top of my head.

This, however, I like a lot!

Ente

[Jouke]

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?

[gmaxwell]

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..

[Jouke]

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..

Yes, but they are referring to coinbase-transactions and a coinbase-transaction that was made to the mentioned address was forwarded to the address you mention.