Basic IQ test on Satoshi's identity

[AnonyMint]

five years is a long time. he might have not given much thought about indicating his real name when he wrote the paper. otherwise, he could also very well have changed his mind along the way. why else will he lay so low? it's not as if after that he went around laying hints at his identity to claim his fame. its pretty clear he doesnt want to be disturbed.

Next question on the IQ test.

Would a person who didn't want to be anonymous from the beginning, refuse every request to give any shred of information about himself, and be so technically careful that no one can find a trace of his identity in any log?

Surely the people running this forum had his IP address and traced it through and found it was running through proxies (because many were very curious about who was this person they had never heard of in the field)

(read the Newsweek article and see what Gavin said. Confirm by reading all of Satoshi's posts here in this forum and on the Cryptography discussion list)

All those who voted "Yes" have an IQ I would guess below 120, maybe even lower.

(I would have said 100 or below, but we have to account for smart people who are ignorant about the history of Satoshi's interaction on this forum and the technical capabilities of tracking someone via their IP address)

i actually dont understand whatever logic you are trying to explain.

the point is, i doubt he wanted to be found out. even if he did, it would be voluntarily, in his own time, whoever knows when that would have been. but in the meantime, it's pretty clear he wants to protect his anonymity, yet having the right to claim the invention as his own when the time is ripe.

i guess dumbass reporters are hard to predict.

The logic is:

1. If I am not concerned about being anonymous, then I will not make sure I use Tor to hide my IP address every time I communicate with the world such that I can not be traced. And I will not ignore EVERY ONE of the many questions asking for information about me.

2. Satoshi was thus obviously trying to be anonymous from the very start. And thus he would never have used his real name.

Any other factors and ideas you might have are logically irrelevant.

All those who voted "Yes" have an IQ I would guess below 120, maybe even lower.

or an IQ higher than yours because they can think of a reason you can't :·>

The above logic excludes most other possible reasons.

Even if you tried to argue that he didn't know he was using Tor and had been setup by a man-in-the-middle, then why would he refuse to answer even the very simplest questions about himself.

Hey I've seen you around, I thought you were smarter than that.

unfortunately i strongly believe this guy might be it. everybody wants to believe the real Satoshi is pulling some incredible smokescreen but i highly doubt that is the case. he could have used his name for many reasons, for pride, for his own amusement, or he simply didnt think much of it. i dont know, but eccentric behaviour isnt new.

i feel like im bordering on blasphemy here but Satoshi is an engineering genius, but not a God. people can be prone to lapses in that way. it's not a pretty story but it is what it is.

Amazing how your emotional belief trumps the irrefutable logic.

Any way, it is expected with the Bell Curve that many of you will be below 100 IQ. I can't imagine what it is like. I don't know how to help you. I guess leave you alone.

Apparently you think he would think that he could be anonymous enough and the later accept or deny if he is the Satoshi. But since he is an engineer he would know that his ISP records could then be forward traced to see if he was on Tor at the same times as this forum was receiving posts from Satoshi coming from Tor. Being an engineer he would know that using his real name and taking a chance of getting found would drastically lower his options for remaining anonymous or not.

Rather if he wanted to leave his options open with the most certainty that he would remain in control, he would use a pseudonym then later he could reveal who he was or not.

We know from the logic I explained upthread that he was trying to be anonymous. So to argue that he was lax or not focused on being anonymous is illogical. He was obviously making a concerted and strict effort to be anonymous.

What reason would he have had to feign being so concerned with his anonymity, yet so careless to give it up by giving his real name?

[1715075777]

1715075777

[1715075777]

1715075777

[1715075777]

1715075777

[1715075777]

1715075777

[1715075777]

1715075777

[krampus]

Being smarter than you makes me a troll.  

You've presented an either-or scenario that is incomplete, not very insightful, and completely irrelevant. You then go on to accuse others of having a low IQ because they point out the obvious flaws in your logic.

That doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. It makes you an arrogant little prick who is apparently unaware of exactly how stupid you actually are.

Fuck you, you fucking little twat.

[2tights]

When you conflate irrelevant details, it exhibits low IQ.

When you post idiotic polls that start with implicit assumptions and end with dumb logic, it tends to suggest that you're just fucking retarded.

+1

Everyone is grasping as straws, its all conjecture, also... so while this is a fun exercise, it's totally pointless.

[liexel]

Amazing how your emotional belief trumps the irrefutable logic.

Any way, it is expected with the Bell Curve that many of you will be below 100 IQ. I can't imagine what it is like. I don't know how to help you. I guess leave you alone.

Apparently you think he would think that he could be anonymous enough and the later accept or deny if he is the Satoshi. But since he is an engineer he would know that his ISP records could then be forward traced to see if he was on Tor at the same times as this forum was receiving posts from Satoshi coming from Tor. Being an engineer he would know that using his real name and taking a chance of getting found would drastically lower his options for remaining anonymous or not.

Rather if he wanted to leave his options open with the most certainty that he would remain in control, he would use a pseudonym then later he could reveal who he was or not.

We know from the logic I explained upthread that he was trying to be anonymous. So to argue that he was lax or not focused on being anonymous is illogical. He was obviously making a concerted and strict effort to be anonymous.

What reason would he have had to feign being so concerned with his anonymity, yet so careless to give it up by giving his real name?

yes, logically anyone would do whatever you are saying. but people are capable of entirely strange irrational behaviour, as any study of the markets would tell you. everyone wants to wait out for the other 'real' Satoshi to come forward and acquit the poor old man, and believe that he would be still in control, even though if dorian isnt him, the real Satoshi has absolutely no incentive to do so.

if dorian is the one, he would be found out sooner or later, i dont know what is his plan now everyone has their eyes on him. in any case, it's probably best that the community accepts it and move on.

[Honeypot]

He legally changed his name, and maybe was counting on hiding in plain sight?

All name changes are published in the public record. Someone as knowledgeable as Satoshi wouldn't miss that factoid especially if he had researched and thought about how to be anonymous, as evident by his using Tor always and refusing to answer any personal questions about himself.

You missed the point about 'hiding in plain sight'.

[vtlaloc]

five years is a long time. he might have not given much thought about indicating his real name when he wrote the paper. otherwise, he could also very well have changed his mind along the way. why else will he lay so low? it's not as if after that he went around laying hints at his identity to claim his fame. its pretty clear he doesnt want to be disturbed.

Next question on the IQ test.

Would a person who didn't want to be anonymous from the beginning, refuse every request to give any shred of information about himself, and be so technically careful that no one can find a trace of his identity in any log?

Surely the people running this forum had his IP address and traced it through and found it was running through proxies (because many were very curious about who was this person they had never heard of in the field)

(read the Newsweek article and see what Gavin said. Confirm by reading all of Satoshi's posts here in this forum and on the Cryptography discussion list)

All those who voted "Yes" have an IQ I would guess below 120, maybe even lower.

(I would have said 100 or below, but we have to account for smart people who are ignorant about the history of Satoshi's interaction on this forum and the technical capabilities of tracking someone via their IP address)

i actually dont understand whatever logic you are trying to explain.

the point is, i doubt he wanted to be found out. even if he did, it would be voluntarily, in his own time, whoever knows when that would have been. but in the meantime, it's pretty clear he wants to protect his anonymity, yet having the right to claim the invention as his own when the time is ripe.

i guess dumbass reporters are hard to predict.

The logic is:

1. If I am not concerned about being anonymous, then I will not make sure I use Tor to hide my IP address every time I communicate with the world such that I can not be traced. And I will not ignore EVERY ONE of the many questions asking for information about me.

2. Satoshi was thus obviously trying to be anonymous from the very start. And thus he would never have used his real name.

Any other factors and ideas you might have are logically irrelevant.

All those who voted "Yes" have an IQ I would guess below 120, maybe even lower.

or an IQ higher than yours because they can think of a reason you can't :·>

The above logic excludes most other possible reasons.

Even if you tried to argue that he didn't know he was using Tor and had been setup by a man-in-the-middle, then why would he refuse to answer even the very simplest questions about himself.

Hey I've seen you around, I thought you were smarter than that.

unfortunately i strongly believe this guy might be it. everybody wants to believe the real Satoshi is pulling some incredible smokescreen but i highly doubt that is the case. he could have used his name for many reasons, for pride, for his own amusement, or he simply didnt think much of it. i dont know, but eccentric behaviour isnt new.

i feel like im bordering on blasphemy here but Satoshi is an engineering genius, but not a God. people can be prone to lapses in that way. it's not a pretty story but it is what it is.

Amazing how your emotional belief trumps the irrefutable logic.

Any way, it is expected with the Bell Curve that many of you will be below 100 IQ. I can't imagine what it is like. I don't know how to help you. I guess leave you alone.

Apparently you think he would think that he could be anonymous enough and the later accept or deny if he is the Satoshi. But since he is an engineer he would know that his ISP records could then be forward traced to see if he was on Tor at the same times as this forum was receiving posts from Satoshi coming from Tor. Being an engineer he would know that using his real name and taking a chance of getting found would drastically lower his options for remaining anonymous or not.

Rather if he wanted to leave his options open with the most certainty that he would remain in control, he would use a pseudonym then later he could reveal who he was or not.

We know from the logic I explained upthread that he was trying to be anonymous. So to argue that he was lax or not focused on being anonymous is illogical. He was obviously making a concerted and strict effort to be anonymous.

What reason would he have had to feign being so concerned with his anonymity, yet so careless to give it up by giving his real name?

As everyone plainly knows we live in a 4 dimensional universe where people's emotional state at the last point in their life reverberates backwards through time to every other point. Since soon after the paper (its not at all possibly that his desire for privacy was an outgrowth of attention received); Satoshi wanted to remain anonymous his desires would have clearly undone the mistake of using his real name to begin with (clearly this could not have been his real name).

Thank god for the retrograde movement of desires which create a standardized emotional space envelope; It keeps us all from saying "derp i shouldn't have done that" because its not like after using your real name once you can say don't call me that any more without being even more suspicious.  

I'm not saying that he is who Newsweek claims he is, i'm saying we live in a world where not all actions are rational or consistent with people's long term goals. Just because a smart person mad an irrational error does not make the error impossible; remember this is something that cant be undone after the first instance.  

[chinacoinbase]

based on original  Bitcoin paper,  from the worse reference index, we know that creator of Bitcoin  maybe only own  Bachelor degree.

[AnonyMint]

Being smarter than you makes me a troll.  

You've presented an either-or scenario that is incomplete

Sorry if you can't wrap your mind around the fact that it is complete and it excludes the relevance of any other scenarios, unless we assume Satoshi was irrational, which is quite clear he was extremely rational and his IQ is some where in my realm. This will soon become evident to you.

Everyone is grasping as straws, its all conjecture

I am not. This is what allows me to make things that are "magic" to you.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke

As everyone plainly knows we live in a 4 dimensional universe

No I showed mathematically that can't be true and that we actually live in a universe where spacetime exists in the domain of unbounded frequencies and phases. This explains how to conceptualize that there is no edge to the universe in 4D. That is my blog.

[Singlebyte]

When you conflate irrelevant details, it exhibits low IQ.

When you post idiotic polls that start with implicit assumptions and end with dumb logic, it tends to suggest that you're just fucking retarded.

+1

I like this response.

[Light]

High IQ and the ability to make stupid mistakes are not mutually exclusive (unless your trying to infer that Satoshi is a complete idiot). Even the greatest minds have made errors it is only human. That being said it would be a completely and utterly stupid move to make all the effort to remain anonymous and use your name as your handle.

[AnonyMint]

High IQ and the ability to make stupid mistakes are not mutually exclusive (unless your trying to infer that Satoshi is a complete idiot). Even the greatest minds have made errors it is only human. That being said it would be a completely and utterly stupid move to make all the effort to remain anonymous and use your name as your handle.

Logic fail. If he is rational and if he made the mistake of putting his real name on the original paper, then he wouldn't bother putting so much effort on being anonymous after that, because he is smart and rational enough to realize he already fucked it up.

[AnonyMint]

You failed the basic IQ test.

You put hearsay and the desire of humans to be important, ahead of irrefutable logic. Sad.

Found this confirmatory source
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326

I think this is the guy.
His comment "I cannot talk about it."
Is very interesting.

The second confirmatory source strengthens the case

[krampus]

You failed the basic IQ test.

So many idiots, so little time.

Ignoring.

[Raek]

Only Satoshi knows what Satoshi wants.

[AnonyMint]

Only Satoshi knows what Satoshi wants.

We can gleem what he wanted based on the (apparently intentional) flaws in his design.

[cAPSLOCK]

All those people who vote "no" and have been posting in the recent threads about whether that Japanese guy in CA is the real Satoshi, took the blue pill (i.e. you are losing your sanity).

Those who vote "yes" are just dumb.

Just a few observations.

1.  You spend a great deal of time and energy belittling others especially in ways that are implicitly braggadocios.  Most of the time you attack people intelligence or masculinity.  I find it pathetic and very telling.

2.  Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto allegedly used an outdated version of his legal name when he published the paper and in his early communications.  He may have found this light pseudo anonymity enough when he was musing about the creation of bitcoin.

3.  DPSN may have found traction in the growing interest in who he was and obvious confusion as to his possible identities as an advantage of greater anonymity than he had counted on having when he used his birth name in the beginning.  Perhaps he then decided along the way to bail as bitcoin grew at a pace and to a size he had not expected (there is some evidence SN thought bitcoin was growing too fast).

4.  Your "logic" is based both in full hindsight as well as rooted in your own values (extreme anonymity an obvious one).  This leads you to a possible error in thought.

It could simply be, that if Dorian is THE Satoshi that he didn't feel an overly strong need to be completely anonymous until his creation began to have minor success, and then as it went from minor to major he took advantage of the fact no one had put two and two together and faded into the shadows.

I imagine he might have even planned a strategy to deal with this inevitable day.

I personally do not know if DPSN is SN.

I know your "logic" is full of shit though.

[AnonyMint]

Plausible deniability is useless when the government can kidnap and waterboard. That is why AnonyMint will never create an anonymous altcoin. I might help someone else to get started on creating one, and then quickly exit stage left.

None of the logic about Satoshi being foolish at the start makes sense, since he never made a mistake in 2 years that allowed his IP address to get traced. Why would he bother to be so diligent if he knew he had already revealed his name.

What we probably have here is an overzealous news organization, police, and typical "I saw a UFO effect" (in my dream but sure seems real to me now) on memory. See Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

What we really have here is a group emotional need to know who their hero is. It is an insatiable need. That is what is helping to push the delusion of the crowd in this case.

[yenom]

People who think that IQ has any value have low intelligence.

[AnonyMint]

Just a few observations.

1.  You spend a great deal of time and energy belittling others especially in ways that are implicitly braggadocios.  Most of the time you attack people intelligence or masculinity.  I find it pathetic and very telling.

My point was that if as a community we are not rational, then we are doomed to end up just like fiat.

It is sad for me to see even someone technical who is supposed to be very intelligent such as DeathAndTaxes speculating that Dorian might be the real creator of Bitcoin. The only possible way I could see that is if he was forced under duress to put his name on a public paper while simultaneously forced to pretend he wanted to be anonymous. This could be some bizarro disinformation scheme of the higher powers that be. But that really pushes Occam's Razor away.

2.  Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto allegedly used an outdated version of his legal name when he published the paper and in his early communications.  He may have found this light pseudo anonymity enough when he was musing about the creation of bitcoin.

Then why was "Satoshi" so damn careful for two years to never even once leak his IP address. Do you know how difficult that is?

3.  DPSN may have found traction in the growing interest in who he was and obvious confusion as to his possible identities as an advantage of greater anonymity than he had counted on having when he used his birth name in the beginning.

Could you unpack that to English please in way that refutes my prior sentence and question?

Perhaps he then decided along the way to bail as bitcoin grew at a pace and to a size he had not expected (there is some evidence SN thought bitcoin was growing too fast).

Again this does not refute my important sentence and question above.

4.  Your "logic" is based both in full hindsight as well as rooted in your own values (extreme anonymity an obvious one).  This leads you to a possible error in thought.

No I am basing it on the evidence as stated in my above sentence and question.

There is just no way to get around that which is rational unless he was under duress.

It could simply be, that if Dorian is THE Satoshi that he didn't feel an overly strong need to be completely anonymous until his creation began to have minor success, and then as it went from minor to major he took advantage of the fact no one had put two and two together and faded into the shadows.

The impossibility of your scenario is my important sentence and question above.

I know your "logic" is full of shit though.

To the illogical such as yourself, noise is indistinguishable from logic.

Very smart people know me as being a very astute reductionist. I make mistakes sometimes, I am still human. I can break very complex patterns down to their essence. This is why I am such a damn good programmer. I can literally put 100s of variables in my head and "see" the answer (pull away the dependent variables and have remaining the independent ones).

[juve4v]

If you think at Satoshi as a person who made serious efforts to remain anonymous and agree that person used his real name as nickname  you must be not stupid but plain imbecile.