Why did Satoshi use GB British English and international English ?

[Lucius]

I'm with the theory Satoshi was a team. I'm aware the false clues and dead ends theory is possible because words containing international English and GB British English "s" and "z" could've been put out there deliberately. What Hal said about Satoshi was high level complimentary but imagine how much respect Satoshi would've had for Hal. We'll never know.

I am convinced that all these theories will remain just theories and nothing more, in 10 years or 50 years, nothing will change in that regard. The truth that many are looking for will only be found out if Satoshi shows up and unequivocally proves that it is him or them, but even then there can be a suspicion that someone just managed to gain possession of his private data.

Over the years, I've read dozens, if not hundreds, of such threads, and learned nothing new - but I've recently had a chance to read about the relationship between Satoshi and the people who worked with him, and it's much clearer now why he disappeared - in case he did not do so it would only be a matter of time before some of these Judas would betray him.

[1713918930]

1713918930

[arabspaceship123]

It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context.  WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.

This was Satoshi's penultimate post. What you've said about being in fear of getting betrayed is serious because Satoshi's disappearance coincided when bitcoin was being used to send donations to Wikileaks. It was when the US went on the offensive against Wikileaks. It's possible in the end Satoshi couldn't risk being sold out by people so went underground fearing it's something that's going to happen one day.

I'm with the theory Satoshi was a team. I'm aware the false clues and dead ends theory is possible because words containing international English and GB British English "s" and "z" could've been put out there deliberately. What Hal said about Satoshi was high level complimentary but imagine how much respect Satoshi would've had for Hal. We'll never know.

I am convinced that all these theories will remain just theories and nothing more, in 10 years or 50 years, nothing will change in that regard. The truth that many are looking for will only be found out if Satoshi shows up and unequivocally proves that it is him or them, but even then there can be a suspicion that someone just managed to gain possession of his private data.

Over the years, I've read dozens, if not hundreds, of such threads, and learned nothing new - but I've recently had a chance to read about the relationship between Satoshi and the people who worked with him, and it's much clearer now why he disappeared - in case he did not do so it would only be a matter of time before some of these Judas would betray him.

[nurilham]

Do you believe Satoshi was a pseudonym used by more than one person that's why there's differences in written English ?

What if Satoshi purposely wrote varied English styles to make people think that he isn't one person?
So what you're thinking about him right now, is exactly what Satoshi expected.
If you are referring satoshi account in this forum, I assume it is operated by a single person. Why? Can many people together use 1 account for a serious thing like this forum? I am not sure if many people are possible to trust each other for this matter. There should be one leader in a community forum and the leader won't share his private thing like using a forum account together, even with his friends. It probably risks him.

[franky1]

satoshi was one man..
but he took idea's from different elements of the cypherpunks group. and he had people like theymos and hal debug code in the early months.
they all used their own pseudonyms

as for the language. i dont see any purposeful internationalising words. i would just say his spell checker showed the annoying red underline. where the spellcheck changed it to international when he was bothered to right click and take its suggestion

apart from that all signs of buzzwords time format and phrases point to british based language
but a hint of their language does not give any evidence of their physical location.(you know planes can take people anywhere these days)

[arabspaceship123]

What if Satoshi purposely wrote varied English styles to make people think that he isn't one person?
So what you're thinking about him right now, is exactly what Satoshi expected.
If you are referring satoshi account in this forum, I assume it is operated by a single person. Why? Can many people together use 1 account for a serious thing like this forum? I am not sure if many people are possible to trust each other for this matter. There should be one leader in a community forum and the leader won't share his private thing like using a forum account together, even with his friends. It probably risks him.

What you're saying is another possibility. There's many possibilities. If Satoshi worked alone throwing false clues to confuse us the plan's been successful because we're discussing it 10 years after Satoshi disappeared. Right now I can't accept Satoshi was a lone genius who's compiled work from others to create bitcoin.

I have read a lot about this and done a lot of digging around to try and see whom I think Satoshi is or was.  I think there are two trains of thought, either Satoshi did a lot of things on purpose to throw people off, or there were a couple individuals who made up Satoshi.  I know Satoshi once used the term "bloody" as in like "bloody hell".  As an American I can tell you we never use that term here. So it makes you wonder.  Personally I think that it was a combo of cypherpunks such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo.

It's fascinating reading theories. If Satoshi was a team it must've been headed by Hal Finney with Adam Back and Nick Szabo involved. Other people could've contributed towards the team behind Satoshi. If there was a team behind Satoshi the GB British English would've been provided by Adam Back.

[Welsh]

So Satoshi was either multiple people or one clever person who was pretty switched on about OpSec.

Seriously switched on.

I could post "splendid" once in a while, but that doesn't make me based in Britain.

Yeah, all of these are indicators which over time you can collect, and build a profile of the person, and take a educated guess rather than anything concrete. So, while Franky might have been a little too quick to jump to the conclusion, those sayings are very typical of a British person, where as splendid I don't hear very often. Anyway, the indicator can also be inaccurate as it could tell us Satoshi has been infulenced by British culture, not necessarily where they were or currently based. I know Americans, and other nationalities use phrases from different countries just because they are friends or associate with international people.

I am convinced that all these theories will remain just theories and nothing more, in 10 years or 50 years, nothing will change in that regard. The truth that many are looking for will only be found out if Satoshi shows up and unequivocally proves that it is him or them, but even then there can be a suspicion that someone just managed to gain possession of his private data.

Well of course, it's most certainly very difficult to prove, and therefore would forever remain inconclusive. We have had issues in the past with people claiming to be Satoshi, and I believe Satoshi's email address was even compromised, so it indicates that Satoshi may have not had the best security practices in place for certain things. Which is nothing new, I know of security professionals which are very good at their job, but neglect things close to home, and its usually because of the same pit falls other people fall for. Ease of use, and complacency.

[arabspaceship123]

Satoshi's whitepaper referenced work by other people, Satoshi didn't write it alone. I can't see Bitcoin being a government back project headed by a mysterious Satoshi. Who could've known the impact Bitcoin would have ?

The bitcoin Satoshi mined might move one day. If it happens it's going to bring new theories about who Satoshi is.

What if it's a government led project. I agree with you that hardly any team would be able to keep such a secret to themselves forever unless it is a government operation. I think it is at least a possibility that can't easily be ruled out. If it was a one man show, what do you think how long it took that person to write the whole code?

From today's perspective it might look easier than it actually was to pull the whole thing off successfully. I mean sure the ingredients were there but when you first sit down and try to make the right decisions and combinations to come up with something of Bitcoin's calibre, that is still extremely impressive.

Also the question whether Satoshi is dead or not, who would be able to refrain from touching a million BTC? Could a single individual resist? I don't know. A government could I guess.

[arabspaceship123]

You're convinced it's OPSEC. There's a theory Satoshi might've used it so it can't be dismissed but I don't follow it. I think Satoshi was a pseudonym for a team of geniuses who's used international English and GB British English because they lived in different countries.

I have read a lot about this and done a lot of digging around to try and see whom I think Satoshi is or was.  I think there are two trains of thought, either Satoshi did a lot of things on purpose to throw people off, or there were a couple individuals who made up Satoshi.  I know Satoshi once used the term "bloody" as in like "bloody hell".  As an American I can tell you we never use that term here. So it makes you wonder.  Personally I think that it was a combo of cypherpunks such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo.

Probably it's the former, Satoshi is a genius remember so it's not like throwing off the scent isn't beyod his/her intellectual capacity because I mean if you really want to throw off people from identifying you, you will try to make it mych more simple rather than elaborate because sometimes it's better to hide in plain sight and much easier to pull off.

[temple]

You're convinced it's OPSEC. There's a theory Satoshi might've used it so it can't be dismissed but I don't follow it. I think Satoshi was a pseudonym for a team of geniuses who's used international English and GB British English because they lived in different countries.

I have read a lot about this and done a lot of digging around to try and see whom I think Satoshi is or was.  I think there are two trains of thought, either Satoshi did a lot of things on purpose to throw people off, or there were a couple individuals who made up Satoshi.  I know Satoshi once used the term "bloody" as in like "bloody hell".  As an American I can tell you we never use that term here. So it makes you wonder.  Personally I think that it was a combo of cypherpunks such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo.

Probably it's the former, Satoshi is a genius remember so it's not like throwing off the scent isn't beyod his/her intellectual capacity because I mean if you really want to throw off people from identifying you, you will try to make it mych more simple rather than elaborate because sometimes it's better to hide in plain sight and much easier to pull off.

But someone here brought up the argument that it's incredibly difficult to keep quiet for a whole team. It usually doesn't work out for very long unless they were a really small team. Then the question remains which group of people would be able to resist moving a million BTC. Perhaps they are running all kinds of crypto related businesses, don't know, maybe some exchanges and they really don't need to sell any. One million BTC, which were around $60 billion. Congratulations to whoever it is who doesn't need to touch a single coin

[arabspaceship123]

If the bitcoin haven't moved from Satoshi's wallet there's a possibility the group behind Satoshi shared parts of private keys between them. What' going to happen if the group needed each other but one member died without a will it's possible the group doesn't have access to the keys. If Satoshi was a lone genius who's died his keys might've gone with him.

Maybe the bitcoin didn't move from Satoshi's wallets for different reasons we don't know the reason.

You're convinced it's OPSEC. There's a theory Satoshi might've used it so it can't be dismissed but I don't follow it. I think Satoshi was a pseudonym for a team of geniuses who's used international English and GB British English because they lived in different countries.

I have read a lot about this and done a lot of digging around to try and see whom I think Satoshi is or was.  I think there are two trains of thought, either Satoshi did a lot of things on purpose to throw people off, or there were a couple individuals who made up Satoshi.  I know Satoshi once used the term "bloody" as in like "bloody hell".  As an American I can tell you we never use that term here. So it makes you wonder.  Personally I think that it was a combo of cypherpunks such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo.

Probably it's the former, Satoshi is a genius remember so it's not like throwing off the scent isn't beyod his/her intellectual capacity because I mean if you really want to throw off people from identifying you, you will try to make it mych more simple rather than elaborate because sometimes it's better to hide in plain sight and much easier to pull off.

But someone here brought up the argument that it's incredibly difficult to keep quiet for a whole team. It usually doesn't work out for very long unless they were a really small team. Then the question remains which group of people would be able to resist moving a million BTC. Perhaps they are running all kinds of crypto related businesses, don't know, maybe some exchanges and they really don't need to sell any. One million BTC, which were around $60 billion. Congratulations to whoever it is who doesn't need to touch a single coin

[temple]

If the bitcoin haven't moved from Satoshi's wallet there's a possibility the group behind Satoshi shared parts of private keys between them. What' going to happen if the group needed each other but one member died without a will it's possible the group doesn't have access to the keys. If Satoshi was a lone genius who's died his keys might've gone with him.

Maybe the bitcoin didn't move from Satoshi's wallets for different reasons we don't know the reason.

You're convinced it's OPSEC. There's a theory Satoshi might've used it so it can't be dismissed but I don't follow it. I think Satoshi was a pseudonym for a team of geniuses who's used international English and GB British English because they lived in different countries.

I have read a lot about this and done a lot of digging around to try and see whom I think Satoshi is or was.  I think there are two trains of thought, either Satoshi did a lot of things on purpose to throw people off, or there were a couple individuals who made up Satoshi.  I know Satoshi once used the term "bloody" as in like "bloody hell".  As an American I can tell you we never use that term here. So it makes you wonder.  Personally I think that it was a combo of cypherpunks such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo.

Probably it's the former, Satoshi is a genius remember so it's not like throwing off the scent isn't beyod his/her intellectual capacity because I mean if you really want to throw off people from identifying you, you will try to make it mych more simple rather than elaborate because sometimes it's better to hide in plain sight and much easier to pull off.

But someone here brought up the argument that it's incredibly difficult to keep quiet for a whole team. It usually doesn't work out for very long unless they were a really small team. Then the question remains which group of people would be able to resist moving a million BTC. Perhaps they are running all kinds of crypto related businesses, don't know, maybe some exchanges and they really don't need to sell any. One million BTC, which were around $60 billion. Congratulations to whoever it is who doesn't need to touch a single coin

I don't believe in this scenario. Again, someone who can build such a protocol is smart enough to know that people can die, even that they will die eventually, the question is only when. If they were a team of say four, they would never share the keys in a way that is a 4 out of 4 set up to get access to the coins. They would have done it differently such that a possible death of a member is accounted for.

[arabspaceship123]

You didn't explain how would they've done it differently to account for deaths on Satoshi's team. Why haven't those bitcoin's belonging to Satoshi moved?

I don't believe in this scenario. Again, someone who can build such a protocol is smart enough to know that people can die, even that they will die eventually, the question is only when. If they were a team of say four, they would never share the keys in a way that is a 4 out of 4 set up to get access to the coins. They would have done it differently such that a possible death of a member is accounted for.

[franky1]

If the bitcoin haven't moved from Satoshi's wallet there's a possibility the group behind Satoshi shared parts of private keys between them.

multisiig was not a thing in 2009-2010
there were no 'group' keys

secondly. satoshi was a single person with a single username
he talked and interacted and got help from other people. but they had their own names
like Hal. like Sirius
hal and sirius did not work physically in same room, building, neighbourhood as satoshi. they interacted over the internet
they were independant of each other not thinking of themselves as a 'group'


sats and btc had no value in 2009-2010 there was no reason to share keys. the mindset back then was not save for retirement. the keys had no value and of no importance.

also sharing keys then defeats the whole security model of bitcoin. the idea is to move value by spending value on bitcoin not handing the private keys to people

EG first transaction to hal. was done onchain by spending 10btc. not by giving hal a private key and then him moving them at his leisure

[hazenyc]

If the bitcoin haven't moved from Satoshi's wallet there's a possibility the group behind Satoshi shared parts of private keys between them.

multisiig was not a thing in 2009-2010
there were no 'group' keys

secondly. satoshi was a single person with a single username
he talked and interacted and got help from other people. but they had their own names
like Hal. like Sirius
hal and sirius did not work physically in same room, building, neighbourhood as satoshi. they interacted over the internet
they were independant of each other not thinking of themselves as a 'group'


sats and btc had no value in 2009-2010 there was no reason to share keys. the mindset back then was not save for retirement. the keys had no value and of no importance.

also sharing keys then defeats the whole security model of bitcoin. the idea is to move value by spending value on bitcoin not handing the private keys to people

EG first transaction to hal. was done onchain by spending 10btc. not by giving hal a private key and then him moving them at his leisure

It's right that multisigs weren't a thing for Bitcoin in 2009-2010 within the Bitcoin protocol itself, but aren't there ways to set up multisig keys outside of the network such that you could still have the same effect? Or at least an effect that is similar? I know that alternatives would be prone to all kinds of attacks by those setting it up anyway, but isn't there a way they could have managed it somehow?

[franky1]

back then privkeys, had no value.
they were not important.
satoshi;s philosophy was if people lost their keys it made the coins left in circulation more scarce

he showed no desire, excitement or effort in hoarding. no mention of wanting/needing to accumulate. he preferred sharing coins for others to use for bug testing

as did others back then. making faucets to give coins away

hoarding/accumulating coin mindsets only begun in 2011

[kaggie]

It's right that multisigs weren't a thing for Bitcoin in 2009-2010 within the Bitcoin protocol itself, but aren't there ways to set up multisig keys outside of the network such that you could still have the same effect? Or at least an effect that is similar? I know that alternatives would be prone to all kinds of attacks by those setting it up anyway, but isn't there a way they could have managed it somehow?

While multisig was not a thing, a clever enough person could come up with a multi-sig like method at any point. Breaking a bitcoin key into two halves was always possible -- although not quite the same.

But as frankie says, it was unnecessary.

If you had someone who you thought you should multisig with, you might as well convince them to get into bitcoin or send them coin.

back then privkeys, had no value.
they were not important.
satoshi;s philosophy was if people lost their keys it made the coins left in circulation more scarce

The value of bitcoin was low enough that there was no reason to set up multisigs. Much like mining pools that did not exist yet.

Bitcoin's value had to start some place, which required proving both long term storability and current utility.

This 2011 post shows the mindset:

We all have our own little Bitcoin stash that feels like a present from the gods, and we don't want to give those precious bitcoins away.
Hoarding is fine, early adopters deserve the reward, but you can have it both ways. Hoard and Spend people! The Bitcoin needs to move!

[Pmalek]

While multisig was not a thing, a clever enough person could come up with a multi-sig like method at any point. Breaking a bitcoin key into two halves was always possible -- although not quite the same would work.

How would it work and who would be the person that breaks the key into two halves, unless you are talking about some software that could do it? If I break the private key into two and give you one half and keep the other for myself, how can you be sure I didn't keep your part as well. Introducing a third person to do if for us can bring additional problems. Now we have another subject who knows the key or could give me or you absolute control if he wanted to.

[WePiggy]

This is one that was missed by the OP. The GB spelling is FAVOUR and the American version is FAVOR

It might be worth considering that Satoshi wasn't American or British, but something in-between e.g. Canadian?!

True, there would probably be someone with a dial-up modem or satellite dish internet.  Rarer would be someone who has both that and the wired internet that has the outage, but if it's a big enough segment to matter, out of a million people there's bound to be a multi-home geek.

ISP network cuts are just your local area.  If you still have communication with the rest of your area, it would probably be something like 1/1000 of the world or less.  Block generation in the segment would take several hours per block.

I favour the plan to monitor if the frequency of blocks received drops too slow.  That covers a large range of possibilities.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=691.msg8922#msg8922

[kaggie]

While multisig was not a thing, a clever enough person could come up with a multi-sig like method at any point. Breaking a bitcoin key into two halves was always possible -- although not quite the same would work.

How would it work and who would be the person that breaks the key into two halves, unless you are talking about some software that could do it? If I break the private key into two and give you one half and keep the other for myself, how can you be sure I didn't keep your part as well. Introducing a third person to do if for us can bring additional problems. Now we have another subject who knows the key or could give me or you absolute control if he wanted to.

The main point is that multiple party ownership made no sense since bitcoin wasn't valuable enough. You didn't have multi-million dollar fortunes invested into bitcoin in its first two years. There was no need for mult-sig yet.

On that method of breaking up a seed, the point is more that doing ownership for multiple parties was nothing new. Splitting ownership was completely possible using easy and more advanced methods, even if such methods were not integrated into bitcoin software. It was just unnecessary.

[Silberman]

Do you believe Satoshi was a pseudonym used by more than one person that's why there's differences in written English ?

Opsec.

He was trying to throw people off his scent.

Satoshi was a pseudonym -- this person does not exist under this name. He used disposable emails. He paid for the domain with an anonymous registration agent. Presumably he only connected with tor.
He didn't want to be found, and he went to great lengths to ensure that.

So, 'z' versus 's' was a way to throw people off his scent.

The way to analyse this would be to graph is 's' versus 'z' over time. Did he use 'z' for the first half of his posts, or the last half? Are they consistently mixed at all times?
And no, I don't believe that Satoshi was a team of people. Single, clever individuals do great things all the time by finding combinations of old ideas into new.
Very few people in the world could keep a secret like this for so long if they were a team.

I agree with this, the stronger evidence that satoshi was not a group of people is that we have not found a single person that can say and prove they were part of team satoshi, keeping a secret especially one that includes the creation of a form of money that could potentially change the world is simply impossible so this fact alone should point out that satoshi was a single person, also Occam’s Razor indicates this is the most likely possibility, and about the different spellings of the words, this could be something as simple as satoshi using several computers to connect to the forum and some had a British English dictionary while the others had an international one.