What are the implications of Hal being Satoshi?

[kaggie]

Following onto: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5349129.0 , but a more specific question:

What are the implications of Hal Finney being Satoshi Nakamoto?

- But first, why think Hal was SN?

Hal started as one of the first bitcoin miners, and certainly the first known individual to interact with SN. His posts were always as informative as Satoshi's. He had to quit work due to ALS in 2011, the same time that Satoshi quit. He knew he had ALS for several years before. He had the knowledge to program these things. That sort of knowledge would possibly give a person a not-give-a-shit attitude about their own life, mining for the 'good of humanity', and perhaps set aside some for their own family.

Hal fit the sleep profile of SN. Hal lived downstreet from Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto. It isn't too strange to consider that Hal would consider putting false clues out. SN was a pseudonym, so bitcoin started with that deceit.

Hal was a classic 'cypherpunk' and idealist who would change the world. After all, Hal froze his body in the belief that some future technology might be able to restore his life or read his brain. Perhaps that was his way of allowing people to question him in the future? He could have hid it very well. There are not technologies that I am aware of that can restore data on drives that have been wiped several times over, so perhaps he relied more on a brain scan for future proof..

- What are the implications?

I'm not sure there are any. Hal would be known as an early bitcoiner, so would have already had threats to his family. In terms of throwing him into disrepute, this gentleman is dead and had ALS. Bad press is hard to push about the dead while promoting them as visionaries.

If Hal was SN, then perhaps we have lost a brilliant mind with insight into future developments. But such is the cycle of life.

I'm certain that this possibility (Hal being SN, and dead) is what was considered before people claim to be Satoshi, since they expect that no one would come forth to disprove them. So, one possibility is that we may have more people claim to be Satoshi, yet, we may never know the whole truth.

Are there any implications that I'm missing?

[1714658165]

1714658165

[1714658165]

1714658165

[zanezane]

Nope he isn't Satoshi, Hal is a different person and I don't think that we should be saying that in memory of Hal, remember that he contributed different to Satoshi plus it would be stupid to do a multi account just to hide, I mean just use one account if you don't want your identity known.

[NeuroticFish]

Are there any implications that I'm missing?

What you seem to be missing is that you need one person alive and willing to prove that he's the owner of those private keys.
Since we don't have anybody doing that, all this soap opera has not much of a meaning. I'd say that this is the point you are missing.

And to answer your main question too: the implication would be that we will surely never know who was Satoshi.

[dkbit98]

No, Hal Finey is not Satoshi, you can inspect his profile and all his posts on bitcointalk forum and you will see that he was actually talking with Satoshi.
His style of writing is totally different from Satoshi, but he sure did help in developing and improving of Bitcoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

Good to read his post Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

[Beparanf]

No, Hal Finey is not Satoshi, you can inspect his profile and all his posts on bitcointalk forum and you will see that he was actually talking with Satoshi.
His style of writing is totally different from Satoshi, but he sure did help in developing and improving of Bitcoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

Good to read his post Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

This is true. I read most the thread created by Hal and Satoshi during my newbie days and there conversation is genuine. Why they will talk to each other in the early stage of Bitcoin while you need someone to do a task for you to test your creation. Satoshi is very good on hiding his identity so creating an account using real name will be dangerous for him.

[electronicash]

No, Hal Finey is not Satoshi, you can inspect his profile and all his posts on bitcointalk forum and you will see that he was actually talking with Satoshi.
His style of writing is totally different from Satoshi, but he sure did help in developing and improving of Bitcoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

Good to read his post Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

This is true. I read most the thread created by Hal and Satoshi during my newbie days and there conversation is genuine. Why they will talk to each other in the early stage of Bitcoin while you need someone to do a task for you to test your creation. Satoshi is very good on hiding his identity so creating an account using real name will be dangerous for him.

that may be true but there are just many coincidences that HAL could be Satoshi. the first transaction that satoshi did was sending some BTC to Hal's address well this is just what I've read as well.  if Hal is indeed SN, then maybe his family could access the wallets which they could have done it already if they have the keys. his family knew better than us.

anyone who knew Hal and a Bitcoin early investor would still think Hal is a visionary as well just like SN. probably sees him as a hero if he is indeed SN that's just an implication.

[Jating]

There will be no implications as almost the majority here thinks that Hal is not Satoshi.

It just so happened that he was one of the pioneer and even spoke to Satoshi several times in email and then was rewarded with bitcoins, which he didn't claimed and have been lost forever. Yes, he is a brilliant mind, unfortunately, he died to early because of ALS.

[20kevin20]

What you seem to be missing is that you need one person alive and willing to prove that he's the owner of those private keys.
Since we don't have anybody doing that, all this soap opera has not much of a meaning. I'd say that this is the point you are missing.

I think even the proof that one is/was the owner of those private keys is not enough anymore. The more time passes, the higher the chances are for someone's privkey to collide with an already used one. While this is not a very likely scenario and the chances of colliding specifically with the genesis/Satoshi's privkeys are about zero, it's not practically impossible especially as tech evolves.. So if someone "finds out" 50 years from now who owned those private keys, chances are this is just a random coincidence and collision that proves nothing.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you think about it you will realize that... Hal can't be Satoshi, because Satoshi is a disambiguation.

Quoting a known phrase from V for Vendetta:

Beneath this mask there is an idea... and ideas are bulletproof.

So, Hal being an idea? Nah. If we're talking about the programmer who developed Bitcoin and disappeared in April 2011, he might be; but that “might” will remain unknown. The person who gave us that divine gift is gone for good and his or her software is the only thing left to be remembered.

So if someone "finds out" 50 years from now who owned those private keys, chances are this is just a random coincidence and collision that proves nothing.

True. As time goes by, these private keys have more chances of being found by someone else. When Bitcoin will have changed to quantum safe algorithms, someone may pretend of being Satoshi by searching the, insecure by that time, 1 — 2^160 range. In other words, in the far future, there won't be any ways to prove you're Satoshi.

[swogerino]

What you seem to be missing is that you need one person alive and willing to prove that he's the owner of those private keys.
Since we don't have anybody doing that, all this soap opera has not much of a meaning. I'd say that this is the point you are missing.

I think even the proof that one is/was the owner of those private keys is not enough anymore. The more time passes, the higher the chances are for someone's privkey to collide with an already used one. While this is not a very likely scenario and the chances of colliding specifically with the genesis/Satoshi's privkeys are about zero, it's not practically impossible especially as tech evolves.. So if someone "finds out" 50 years from now who owned those private keys, chances are this is just a random coincidence and collision that proves nothing.

I don't know after 50 years as it is a long time from now but for the moment those keys are the strongest and most believable evidence that can shed light on who Satoshi Nakamoto really is.I think we should leave him,Hal "Rest in Peace" as he was the biggest pioneer in Bitcoin and a brilliant programmer mind.

[20kevin20]

I don't know after 50 years as it is a long time from now but for the moment those keys are the strongest and most believable evidence that can shed light on who Satoshi Nakamoto really is.I think we should leave him,Hal "Rest in Peace" as he was the biggest pioneer in Bitcoin and a brilliant programmer mind.

I wouldn't bet on it. People like Wright would pay a ton of money for access to those privkeys. Imagine a bad actor gets their hand onto this address and offers access to it to Wright and other Faketoshis for a few million bucks. It's no "strong" evidence of anything. Satoshi remains a piece of history and at the same time a mystery. Whoever claims to be Satoshi today has other kind of interests that are non-Bitcoin development related. If Satoshi was to create something better than Bitcoin or point out flaws, I'd imagine he'd do it the same way he initiated BTC..

[mk4]

Theoretically if Hal is actually Satoshi, fortunately we really can't make much implications simply because as far as I know we barely know who Hal is, what his interests are, what his political stances are, etc; besides him being someone that's technically literate.

Now this is why it's totally important that Satoshi stays anonymous regardless if he/she/they is/are dead or alive. Even knowing that Satoshi is a Trump supporter or a Biden supporter for instance, Satoshi would immediately be demonized by the opposing side.

[RokokGudangGaram]

What you seem to be missing is that you need one person alive and willing to prove that he's the owner of those private keys.
Since we don't have anybody doing that, all this soap opera has not much of a meaning. I'd say that this is the point you are missing.

I think even the proof that one is/was the owner of those private keys is not enough anymore. The more time passes, the higher the chances are for someone's privkey to collide with an already used one. While this is not a very likely scenario and the chances of colliding specifically with the genesis/Satoshi's privkeys are about zero, it's not practically impossible especially as tech evolves.. So if someone "finds out" 50 years from now who owned those private keys, chances are this is just a random coincidence and collision that proves nothing.

I could not agree more with you that an evidence and a witness may not be enough to prove that this claim is credible. It is right that as time passes by, and the longer the time has passed from the event, the difficult it would be to prove its legitimacy. And I must say that in situations like this, one witness account is not enough to be testified actually.

[yhiaali3]

The idea is a bit tempting for Satoshi to be Hal Finney, but no one can prove that is ever true. As long as Hal Finney is dead and Satoshi Nakamoto is hidden, no one really has to prove that they are the same person but although everyone tends to think that the possibility is impossible But it is possible in the end.
Hal Finney reminds me of Stephen Hawking, a physicist who challenged the disability and ahead of time. Stephen Hawking also had amyotrophic sclerosis like Val Henney, when I look at the comparison between the two men I think it's possible that Hal Finney is Satoshi given that there could be A relationship between genius and physical disability, of course this is just a theory and does not necessarily have any correct meaning.

[bitmover]

- What are the implications?

Certainly he is not.

If Hal was Satoshi, that would be a big fraud.

Hal Finney was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction. That would be a big fraud and very egocentric for Satoshi to just create a new account and send the bitcoin to himself and say that it was the first bitcoin transaction.

When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I wouldn't bet on it. People like Wright would pay a ton of money for access to those privkeys. Imagine a bad actor gets their hand onto this address and offers access to it to Wright and other Faketoshis for a few million bucks.

Best case would be to publicly post the private keys of Satoshi's addresses. That way, these frauds wouldn't manipulate a part of their supporters. There would still be a significant number of people who would believe that Wright is Nakamoto; you should never argue with them.

Theoretically if Hal is actually Satoshi, fortunately we really can't make much implications simply because as far as I know we barely know who Hal is, what his interests are, what his political stances are, etc; besides him being someone that's technically literate.

We know enough for Hal and even if they aren't enough, there are people who know more about him. The fact is that you can't prove what's Satoshi's interests due to lack of evident connection between Hal and Satoshi.

[ranochigo]

I think even the proof that one is/was the owner of those private keys is not enough anymore. The more time passes, the higher the chances are for someone's privkey to collide with an already used one. While this is not a very likely scenario and the chances of colliding specifically with the genesis/Satoshi's privkeys are about zero, it's not practically impossible especially as tech evolves.. So if someone "finds out" 50 years from now who owned those private keys, chances are this is just a random coincidence and collision that proves nothing.

Use quantum computers to crack the ECDSA keys for those. Collision is quite a lot harder.

Best case would be to publicly post the private keys of Satoshi's addresses. That way, these frauds wouldn't manipulate a part of their supporters.

That would never happen. Satoshi probably won't appear again nor touch those coins.

True. As time goes by, these private keys have more chances of being found by someone else. When Bitcoin will have changed to quantum safe algorithms, someone may pretend of being Satoshi by searching the, insecure by that time, 1 — 2^160 range. In other words, in the far future, there won't be any ways to prove you're Satoshi.

Speed up for symmetric algorithms are far smaller and probably wouldn't be sufficient to find specific keys. It's not like there is a huge portion of known Satoshi keys.

I think you meant using QC to directly crack the public keys.

[BlackHatCoiner]

That would never happen. Satoshi probably won't appear again nor touch those coins.

I meant best case for the person who'll gain access to Satoshi's keys. (by collision or public key cracking)

Speed up for symmetric algorithms are far smaller and probably wouldn't be sufficient to find specific keys.

I'm talking about RIPEMD-160. Is a hash function considered a symmetric algorithm?

[Baofeng]

Following onto: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5349129.0 , but a more specific question:

What are the implications of Hal Finney being Satoshi Nakamoto?

- But first, why think Hal was SN?

Hal started as one of the first bitcoin miners, and certainly the first known individual to interact with SN. His posts were always as informative as Satoshi's. He had to quit work due to ALS in 2011, the same time that Satoshi quit. He knew he had ALS for several years before. He had the knowledge to program these things. That sort of knowledge would possibly give a person a not-give-a-shit attitude about their own life, mining for the 'good of humanity', and perhaps set aside some for their own family.

This doesn't proved anything, it just so happened that someone has to mine bitcoin and Hal did it.

Hal fit the sleep profile of SN. Hal lived downstreet from Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto. It isn't too strange to consider that Hal would consider putting false clues out. SN was a pseudonym, so bitcoin started with that deceit.

Dorian Nakamoto? Perhaps it was jus coincidence that Hal and Dorian Nakamoto lived close together. And it's pretty much normal, it's California, many tech companies are around that place.

Hal was a classic 'cypherpunk' and idealist who would change the world. After all, Hal froze his body in the belief that some future technology might be able to restore his life or read his brain. Perhaps that was his way of allowing people to question him in the future? He could have hid it very well. There are not technologies that I am aware of that can restore data on drives that have been wiped several times over, so perhaps he relied more on a brain scan for future proof..

And probably that's where they met each other in the cyber punk mailing list, and then correspondence and mutual respect.
I know Satoshi's story is very interesting to dig and analyse. But we can't find a proof that Hal Finney is Satoshi Nakamoto.

[tyz]

No, Hal Finey is not Satoshi, you can inspect his profile and all his posts on bitcointalk forum and you will see that he was actually talking with Satoshi.

This is not necessarily a sign to indicate that he is not Satoshi. It is known that Satoshi has tried everything to hide his identity and traces on the web. If Hal were really Satoshi, then it would make sense to create two accounts that write to each other.

His style of writing is totally different from Satoshi, but he sure did help in developing and improving of Bitcoin.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

This, on the other hand, is more evidence that Hal is not Satoshi. There has been some lexical analysis of all of Satoshi's posts on this forum, which has led to the identification of various phrases and words that are typical of British English and typical of American English, which rather suggests that Satoshi is more than one person.