Why have Satoshi's early mined coins an unusual nonce value distribution?

[mynonce]

Before asking the question, I want to mention that even US courts are interested in this:

Gavin Andresen's deposition (For those who don't know him: Andresen was the lead developer for a part of the bitcoin digital currency project ... Andresen discovered bitcoin in 2010 ...  After joining the developers contributing to Bitcoin along with Satoshi Nakamoto, he went on to become lead developer of the client software for the bitcoin network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.589.3.pdf (page 31)
...
Question: Are you aware of any patterns within the blockchain that would reveal which blocks were mined by Satoshi?
Andresen: There is a very interesting blog post by Sergio, Sergio Demian Lerner, where he found some patterns that are plausible that might be associated with Satoshi's mined Bitcoins.
Question: This is the Patoshi research? I think he calls it the Patoshi research?
Andresen: Maybe. I'm not familiar with that.
Question: They call it the Patoshi --
Andresen: I'm not familiar with that term.
Question: Is it -- is it based on the Nonce value?
Andresen: Yes, it's based on the Nonce values. And I have -- I have no direct knowledge of that, but his research seems plausible to me.
Question: Okay. Is there any reason you can think of that a miner would try to create a coinbase transaction that did not hash to within a specific range of values?
Question: Do you understand the question?
Andresen: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Question: Okay. Strike the question.
...

Sergio Demian Lerner's findings: https://bitslog.com/2013/09/03/new-mystery-about-satoshi/

Adding this quote, which is relatable;

The simplest explanation is usually the right one

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?

[1714720589]

1714720589

[1714720589]

1714720589

[SiNeReiNZzz]

Before asking the question, I want to mention that even US courts are interested in this:

Gavin Andresen's deposition (For those who don't know him: Andresen was the lead developer for a part of the bitcoin digital currency project ... Andresen discovered bitcoin in 2010 ...  After joining the developers contributing to Bitcoin along with Satoshi Nakamoto, he went on to become lead developer of the client software for the bitcoin network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.589.3.pdf (page 31)
...
Question: Are you aware of any patterns within the blockchain that would reveal which blocks were mined by Satoshi?
Andresen: There is a very interesting blog post by Sergio, Sergio Demian Lerner, where he found some patterns that are plausible that might be associated with Satoshi's mined Bitcoins.
Question: This is the Patoshi research? I think he calls it the Patoshi research?
Andresen: Maybe. I'm not familiar with that.
Question: They call it the Patoshi --
Andresen: I'm not familiar with that term.
Question: Is it -- is it based on the Nonce value?
Andresen: Yes, it's based on the Nonce values. And I have -- I have no direct knowledge of that, but his research seems plausible to me.
Question: Okay. Is there any reason you can think of that a miner would try to create a coinbase transaction that did not hash to within a specific range of values?
Question: Do you understand the question?
Andresen: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Question: Okay. Strike the question.
...
Sergio Demian Lerner's findings: https://bitslog.com/2013/09/03/new-mystery-about-satoshi/

Adding this quote, which is relatable;

The simplest explanation is usually the right one

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?

But you don't just have to look at the software, I think.
In 2009, computers were still at a different level.
At that time, it was still normal to mine with a simple CPU.

Nobody knows how Satoshi's hardware setup was configured back then, but we're back to the same point as always... we can only speculate!

[DannyHamilton]

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?

First of all, it's all speculation.  We don't actually know which bitcoins are Satoshi's and which aren't.  As Gavin says in the quotes you have above:
"he found some patterns that are plausible that might be associated with Satoshi's mined Bitcoins"

Second, did you even read what Seregio wrote at the link you provided.  He answers your question there:
"Satoshi had access to 58 machines for mining, so to avoid checking the same nonce twice he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce."

In other words:
Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values CAN be produced with the distributed original wallet software.

[mynonce]

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?

First of all, it's all speculation.  We don't actually know which bitcoins are Satoshi's and which aren't.  As Gavin says in the quotes you have above:
"he found some patterns that are plausible that might be associated with Satoshi's mined Bitcoins"

Second, did you even read what Seregio wrote at the link you provided.  He answers your question there:
"Satoshi had access to 58 machines for mining, so to avoid checking the same nonce twice he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce."

In other words:
Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values CAN be produced with the distributed original wallet software.

I don't think that Satoshi mined with 58 machines. That would be too complex for that time period. (~1.5 years - 24/7)

... he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce."

The distributed original wallet software doesn't have that feature.

[decodx]

I don't think that Satoshi mined with 58 machines. That would be too complex for that time period. (~1.5 years - 24/7)

You don't think? Well, I don't think that Patoshi = Satoshi. Since neither of us can prove any of these claims, why are we having this discussion at all?

[COBRAS]

I don't think that Satoshi mined with 58 machines. That would be too complex for that time period. (~1.5 years - 24/7)

You don't think? Well, I don't think that Patoshi = Satoshi. Since neither of us can prove any of these claims, why are we having this discussion at all?

Maybe they talk about fuckoshi ?

[DaveF]

Or because it was early beta software and Satoshi was playing with things, testing things, tweaking things and so on.

It was not like it was done in a sterile lab environment that was then wiped down. Full on public blockchain, so as he did stuff it was all out there for the world to see and keep track of forever.

I have done some things in that on the surface looked odd, but one I explained what I was testing and why, it was obvious. Since we can't ask Satoshi we can only guess.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?

That they were testing things in the environment they were building. Again, simple explanation.


Also, what makes you think that due to the nonce's reuse, they chose predictable entropies for their private keys? This shows me the exact opposite: Due to the reuse of the nonce, which is constantly changing to satisfy the PoW, they had to change the rewarding address.

There isn't anything else you can change in the block header to calculate millions of hashes. You either have to change the nonce, which is the purpose of it (number used once), or the receiving address from the coinbase transaction.

[mynonce]

Also, what makes you think that due to the nonce's reuse, they chose predictable entropies for their private keys? This shows me the exact opposite: Due to the reuse of the nonce, which is constantly changing to satisfy the PoW, they had to change the rewarding address.

The nonces have a structure, I don't know if it was done intentionally or not, but it's very unusual. The nonce consists of 4 bytes and Satoshi is playing only with 1 of them (with the least significant byte), so there are enough possibilities (256^3 x time) to satisfy the PoW. You are right with your conclusion, I would think the same that he had to change the rewarding address, if he reused (or played with) all 4 bytes of the nonce. And through this behaviour of the nonces we can exactly say which blocks are Satoshi's.

Another thing is that Satoshi included a hidden message referencing The Times newspaper on the genesis block's coinbase timestamp parameter (The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks) and never mentioned it. That's why some people want to know, if Satoshi left a message fingerprinted in the nonces.

[TheArchaeologist]

Another thing is that Satoshi included a hidden message referencing The Times newspaper on the genesis block's coinbase timestamp parameter (The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks) and never mentioned it.

That message was put in there to give prove no mining was done before that date. So it was there for a purpose. Since Satoshi was very strict about privacy it wouldn't make sense he intentionally created a way to distinguish blocks mined by himself.

[mynonce]

Another thing is that Satoshi included a hidden message referencing The Times newspaper on the genesis block's coinbase timestamp parameter (The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks) and never mentioned it.

That message was put in there to give prove no mining was done before that date. So it was there for a purpose. Since Satoshi was very strict about privay it wouldn't make sense he intentionally created a way to distinguish blocks mined by himself.

That's exactly what led us to explore Satoshi's blocks. If he wanted his blocks to remain private, he wouldn't change the nonces this way. What's the reason to mark them? He would have known which blocks he mined, so there was no reason to do that. One reason could be: he wanted us to see these blocks.

[DannyHamilton]

The nonces have a structure,

More like a pattern that can be caused by several different things.

but it's very unusual.

It really isn't.

through this behaviour of the nonces we can exactly say which blocks are Satoshi's.

We can not.  We can guess that these blocks MIGHT be Satoshi's.  We can't know for sure.

Another thing is that Satoshi included a hidden message referencing The Times newspaper on the genesis block's coinbase timestamp parameter (The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks)

Not really hidden.  It's there plain as day for any programmer to see. Doesn't take any effort or conspiracy theories to support its existence.

some people want to know, if Satoshi left a message fingerprinted in the nonces.

I'm pretty confident he didn't.

My question: What is the simplest explanation for Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values, that can't be produced with the distributed original wallet software?

First of all, it's all speculation.  We don't actually know which bitcoins are Satoshi's and which aren't.  As Gavin says in the quotes you have above:
"he found some patterns that are plausible that might be associated with Satoshi's mined Bitcoins"

Second, did you even read what Seregio wrote at the link you provided.  He answers your question there:
"Satoshi had access to 58 machines for mining, so to avoid checking the same nonce twice he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce."

In other words:
Satoshi's(= Patoshi's) nonce values CAN be produced with the distributed original wallet software.

I don't think that Satoshi mined with 58 machines.

So you believe Sergio when he says that he sees a pattern in the nonce, but you don't believe him when he says it's because Satoshi used 58 computers?

That would be too complex for that time period. (~1.5 years - 24/7)

It really wouldn't.

[mynonce]

I don't think that Satoshi mined with 58 machines.

So you believe Sergio when he says that he sees a pattern in the nonce, but you don't believe him when he says it's because Satoshi used 58 computers?

There is a pattern in the nonce. Not because Sergio says it, it's because one can recalculate that. Sergio discovered it in 2013. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=175996.0, so one doesn't need to believe him, make your own research.

What Satoshi has done, is possible with 1 computer, one can recalculate or simulate it too. If I have the possibility, I will ask Sergio whether he still believes that Satoshi used 58 computers.

[DannyHamilton]

There is a pattern in the nonce. Not because Sergio says it, it's because one can recalculate that. Sergio discovered it in 2013. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=175996.0

Did you even read the thread you linked to???

I've assumed:

1. Satoshi mined almost alone from 1/3/2009 to 1/25/2010 (block 0 to block 36288).

This assumption is at least partly wrong based on what Hal Finney says in this thread:

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

He did not. I mined during that time— so did many other people I've talked to.

Do I get to be Satoshi too? I was off by only a few days... https://i.imgur.com/w57rtbs.png

I know first-hand that there were several different people who mined before January 2010. It's kind of funny that history I've lived through is being questioned...

Sergio was posting a bunch of speculation based on false beliefs, and yet you choose to believe that, but when he comes up with a realistic explanation for what he thinks he sees, you decide that it didn't happen.

Sounds like you're about as confused as Sergio.  Good luck with your search.  You're tilting at windmills.

[PrimeNumber7]

I don't think that Satoshi mined with 58 machines.

I think it is unlikely that Satoshi mined with 58 computers.

The last values of nonces were 0 through 58 appeared in blocks more frequently than the rest possible last value of the nonces (the range of possibilities are from 0 through 255), so the range of nonces is 59, not 58. However nonce values 10 through 18 have a "normal" frequency. This might lead someone to expect that satoshi might have 50 computers mining in bitcoin's early days.

I think it is probably more likely that satoshi was intending to use 6 computers, the second computer broke (or otherwise was unable to mine), so he ended up using 5 computers to mine. If this is true, he may have configured 6th of the remaining computers to mine on nonce values 19 instead of 59 before realizing that the specific nonce values do not matter, and wont have an impact on the chances of any computer finding a block. He was using either 50 or 5 computers, not 58.

There is evidence that satoshi may have not mined for as much as 5 minutes following when a block was broadcast, and if true, he may have not immediately started utilizing all of his mining equipment immediately after the 5-minute timer expired.

Obviously, it is not clear these blocks were actually mined by satoshi, although I think it is more likely than not to be the case.

[mynonce]

...  Good luck with your search. ...

Sergio discovered it in 2013. Others did their own research with Sergio's findings:

''At Whale Alert we analyze and report interesting blockchain transactions and for Bitcoin there is no subject more interesting and mysterious than the founder known by the alias Satoshi Nakamoto. We were able to make the most accurate estimate of the number of blocks mined and bitcoins owned by Satoshi ...''
https://whale-alert.medium.com/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9a9b from https://whale-alert.io/media

Obviously, it is not clear these blocks were actually mined by satoshi, although I think it is more likely than not to be the case.

It doesn't matter who mined these blocks (I still strongly believe that Patoshi = Satoshi) but this thread is not about who mined these coins. It is about the nonces of these. Why are they unusual? Is there an intention?

[PrimeNumber7]

Obviously, it is not clear these blocks were actually mined by satoshi, although I think it is more likely than not to be the case.

It doesn't matter who mined these blocks (I still strongly believe that Patoshi = Satoshi) but this thread is not about who mined these coins. It is about the nonces of these. Why are they unusual? Is there an intention?

When a miner is mining for a block, they will create a block header that contains certain information. One piece of information that is in the block header is the extraNonce field (via being optionally part of the coinbase transaction [that can be a null value], and changing the extraNonce field will cause the merkle root to change). Other information in the block header includes a nonce (this is separate and distinct from the extraNonce part of the block header). Once the block header is built, it will be passed through a hash function called SHA256, and if the output of this hash function is lower than a target number as determined by the current difficulty, (assuming all transactions in the block are valid, and the block otherwise follows consensus rules), the block will be valid.

Block headers also include a timestamp, a derivative of the transactions in the block (called the merkle root), the previous block's hash, and a version number.

If you were to pass through a block header through a hash function on one computer, and pass through the same block header on a second computer, the resulting output would be same same on both computers. However, if you pass a block header through a hash function on one computer, and pass a block header that is the same, except that it contains a different extraNonce value, through a hash function on a second computer, the resulting output would be different. So if you are mining on two different computers, you need to do something in order to ensure both computers do not check the same block header, because if they do, they would be completing the same work.

The last value of the nonce can be between 0 and 255. This is something that one would expect to be random. If you remove the blocks that are believed to belong to satoshi, the remaining last values of nonces are more or less randomly distributed.

[mynonce]

I still strongly believe that Patoshi = Satoshi

Whale Alert:
We know for certain that Patoshi was operated by Satoshi

https://whale-alert.medium.com/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9a9b
Line 33

...

... and it is unlikely that the remainder will ever be spent, although the question remains why Satoshi didn’t simply burn them in this case.

[DannyHamilton]

One piece of information that is in the block header is the extraNonce field

Great explanation, but you got this one part wrong.

The extraNonce is not in the header. It's in the input of the Coinbase transaction (the same place where Satoshi put the famous newspaper headline). As a matter of fact, extraNonce isn't even a required thing according to the protocol. The only thing that is required in that input is the block height (see BIP 34) to fix an issue with transaction collisions.

... and it is unlikely that the remainder will ever be spent, although the question remains why Satoshi didn’t simply burn them in this case.

I suspect he probably died.

[mynonce]

I still strongly believe that Patoshi = Satoshi

Whale Alert:
We know for certain that Patoshi was operated by Satoshi

https://whale-alert.medium.com/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9a9b
Line 33

...

... and it is unlikely that the remainder will ever be spent, although the question remains why Satoshi didn’t simply burn them in this case.

He could easily mine to a burn address like 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 or 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE and we knew that these coins won't be used anymore.