On Hal Finney storing his keys in a safe deposit box

[snaka]

Many people speculate that Satoshi Nakamoto was none other than Hal Finney. Won't go into the details as to why others believe that. I was reading one of Hal's final posts and something stuck out to me. Here is the post in question:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

In the final lines, he states "My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy."

If Hal was Satoshi, why would he store his keys in a safe deposit box? Safe deposit boxes are generally found in government controlled banks. The thought of the creator of bitcoin storing his keys in a bank seems absurd as it goes against everything bitcoin stands for.

Perhaps Hal wrote that to throw people off from the idea that he was Satoshi or that he wasn't Satoshi at all. However, Hal was a cryptographic activist and cypherpunk according to his Wikipedia page, so either way it seems odd that such an individual would store their bitcoin keys in a safe deposit box.

Or "safe deposit box" could be his way of saying a personal safe, but then why not just say a safe?

I think I'm looking too much into this, but I thought it was something worth sharing. Thoughts?

[1715471326]

1715471326

[1715471326]

1715471326

[1715471326]

1715471326

[jackg]

His keys were likely encrypted before they were put in the safe deposit box of they were put in a box secured by a bank. Steganography might also have been used here too to hide a lot of keys (such as with other random things) making the private keys even harder to find - especially if they're hidden within the others.

There could also have been a chance the keys were put in other places too, maybe a bank in a different country which could keep it more secure.

I wonder if both of his children had to agree on things in order to use the funds though or if each of their keys were able to decrypt and control his.

There's the other chance he gave them some bitcoin beforehand and essentially burnt his coins to avoid conflicts but said he hadn't to make bitcoin seem easier to inherit and therefore more valid as a currency.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

I think it is bad to store private keys even they are encrypted in safety vaults in bank. Banks are centralized and we can not trust their services 100%.

The Russian evasion in Ukraine, this war, show that banks in Switzerland can break their tradition, their terms to freeze accounts and money if they want. It is safer to be our own bank by securing private keys, passwords to encrypt wallet files by ourselves and never store them in central banks.

We are fearful of central banks and choose Bitcoin but later return to central banks to store our bitcoins. Terrible idea.

[Darker45]

Whether we like or not, keys stored in a bank's safe deposit box is probably much safer than keys hidden underneath a pile of clothes in your closet, or at the back of a painting in your living room, or even in a personal vault in your bedroom. Nobody would just barge in to a bank's vault.

And since Hal mentioned that his "son and daughter are tech savvy" right after saying that his "bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box," I guess it means the keys and other important information are not in plaintext. Everything is certainly encrypted. His children are the only ones who could decrypt them.

[franky1]

heres a little secret....

just because you put them in a bank security box. for reasons like if your house burns down they are in a vaulted flame proof place as back up

does not mean that because they are in that place you have no access should the bank deny access

bitcoin works because you can keep copies in many places.

as for the silly gossip of the 'satoshi is hal' stuff.. nope. just no

its recently re-awakened due to some idiot that bought or stole some old used keys and has been signing messages of non satoshi keys pretending to be satoshi to hope to get some money.value out of selling a silly system of signing messages.

if people really think that there was only one cypherpunk in the 90's-00's

or that the cypherpunks all used satoshi username.. both are complete wrong

there were many cypherpunks and also casual readers of their mailing list that just took some idea's and evolved them.

but after this many years of so many people trying. end result is .. hal was not satoshi..

so lets put that gossip story back to bed

[mk4]

Knowing how seemingly bullish Hal Finney was with Bitcoin (based on some email or post saying that it could reach $1m or $10m or something), I doubt he's careless enough to actually store backups on a bank's safety deposit box.

Far highly more likely that it would be a home safe box.

[bittraffic]

He could just be storing a few BTC there in the safe box like 10% only of his BTC holdings and everything else is on his paper wallet with keys written on it. Hal is a father, it is very likely that he already handed 90% of his coins to his kids, telling them to not trust anybody before he even said goodbye.  None of the coins from Satoshi's assumed wallet were moved, there is a conclusion to come up with that.

[dothebeats]

I'm pretty sure Hal knows what might happen when one of the most prominent cypherpunks of our time and one of the first bitcoin believers state that lines that he uttered before he left us. Also, I'm certain that he already have those keys encrypted before he handed them over to whichever bank of his choosing, adding another layer of security to a seemingly impenetrable (lol) institution. He understands all of those, and when you are a dying man, the best interest of your loved ones you'll be leaving behind will be put first. And as a dying man, maybe Hal doesn't really want to make it hard for his family, and the obvious choice for that are the banks that can fulfill all of his last agenda before leaving this world—keeping his bitcoins safe and making it easy for his family to claim it.

[yhiaali3]

In the final lines, he states "My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy."

If Hal was Satoshi, why would he store his keys in a safe deposit box? Safe deposit boxes are generally found in government controlled banks. The thought of the creator of bitcoin storing his keys in a bank seems absurd as it goes against everything bitcoin stands for.

It is evident from his saying “our safe deposit box” that this box is in his home or in another place of the family so that his son or daughter can access this box at any time.

So most likely this box is not in a bank but rather in a place that belongs to the family given it says "our safe deposit box".

As for the other point, whether the box is stored in a bank or in a family place, I do not think that this proves or denies that Hall is Satoshi, I do not find a link between the two things.

[Wind_FURY]

Many people speculate that Satoshi Nakamoto was none other than Hal Finney. Won't go into the details as to why others believe that. I was reading one of Hal's final posts and something stuck out to me. Here is the post in question:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

In the final lines, he states "My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy."

If Hal was Satoshi, why would he store his keys in a safe deposit box? Safe deposit boxes are generally found in government controlled banks. The thought of the creator of bitcoin storing his keys in a bank seems absurd as it goes against everything bitcoin stands for.

Perhaps Hal wrote that to throw people off from the idea that he was Satoshi or that he wasn't Satoshi at all. However, Hal was a cryptographic activist and cypherpunk according to his Wikipedia page, so either way it seems odd that such an individual would store their bitcoin keys in a safe deposit box.

Or "safe deposit box" could be his way of saying a personal safe, but then why not just say a safe?

I think I'm looking too much into this, but I thought it was something worth sharing. Thoughts?

- Let's pretend he's actually Satoshi -

Because he was never really Satoshi in his mind or he believed in anyone else's mind, even though he was actually Satoshi. There's no need to throw anyone off, because he just needed to do what practically needs to be done. Satoshi is/was human like the rest of us in the community.

He probably has a real bank account with U.S. Dollars, and uses a credit card for his shopping.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Hal Finney's wife resumes activity on Bitcoin pioneer's Twitter account to avoid potential purge

With this inheritance of account information like this, and with disclosure from Hal Finney that his wife and his children inherited his bitcoin private keys, I believe that Hal family won't lose access to his bitcoins.

His wife makes me surprised to use his Twitter to tweet with aim to keep his account. Her reasons are well as she does not want to lose what belonged to his husband.

It makes me disappointed a little because we will not know what Elon Musk will do with inactive Twitter accounts from legends who had great contributions in the past.

[franky1]

It makes me disappointed a little because we will not know what Elon Musk will do with inactive Twitter accounts from legends who had great contributions in the past.

relax.. social media fud spun some rumour..
the tweets were that elon will delete 1.5billion inactive accounts

twitter only has 1.5b accounts
in short its like saying subtly elon will delete everyone unless you use it every month

which is not the case.
elon never said he will specifically delete hals account either.

its just hysterical media spinning hysteria

[LGD2Business]

Do you think Hal would openly write that "we store valuable and potentially very large Bitcoins at home" and risk it? I'm sure he chose the safest place. He was carrying more of your concerns.
We all know the risks of keeping valuable things at home. Add to that the potential 1+ million BTC wallet passwords. Who would risk their children's lives by hiding something like this at home?

I don't know if Satoshi was Hal and we can't never be sure, but it's very possible that Hal has a significant amount of Bitcoin. Since their children are also tech-savvy, they know when and how to use them. It's necessary to respect people's private life, including their economic preferences.

[hatshepsut93]

His keys were likely encrypted before they were put in the safe deposit box of they were put in a box secured by a bank. Steganography might also have been used here too to hide a lot of keys (such as with other random things) making the private keys even harder to find - especially if they're hidden within the others.

The problem isn't that a bank or a government could take control over an address, but they could deny access to it. Imagine if Hal got arrested, the government could seize the contents of his safety box, and he would lose one of his backups. It's not the end of the world if you have other backups, that have different treat model and can't be seized by government easily. So there's no contradiction here with "Satoshi's vision", because unlike with fiat, you are not storing bitcoins themselves, but information for accessing them, which can be copied.

[bitcoinsFTW9]

It is certainly possible that Hal Finney was using a figure of speech or employing a bit of literary license when he referred to his Bitcoin keys being stored in a safe deposit box. It is also possible that he was using a metaphor to describe a secure storage location for his keys, rather than describing an actual safe deposit box at a bank.

Without more context or further information, it is difficult to say for certain what Finney meant when he wrote this. It is worth noting, however, that people often use figures of speech and figurative language in their writing, and it is not uncommon for them to use phrases in ways that might not be taken literally.

In any case, the fact that Finney referred to his keys being stored in a safe deposit box does not necessarily mean that he was Satoshi Nakamoto or that he was not Satoshi Nakamoto. There are many factors that can influence people's beliefs about who might be behind the pseudonym, and a single phrase in a forum post may not be sufficient to conclusively prove or disprove someone's identity.