Who was Satoshi Nakamoto?

[Troytech]

Think about it though: if someone wanted to really be anonymous, would he put in small hints on who he/she is through his/her  anonymous monicker? Obviously not as it would totally be a bad idea. The S-N thing is likely just a coincidence.

Nobody really knows if satoshi really planned on beign anonymous from the start or even had thoughts that bitcoin would he this big today, its hard to tell if he was just some secondary school nerd with a brilliant idea and some obsession or if he is a more advanced person with some status.

I'm not convinced that he was nick szabo and decided to use NS as a basis for his new anonymous name, like if it was planned he would have better left no trace of his original name or even use the first letters for the new name, he was smart for sure, so if he wanted to disappear he woudl leave no trace especially not one that would be easy to decode with a hint.
But there is every possibility that he didn't have total anonymousity in mind and must have had a few friends that knew him or probably wasn't planning to disappear from the start.

And here is a link of emails which are released by Sirius titled Satoshi - Sirius emails 2009-2011: https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/
I have gone through all of these and I am sure someone with more knowledge and understanding can find out who Satoshi actually was.
Really interesting convo.

Quite long and I don't think anyone would be going through such stress to make it up unless just to point fingers elsewhere, and it's also possible that he wasn't even chatting with the real satoshi or maybe it was someone he had disclosed the idea to earlier, and I think this project might also have had some kind of sponsors.

The truth is when it comes to the mystery of who satoshi was there are so many possibilities of persons it might be and we might have even guess right before or his person has not just even surfaced to anyone.

[BunnyWunny]

I'm almost convinced Edward Snowden is Satoshi

[apogio]

I'm almost convinced Edward Snowden is Satoshi

I love it when people create accounts just to post this
Since we all speculate here, do you wanna elaborate? How have you come to this conclusion?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I guess I can see some sense in that reasoning.

Eh... On a second thought, the more curious people involved, the greater the chances something really constructive and convincing is on the table (like this one). And also, we shouldn't be try to break security that cannot be restored (as opposed to cryptography), so I take it back as an analogy.

I'm not convinced that he was nick szabo and decided to use NS as a basis for his new anonymous name

I mean, it can be an unplanned coincidence. The fact that "NS" is the starting letters of both Satoshi Nakamoto and Nick Szabo is the last piece I would call "evidence" if I ever supported that conspiracy theory.

[BunnyWunny]

I'm almost convinced Edward Snowden is Satoshi

I love it when people create accounts just to post this
Since we all speculate here, do you wanna elaborate? How have you come to this conclusion?

Thanks for asking.

1. Considering Satoshi has kept himself a secret for so long despite so much intrigue as to who he is, it probably makes sense that he was a spy. So that's matches Snowden.

2. Whoever created bitcoin was an expert in cryptography. Snowden worked for the NSA which does a lot of cryptography and he had access to the latest cryptographic research projects.  He also used advanced cryptography to create multiple layers of encryption for the documents that he took from the NSA in order to stop them falling into the wrong hands. He used multiple 4096 and 8192 bit encryption keys for example. This is all detailed in his book the Permanent Record. To this day no one has managed to access the files that Snowden stole, apart from Snowden when he gave heavily redacted versions to the newspapers. This top secret info has been outside of the NSA for ten years now, and no foreign government have gotten their hands on it. Not one US service man had come a cropper due to Snowden's leaks. Snowden distributed the multiple encryption keys in a way not dissimilar to how blockchain works. Again, there is a paragraph about this in his book, i can quote if you like.

3. Timeline. Bitcoin started to be developed around 2008/2009, this is around the same time that Snowden started to suspect the Government were badly misbehaving around surveillance. He started to develop a radical libertarian philosophy. This obviously led to him becoming a whistleblower but might also have motivated Satoshi to hit overreaching governments where it hurts, their currencies.

4. Necessity. When Snowden was on run from the US Government he could only pay in two ways, cash or bitcoin. He used Bitcoin in his escape. Maybe this wasn't a lucky break for Snowden. Snowden leaked the documents in May 2013, only a few months after Bitcoin had gained some monetary value and became useable as an underground currency. Maybe he realised some years before that he would very much like a P2P e-cash when he eventually blew the whistle? Maybe he decided to create it.

5. Snowden has a ton of Bitcoin and i mean a ton. Snowden mentioned to a journalist in Hong Kong in 2013 that he had been sent enough Bitcoin and I quote "to live on until the fucking sun dies". At that time Bitcoin was trading at around $1,000 a bitcoin. If he already had enough Bitcoin then to live on for the rest of his life and then some, it means he had and has a lot of Bitcoin. And it also is unlikely people would have donated him that much bitcoin. Also note, this quote by Snowden was meant to be off the record but the journalist included it in the article. Satoshi also has enough bitcoin to live on until the fucking sun dies.

6. Snowden was aware of the risks of being exposed due to semantic analysis (recognising patterns of language). Satoshi's forum posts are notably bland and devoid of personality and style. This is clearly by design and Snowden used the same approach when communicating with journalists before he leaked the NSA documents. There is a reference to Snowden's awareness of this risk in a Washington Post article titled "Code name "Verax": Snowden in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks." Google the article if you like.

7. Snowden keeps saying same things Satoshi said in his tweets. like the recent Snowden tweet on Feb 18th. "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry". this obviously could just be Snowden playing homage to Satoshi, but still it's weird to just quote someone else without making it clear you're quoting someone else. Most people who are quoting someone will reference the person they are quoting. But you wouldn't if you were quoting yourself.

[apogio]

In my humble opinion, the best way to scientifically prove some connection between Satoshi Nakamoto's and some other real people, would be to:
(a) create a dataset with his posts
(b) use linguistic ML models to identify patterns between his, and other notable cryptographers' writing.
(c) use sentiment analysis models (deep neural networks) trained by his posts to identify emotional patterns. However, this  is very difficult. Satoshi was calm and scientifically accurate. He didn't use his language to produce "noise". He wasn't arrogant. So we should face issues with this "emotional analysis approach".
(d) finally, we should use the same models to run some test datasets of posts collected by other scientists' posts.

<~>

Ok, sounds like you have some reasons to believe that. 
What's funny is that Snowden lived in Japan from 2009 till 2011^[1].
Satoshi Nakamoto is clearly a Japanese name.
But, of course, the first Bitcoin block was mined in Jan 3rd, 2009, so the timeline doesn't really explain this.

As I said, we all speculate here. In my opinion, there is no reason to speculate, but I find it a natural human behaviour to want to find out who Satoshi is. It's our curiousity that leads us there.

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/04/national/nsa-whistleblower-snowden-says-u-s-government-carrying-out-mass-surveillance-in-japan/

[GeorgeJohn]

Anyone can frame anything he or she like to frame and post it online, with what I read so far I'm not convinced that the original poster of that comment is any associated with satoshi nakamoto or be the relative, its just I'm I can create any account of mine in any social media and began to claim how close I'm with satoshi nakamoto whereas I don't know satoshi and I can't tell any autobiography of satoshi, provided that Internet is in existence, different blackmail and false stories and gist will continue to happen.

From my own perspective, I assumed that satoshi is in bitcointalk and abandon his satoshi account so that nobody will contact him for anything, I'm not of the opinion that satoshi is late or not..let just not to be giving some online statements attention, especially the ones that have no proof or evidence to backup their theory.

[Eddie Sockittome]

I don't know who he is but if Forbes still counted him as the owner of 1 million Bitcoin, he would be worth $72.5 billion right now, making him the 21st richest person on Earth, as of today.

[Genesis Block]

If Bitcoin was created by Nick alone, then we would all know about it, Nick would make sure of that.
There would be no Satoshi, the author would be Nick Szabo.
However Nick is not Satoshi, but he certainly knows who is, or was, behind the creation of Bitcoin.

This is a very good point.

[nullama]

I don't know who he is but if Forbes still counted him as the owner of 1 million Bitcoin, he would be worth $72.5 billion right now, making him the 21st richest person on Earth, as of today.

It is quite insane to think that the person who started Bitcoin, the best investment of the last decade by far, and assuming he controls a lot of those coins, he would still not be the richest person on Earth.

Makes me wonder how on Earth the other 20 people got so much money.

I think that level of centralization of fiat is partly the reason why Bitcoin was invented in the first place.

[DooMAD]

And also, we shouldn't be try to break security that cannot be restored (as opposed to cryptography), so I take it back as an analogy.

Plus, the forum does have strict rules against doxxing, which is what people are attempting to do every time they start one of these topics.  I don't see why satoshi should be considered an exception to the rule.  If it were anyone else, mods would likely be locking or nuking the thread.

//EDIT:  Case made here for the rule to be equitably enforced.

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

These are ridiculous arguments to even have a slight certainty. But, besides that, you ignore a crucial part. Satoshi's and Nick Szabo's texts have been run as inputs in reverse textual analysis, and are strongly connected. For your theory to make sense, either Edward has to pretend to be Nick (which is another level of ridicule), or Edward's texts are more connected than Nick's (which is not the case as far as we're concerned).

//EDIT:  Case made here for the rule to be equitably enforced.

Fair. I hope I haven't violated it. I'll stop talking about it.

[franky1]

this topic is not doxxing..
its just random twits speculating their hallucinations of their preferencial desires of how they see their god like entity.. 99% cant even be bothered to even check the publicly available info as it is,

actual doxxing is revealing real life location and personal data which can lead to actual real life negative interactions/repercussions

EG
compared to the random speculation of this topic.. even saying blackhatcoiner is from greece is still not doxxing.
compared to the random speculation of this topic.. even saying blackhatcoiner uses a computer in a room with blue painted walls is still not doxxing

however revealing his street address, door number, home telephone number and place of work would be
isnt that right angelo

..
the foolishness of these topics arise when people start dreaming up such speculative nonsense, that the nonsense goes viral and result in idiots like CSW claiming they are SN, or the other idiots trying to pretend their cult leader created bitcoin.

EG 'satoshi was a team of people' .. 2015 .. CSW: 'i was part of a team that made bitcoin'.. and we are now seeing how thats playing out(facepalm)

[DooMAD]

I hope I haven't violated it.

To the letter of the rules, no one has.  But in the spirit of the rules, I think we've all been guilty at some point.  Myself included.  There's no denying it's fun to speculate.  But it's also irresponsible and could have serious repercussions.  Whatever is decided, rules-wise, I won't be playing any further part in these guessing games and would strongly encourage others to do the same.

[apogio]

I hope I haven't violated it.

To the letter of the rules, no one has.  But in the spirit of the rules, I think we've all been guilty at some point.  Myself included.  There's no denying it's fun to speculate.  But it's also irresponsible and could have serious repercussions.  Whatever is decided, rules-wise, I won't be playing any further part in these guessing games and would strongly encourage others to do the same.

Personally, I accept what you say. I will stop speculating about it.
I think you may exaggerate a bit, but it's obviously for good reason.

[BunnyWunny]

[...]

These are ridiculous arguments to even have a slight certainty. But, besides that, you ignore a crucial part. Satoshi's and Nick Szabo's texts have been run as inputs in reverse textual analysis, and are strongly connected. For your theory to make sense, either Edward has to pretend to be Nick (which is another level of ridicule), or Edward's texts are more connected than Nick's (which is not the case as far as we're concerned).

//EDIT:  Case made here for the rule to be equitably enforced.

Fair. I hope I haven't violated it. I'll stop talking about it.

It's entirely circumstantial but that doesn't make it ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to prove who Satoshi is through semantic analysis when there are so few forum posts to analyse and when he clearly guarded against this by deliberately writing blandly.

Nobody will ever scientifically prove who Satoshi is, hence why one needs to think more creatively. All the other strong candidates are most certainly not Satoshi as they have been pored over endlessly by the entire web for 13 years and there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence to suggest it is them. However there is more circumstantial evidence to suggest it is Snowden. He had the skills, the motives and means. He has an earth shatteringly large amount of Bitcoin. And he knows better than almost anyone how to remain digitally anonymous.

But the hipsters choice is that it can't be anyone who is already famous. It has to be some obscure cryptographer living in their mom's basement. Someone with the brilliance of Satoshi is most certainly not whittling away their lives inconspicuously, they are probably very prominent in some field or maybe many, in a way that would give them a large profile. How many people as brilliant as Satoshi do you know are living the life of a regular civilian, going completely unnoticed by society?

But if I'm completely wrong in saying that Snowden ought to be considered a serious candidate for Satoshi then tell me why? What are the reasons to exclude him?

[Dunamisx]

We are seeing many people claiming that they are Satoshi Nakamoto both on this forum and outside the forum, we don't know what these people stand to achieve in doing so, maybe they are even scammers or people trying to rush into fame and get recognized in so doing, the simple and easiest way of confirming or proving that they are is something common but none of them could sign a message here on bitcointalk, but they can be making nuisance around that they are actually Satoshi when they are not.

[BlackHatCoiner]

To the letter of the rules, no one has.  But in the spirit of the rules, I think we've all been guilty at some point.

I feel guilty only in the sense that I've engaged in such discussions, and posted a few comments on the given evidence. Maybe I shouldn't, and it's exaggerated as told by apogio. I have never analyzed or brought anything new to the table, so I can sleep easy in that sense.

It's entirely circumstantial but that doesn't make it ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to prove who Satoshi is through semantic analysis when there are so few forum posts to analyse and when he clearly guarded against this by deliberately writing blandly.

This. Is. All. We've. Got. Texts from emails and the forum is all the information known by Satoshi. No person knows anything beyond that. We don't know if he was writing "blandly", that's on your hypothesis.

However there is more circumstantial evidence to suggest it is Snowden. He had the skills, the motives and means.

Lol, man. Just lol. You just found another candidate. Skills, means, mindset, profile, whatever. These are coincidences. Strong evidence involves scientific analysis.

[LeezHamilton]

Think about it though: if someone wanted to really be anonymous, would he put in small hints on who he/she is through his/her  anonymous monicker? Obviously not as it would totally be a bad idea. The S-N thing is likely just a coincidence.

Nobody really knows if satoshi really planned on beign anonymous from the start or even had thoughts that bitcoin would he this big today, its hard to tell if he was just some secondary school nerd with a brilliant idea and some obsession or if he is a more advanced person with some status.

I'm not convinced that he was nick szabo and decided to use NS as a basis for his new anonymous name, like if it was planned he would have better left no trace of his original name or even use the first letters for the new name, he was smart for sure, so if he wanted to disappear he woudl leave no trace especially not one that would be easy to decode with a hint.
But there is every possibility that he didn't have total anonymousity in mind and must have had a few friends that knew him or probably wasn't planning to disappear from the start.

And here is a link of emails which are released by Sirius titled Satoshi - Sirius emails 2009-2011: https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/
I have gone through all of these and I am sure someone with more knowledge and understanding can find out who Satoshi actually was.
Really interesting convo.

Quite long and I don't think anyone would be going through such stress to make it up unless just to point fingers elsewhere, and it's also possible that he wasn't even chatting with the real satoshi or maybe it was someone he had disclosed the idea to earlier, and I think this project might also have had some kind of sponsors.

The truth is when it comes to the mystery of who satoshi was there are so many possibilities of persons it might be and we might have even guess right before or his person has not just even surfaced to anyone.

Not who was Satoshi ? You should ask or state '' Who is Satoshi Nakamoto ?  

If you are new here in the forum the ask to my clone ''Theymos'' he will tell you the story of Satoshi Nakamoto.  After that stop speculating on the creation of Bitcoin and its creator.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/03/12/craig-wright-committed-perjury-in-uk-trial-over-satoshi-claims-copa-says

[uneng]

This person seems to know too much to be true... He claims no one owns Satoshi's wallet, but how can he be so sure about that? I don't think it's possible to be so assured of the current localization of Satoshi's Bitcoins. And even if the owner had to get rid of hard disks, it's not certain he would get rid of a wallet replenished by Bitcoins as well... Of course the possibility exists, but it's not a guarantee, anyway.

Unless the man who committed suicide, Len Sassaman, was Satoshi. Then it would make sense to say "no one owns Satoshi's wallet", since the poster mentions that and right after points out Len Sassaman got his door knocked by CIA, got paranoid and committed suicide. At least by my interpretation, it implies he owned the wallet back then.

The suicide story is kinda intriguing too. This version says the man was paranoid. On the internet we can also find he had neurological issues and loss of passion for life (depression?).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29731438