Hal Finney is Satoshi Nakamoto

[flatt]

recognize the signs.

1. Satoshi vanished just about the same time Hal Finney was diagnosed with the terminal disease ALS. There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

2. Hal Finney has shown with the PGP project that he was able to turn a good idea into a working software project. He has shown with his running a remailer that he cared deeply about the main reason for developing Bitcoin, which is helping privacy with code.

3. Hal Finney had expert knowledge about the problem of concealing an identity. When denying being Satoshi later on, he produced an e-mail conversation with his "sockpuppet" Satoshi. He would be expected to do exactly that. Having experience with government censure of PGP, he would not want to be exposed to similar criminal prosecution for the Bitcoin project. And having been on record predicting $10 million per bitcoin in January 2009, he was certainly aware of the potential of drawing the unwanted attention of criminals to his wealth early on.

4. Anyone smart enough to come up with Bitcoin certainly would have heard about RPOW in 2008. Not citing it in the whitepaper is an obvious clue that he wanted to avoid calling attention to his real identity.

5. When denying being Satoshi, Hal Finney said that he was more familiar with coding in C, as opposed to the coding style used by Satoshi. Doesn't add up. Guess what language is used in the coding section of the whitepaper? Yes. It was C.

6. Hal Finney is on record for having exactly the same opportunity to mine early bitcoins as his sockpuppet Satoshi. His story later is that he stopped mining after a while because he was worried about his computer overheating. Sure. A lifelong dream to create e-cash. $10 million per coin predicted. But worried about a computer overheating. If there really was such a problem at the time, obviously Hal Finney would have been able to solve it in less than five minutes fully drunk and half asleep. Or Satoshi could have fixed it for him. Hal said he reported bugs to Satoshi and Satoshi fixed them. Why not fix the overheating problem then? Because no such problem existed in the first place. If that part is clearly a false statement, one wonders what else he might have tried to hide?

I'm comfortable with my legacy.

[Yaunfitda]

Here we go again, I urge you to read this blog,

Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto. You mentioned RPOW, so here is a comparison between the two codes,



I guess it's better to rest this case, Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney).

[flatt]

You gave me a link to a ridiculous statement that points to proof of sending emails and bitcoins from Satoshi to Mike Hearn while Hal was running a marathon.
I think anyone can send emails at their own time and emails can be sent while doing other things if the goal is to disguise their identity.

If we are talking about RPOW and Bitcoin code, can you tell me where the significant differences are?

[Dunamisx]

recognize the signs.

1. Satoshi vanished just about the same time Hal Finney was diagnosed with the terminal disease ALS. There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

Don't just work by some of your fake theories in confusing the public about the real state of things here, Satoshi is not Hal Finney, maybe you have forgotten that the same Satoshi made the first ever bitcoin transaction to Hal Finney in testing on how bitcoin transaction could be, secondly they both left the forum doesn't mean they are one single entity, each has his own separate account on Bitcointalk and you can't confirm your claim by any of them signing a message, so if this can't be established, then disregard any assumptions that may cause confusion for you, Satoshi is not Hal Finney.

[flatt]

I guess it's better to rest this case, Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney).

with little credit to me.

recognize the signs.

1. Satoshi vanished just about the same time Hal Finney was diagnosed with the terminal disease ALS. There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

Don't just work by some of your fake theories in confusing the public about the real state of things here, Satoshi is not Hal Finney, maybe you have forgotten that the same Satoshi made the first ever bitcoin transaction to Hal Finney in testing on how bitcoin transaction could be, secondly they both left the forum doesn't mean they are one single entity, each has his own separate account on Bitcointalk and you can't confirm your claim by any of them signing a message, so if this can't be established, then disregard any assumptions that may cause confusion for you, Satoshi is not Hal Finney.

I think everybody only able to make an assumption about who is Satoshi, what makes you think there will be legit proofs? Do you have any counter to my assumption above? You've mentioned "fake theories", can you quote one with proof? Otherwise you can stop cause confusion for yourself in the public

[nutildah]

This is probably the 80th time this comparison has been made, just here, on this forum. But I'd like to address this claim in particular as its the one that is unfamiliar:

Why not fix the overheating problem then? Because no such problem existed in the first place.

He wasn't necessarily worried about "overheating", he said it made his "computer run hot" and the fan noise bothered him. He had accrued at least several thousand BTC during his time as a miner... wouldn't that be enough to call it quits on something that really didn't have a lot of utility while he was alive and active?

Regardless, of course overheating was a problem, and it couldn't easily be solved by code changes.

Also make sure your cpu fans are working, your heatsink is actually on, machine is clear of dust, etc or you might overheat.

It would be nice if the next version of Bitcoin had the ability to monitor the temperature of computer components and automatically reduce the number of threads generating bitcoins whenever the temperature reaches dangerous levels. Or even just a scheduler to turn bitcoin generation off during the hot of the day would be great. I recently moved my computer into a closet of a spare bedroom that doesn't get air conditioning and I'm a little worried about the temperature. Perhaps I'll just turn off bitcoin generation until the weather starts to cool down.

Core 2 Quad Extreme Mobile @ 2.53ghz, Gentoo 32bit:
~2000khash/sec...but if the room is hot, the CPU will get up to 95C, it'll throttle and get ~1600khash/sec. I usually run it on 2 cores @ 1.6ghz, for ~630khash/sec
Edit: 2 cores @ 1.6ghz, getting ~1440khash/sec with 0.3.6

[flatt]

This is probably the 80th time this comparison has been made, just here, on this forum. But I'd like to address this claim in particular as its the one that is unfamiliar:

Why not fix the overheating problem then? Because no such problem existed in the first place.

He wasn't necessarily worried about "overheating", he said it made his "computer run hot" and the fan noise bothered him. He had accrued at least several thousand BTC during his time as a miner... wouldn't that be enough to call it quits on something that really didn't have a lot of utility while he was alive and active?


Regardless, of course overheating was a problem, and it couldn't easily be solved by code changes.

My point on that statement is:
Hal said he reported bugs to Satoshi and Satoshi fixed them, why Hal never mentioned this problem to Satoshi? Instead, he is trying to fix this by himself,
https://i.ibb.co/dwLYGrxQ/Capture.jpg

HalFinney discovered this problem as early as January 2009, and you cite reports from others about "overheating" in May 2010.

[Pmalek]

1. Satoshi vanished just about the same time Hal Finney was diagnosed with the terminal disease ALS. There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

It's been speculated that satoshi disappeared around the time the CIA became interested in Bitcoin. Gavin Andresen wrote that he was invited to present Bitcoin to the CIA. Satoshi stopped being active around that time I think. One might say that he wasn't comfortable having the CIA look more closely into his work so he handed over control to other developers and left.

Whatever his reasons for disappearing were, I guess we will never find out.

[flatt]

1. Satoshi vanished just about the same time Hal Finney was diagnosed with the terminal disease ALS. There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

It's been speculated that satoshi disappeared around the time the CIA became interested in Bitcoin. Gavin Andresen wrote that he was invited to present Bitcoin to the CIA. Satoshi stopped being active around that time I think. One might say that he wasn't comfortable having the CIA look more closely into his work so he handed over control to other developers and left.

Whatever his reasons for disappearing were, I guess we will never find out.

"Uncomfortable" is a common excuse to hide something. He handed over control of Bitcoin to another developer because he knew ALS was not a disease that would allow him to live more than 5 years.

[stwenhao]

If we are talking about RPOW and Bitcoin code, can you tell me where the significant differences are?

There are many different things.

1. Hal used multi line comments "/**/", while Satoshi used single line comments "//".
2. Hal added a new line after function return type, while Satoshi put it in the same line.
3. Hal used pointers "*" from C, while Satoshi used references "&" from C++.
4. Hal used Apple preprocessor macros, while Satoshi used Windows preprocessor defines.
5. Hal wrote it in C, while Satoshi used many features from C++ standard library, for example std::pair and std::map.

And so on, and so forth. The code is written in a completely different style, using completely different tools, and even different Operating Systems.

Even if you compare Satoshi's code in C, from the whitepaper, then it is formatted in a completely different way, than Hal's code in C.

[flatt]

If we are talking about RPOW and Bitcoin code, can you tell me where the significant differences are?

There are many different things.

1. Hal used multi line comments "/**/", while Satoshi used single line comments "//".
2. Hal added a new line after function return type, while Satoshi put it in the same line.
3. Hal used pointers "*" from C, while Satoshi used references "&" from C++.
4. Hal used Apple preprocessor macros, while Satoshi used Windows preprocessor defines.
5. Hal wrote it in C, while Satoshi used many features from C++ standard library, for example std::pair and std::map.

And so on, and so forth. The code is written in a completely different style, using completely different tools, and even different Operating Systems.

Even if you compare Satoshi's code in C, from the whitepaper, then it is formatted in a completely different way, than Hal's code in C.

With the differences you mentioned, is it impossible for someone like HalFinney who has experience with the concept to do it?
HalFinney developed RPOW in 2004, is 4-5 years not enough time for someone like HalFinney to implement it in another way?

[BlackBoss_]

You gave me a link to a ridiculous statement that points to proof of sending emails and bitcoins from Satoshi to Mike Hearn while Hal was running a marathon.
I think anyone can send emails at their own time and emails can be sent while doing other things if the goal is to disguise their identity.

If you read all of that blog post, you would see that there are more proofs than just a Bitcoin transaction and the marathon participation.

Your reply makes me feeling like you only scroll down a little bit from a blog post title and skip remaining parts of the blog post with more proofs as follow.

Singularity Summit 2010
The IP Address
Satoshi's Email to Martti Malmi (Sirius)
Inconsistencies in Coding Styles
Inconsistencies in Personas
Inconsistencies in Activity Gaps

[dzungmobile]

It's been speculated that satoshi disappeared around the time the CIA became interested in Bitcoin. Gavin Andresen wrote that he was invited to present Bitcoin to the CIA. Satoshi stopped being active around that time I think. One might say that he wasn't comfortable having the CIA look more closely into his work so he handed over control to other developers and left.

This.
Gavin will visit the CIA

Archives of emails from Satoshi to Gavin Andresen.
https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/gavin-andresen/
https://gavinandresen.ninja/eleven-years-ago-today

We will never know the real reasons of his disappearance.

Subject: alert key
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshin@gmx.com
26 Apr 2011, 10:29

I wish you wouldn’t keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle. Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.
I’ve moved on to other things and will probably be unavailable. Here’s the CAlert key and broadcast code in case you need it. You should probably give it to at least one or two other people. There are a few long time users who are always around all the time.

[JCCN11]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2813.msg39045#msg39045

I read all of Hal's posts and one of them really caught my attention. On January 15, 2011, he suggested to raise bitcoins to send Satoshi to the Financial Cryptography conference. Right after, one of the participants said that Satoshi would hardly accept because he wanted to remain anonymous. This was obvious to everyone on the forum. Why would Hal suggest this? He was an experient cypherpunk who communicated with Satoshi in early days of the project, and obviously knew that Satoshi was a pseudonym. This sounds really strange.

[flatt]

You gave me a link to a ridiculous statement that points to proof of sending emails and bitcoins from Satoshi to Mike Hearn while Hal was running a marathon.
I think anyone can send emails at their own time and emails can be sent while doing other things if the goal is to disguise their identity.

If you read all of that blog post, you would see that there are more proofs than just a Bitcoin transaction and the marathon participation.

Your reply makes me feeling like you only scroll down a little bit from a blog post title and skip remaining parts of the blog post with more proofs as follow.

Singularity Summit 2010
The IP Address
Satoshi's Email to Martti Malmi (Sirius)
Inconsistencies in Coding Styles
Inconsistencies in Personas
Inconsistencies in Activity Gaps

I was quite surprised because it turns out there are people who respond like this 
I was only responding that marathon "incident" because probably that is the most arguably things

1. Singularity Summit 2010?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2436;sa=showPosts
I suggest you to see for yourself how active HalFinney is until 2013.
2. Satoshi's Email to Martti Malmi (Sirius)
Anyone can do the same camouflage, right?
3. Inconsistencies in Coding Styles
Answered above my post (Your reply makes me feeling like you only scroll down a little bit from this post and doing instant reply skipping the facts above.)
4. Inconsistencies in Personas
Everybody has a private world, guess what about Hal Finney? Satoshi Nakamoto is his private world.
5. Inconsistencies in Activity Gaps
Answered above my post (Your reply makes me feeling like you only scroll down a little bit from this post and doing instant reply skipping the facts above.)

We will never know the real reasons of his disappearance.

There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

No reason at all, except his health issue.

This sounds really strange.

recognize the signs.

Won't you recognize the sign?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ab/dying_outside/

That's my story. Travel is very difficult for me now.

[Perfectbaby]

Sorry to say why has this been repeating itself over the time, sincerely if I am not mistakenly this topics and comparison has been raised several times now and yet no meaningful arguments was made from it and yet they still kept repeating this same post and comparison.
Hal finney is not Satoshi nakamoto the better we have peace over the time.

[flatt]

Sorry to say why has this been repeating itself over the time, sincerely if I am not mistakenly this topics and comparison has been raised several times now and yet no meaningful arguments was made from it and yet they still kept repeating this same post and comparison.
Hal finney is not Satoshi nakamoto the better we have peace over the time.

with little credit to me.

Just giving a little respect to the creator in a forum dedicated to what he created, is that too much?
There are some mental disorders in someone who wants to be recognized but doesn't want to be known.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Sorry to say why has this been repeating itself over the time, sincerely if I am not mistakenly this topics and comparison has been raised several times now and yet no meaningful arguments was made from it and yet they still kept repeating this same post and comparison.
Hal finney is not Satoshi nakamoto the better we have peace over the time.

OP, seems to be very knowledgeable about a lot of things he has said here, putting out some facts as a good defence for his claims and like you said, this comparison  has came up many times on the forum in different threads, but what I just want to clearly understand is that, after we have finally proven that Hal Finney was Satoshi and now that he is late, what should we do with the discovery? Just curious to know what we are going to do with the discovery after several evidence beyond no doubt has be brought to light to proof the claim, what next @flatt?

[dkbit98]

Here we go again...
OP it's not like you are the first guy in the world making this speculation claims  
There have been a bunch of people who claimed Hal was Satoshi, but I also remember reading all the reasons why he isn't Satoshi.
On top of that there are many other candidates for Satoshi, and I prefer that his real identity remains unknown.

[stwenhao]

is it impossible for someone like HalFinney who has experience with the concept to do it?

Possible, but very inconvenient, costly, and against Occam's Razor.

is 4-5 years not enough time for someone like HalFinney to implement it in another way?

Not only "in another way", but also with a different Operating System (Hal used MacOS, and Satoshi used Windows), under different IDEs (Hal used tools from MacOS, while Satoshi used Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 SP6), and with different file types (Satoshi released specifically Windows-only version, with DLLs, EXEs, and Windows-based bitmaps and icons, using Windows-based resource files, and with Windows-based file encodings).

And there is more: you have different tools for making PDFs for different Operating Systems, you have slightly different C++ compiler bugs (like std::min bug, which was immediately detected and solved by non-Windows users, but was not fixed by Satoshi, because it worked fine on his machine).

Also, if you assume, that Hal used MacOS in the past, but switched into Windows somehow, then tell me, why Satoshi tested his binaries only under Windows, and never even tried making any MacOS version?

(Thanks Laszlo for the Mac OSX build!)

Imagine using MacOS in the past for some years, and never releasing a single Bitcoin client binary for that system, and waiting until version 0.3.13, when another user did it. In October 2010. Almost two years after Bitcoin started.

Edit:

I don't even know if the resolver logic can be changed on Windows.

See? Hal wrote that sentence in December 2010, when Satoshi developed Windows-based Bitcoin client for at least two years. And he couldn't just check that on Windows, but he knew, that it can be done on MacOS? Why?