NYT Claims Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Is British Cryptographer Adam Back

[Hazink]

Michael Saylor’s response pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

I used to think and view things from this same area as Micheal Saylor. Not until recently. I think there should be more to verify satoshi's identity other than just signing a message from one of the said wallets belonging to him.

Technology is developing, the world is changing what if some key falls into the wrong hand unknown maybe because of an incident on where the key is safe (that's if private key to satoshi wallet is even backup) and the person happens to sign in such message does that automatically prove it's satoshi?

[bitterguy28]

Michael Saylor’s response pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

I used to think and view things from this same area as Micheal Saylor. Not until recently. I think there should be more to verify satoshi's identity other than just signing a message from one of the said wallets belonging to him.

Technology is developing, the world is changing what if some key falls into the wrong hand unknown maybe because of an incident on where the key is safe (that's if private key to satoshi wallet is even backup) and the person happens to sign in such message does that automatically prove it's satoshi?

im sure there are a lot of documents or whatnot that satoshi can use to prove his identity should he want to expose himself. all the other people claiming to be satoshi don’t even have control to his stack of bitcoin. it’ll be interesting if satoshi actually shared his identity and talked to the world but his anonymity only furthers bitcoin’s privacy feature

[LogitechMouse]

---
Why are people wasting their time to know who Satoshi is when Satoshi is not ready to disclose himself, herself or themselves.

They just want to stay afloat when it comes to cryptocurrency that's why they're doing it. Or maybe they just want to share an article with regards to Satoshi hence, this has been created.

Well, many people really want to waste their free time into doing some things that... let's just say aren't that important anymore. I mean does knowing who Satoshi is still a thing right now? Maybe for some who are until now still curious on who really Satoshi is, but for me, it doesn't matter who the creator is anymore. It's almost certain that Adam Back will deny the claims because that will affect his security. Even I assuming that I'm Satoshi will also deny it as well. The only person that's claiming that he's Satoshi is Craig Wright.

Like what theymos said, I think it would be better for the people to be an investigator and find some evidences with regards to who Satoshi is.

[sunsilk]

Why are people wasting their time to know who Satoshi is when Satoshi is not ready to disclose himself, herself or themselves.

Because they've got so much of it and that's why they like to spend debunking who the real satoshi is even if they have no clue of who they are.

Last time when the Epstein files become trending, they're telling that it was him who satoshi is.

Who's going to be on the next list of theirs to be called as the actual satoshi? I guess any connection on the early days to satoshi himself will lead these people to be suspected as they.

[elda34b]

Technology is developing, the world is changing what if some key falls into the wrong hand unknown maybe because of an incident on where the key is safe (that's if private key to satoshi wallet is even backup) and the person happens to sign in such message does that automatically prove it's satoshi?

Well, if you don't trust him, then you're free to do so. I guess you can try to prove their ownership is weak (because it's possible for a quantum computer to track it in 2100 or something), but saying "what if the key is obtained 'illegally'" won't be enough to disprove they own the key imo.

Anyway, whether you believe them or not doesn't really matter. Unless they start dumping their coins, I doubt the effect will be huge. The community has expanded a lot without them for a long time. Which is probably their intention from the beginning.

[Darker45]

In a way, this is good. The more people make wrong guesses as to who the person/persons behind Satoshi Nakamoto is/are, the more the public lose interest in the succeeding guesses. Even now, this hunting is already treated as a nuisance by many.

This isn't even the first time Adam Back is thought to be Satoshi. This isn't the first time he denies it.

But the big problem about making these guesses is that they put the person they claim to be Satoshi, his/her family, friends, relatives in jeopardy. In other words, these pointless expeditions are utterly irresponsible. Not to mention that it lacks minimum respect to Satoshi's right to privacy.

[m2017]

Why are people wasting their time to know who Satoshi is when Satoshi is not ready to disclose himself, herself or themselves.

Because it makes them money. Imagine you own a magazine, and one of your journalists says he's convinced he's figured out who Satoshi is. It doesn't matter if the article contains the holy truth. It only matters if it takes enough attention, and you make money from that attention.

We live in a time when attention is highly monetized.

At least they keep repeating the same names we all know, and there are no new victims.

Maybe because the real Satoshi is among these candidates?

Why are people wasting their time to know who Satoshi is when Satoshi is not ready to disclose himself, herself or themselves.

Human nature is such that we always want to explore new horizons and solve all mysteries. I believe this is not only due to money (as mentioned above), but also to the human desire to be a pioneer and to discover the truth (to do what others have failed to do and thereby become a "champion").

But it is good that Adam Back said it is not true according to what I saw on BBC now.
Adam Back says he is not elusive Bitcoin creator named by New York Times
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrl4l1y9yxo

If Satoshi left the BTC-community while maintaining his anonymity, then he probably wouldn't confess even if his true identity were revealed (unless you're Craig Wright ).

There are some inconsistencies (or, conversely, coincidences) in Adam Back's case, indirect, but they cast a shadow of doubt on him, raising the question, "Could he really be the real Satoshi?" If so, he didn't "hide his true identity" well enough and exposed the entire BTC-network to potential risk.

Satoshi's identity must remain mythical. Forever.

[arzuo]

If Satoshi had revealed himself, he would have done so long ago.
From Craig Wright to today, none of those who want to be the real Satoshi are actually Satoshi.

And I think that those who are trying to be Satoshi are actually just acting to find the real Satoshi, which is never possible!

I think that the real Satoshi will never be revealed, this cycle will continue!

I think only Stephen Craig wright has been the only person that is claiming to be Satoshi, no other person is claiming to be Satoshi. Other people are only called out to be Satoshi but all of them are saying it is not true. Also Adam Back is only called out to likely be Satoshi, but he has also said the claim is biased and also indicating that it is not true.

Craig Wright was asked to make a transaction from Satoshi's wallet as proof in 2018, but he failed and tried to legally prove himself to be Satoshi, which is really ridiculous and nothing more than a drama,
Although Craig Wright has a lot of Bitcoin, he is not Satoshi, it has been proven time and time again!

[X-ray]

There is a lot of speculation, but just because NYT claim someone to be Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't really mean anything but a good headline on their website.

It seems people are so keen to know the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, can't we just appreciate bitcoin and let the mystery be a mystery though? what matters right now is seeing bitcoin growing into among the biggest asset doesn't matter who Satoshi Nakamoto really is.

Gotta respect the fact that Satoshi want to stay anonymous.

[CryptoVoyager24]

Mainstream journalists doing "linguistic analysis" is hilarious. They completely ignore the actual code architecture.

Satoshi originally wrote and compiled bitcoin v0.1 specifically for windows using microsoft foundation classes (MFC) for the GUI. Adam back is a legendary hardcore unix/linux cypherpunk. A 90s unix hacker would literally rather swallow glass than launch a decentralized revolution as a windows-only executable with a clunky microsoft interface. The technical profiles dont match at all. NYT is just writing fanfiction for ad revenue.

[Yamane_Keto]

II think in the end it really doesn't really matter. Adam Back has made one of the most important inventions for Bitcoin when he created Hashcash (and thus the base of the Proof of Work mechanism), and thus he belongs into the pantheon of the people that made Bitcoin possible.

article is based on the premise that Adam Back has a good technical background and laid out most of the foundations that contributed to the Bitcoin white paper without any real evidence.

In a way, this is good. The more people make wrong guesses as to who the person/persons behind Satoshi Nakamoto is/are, the more the public lose interest in the succeeding guesses. Even now, this hunting is already treated as a nuisance by many.

It will add more developers to this list without revealing Satoshi's identity.

[Satofan44]

Fake news, not even worth a deep discussion.

Why are people wasting their time to know who Satoshi is when Satoshi is not ready to disclose himself, herself or themselves.

Because it makes them money. Imagine you own a magazine, and one of your journalists says he's convinced he's figured out who Satoshi is. It doesn't matter if the article contains the holy truth. It only matters if it takes enough attention, and you make money from that attention.

At least they keep repeating the same names we all know, and there are no new victims.

It is because the current level of journalism is basically just mentally limited grifters, they are nothing like the journalists during their golden age. They are completely incompetent, terrible at their job and have limited knowledge in any area that they work in -- but they pretend to know what they are doing, have degrees and rich CVs. Instead of investigating the government, they have turned into a propaganda mouth piece for various governments and money givers. Some well spoken individuals of various political positions and activities in the past were exactly right about many of these things. They are happening almost exactly as predicted.

article is based on the premise that Adam Back has a good technical background and laid out most of the foundations that contributed to the Bitcoin white paper without any real evidence.

The premise could not be more stupid, 10 year old children can do better "research" than this.

Small chance that it is Finney, everyone else on that list has a 0% chance of being satoshi. Don't convince yourself into some delusional beliefs like many people do about these things.

If he is Satoshi Nakamoto, he would not show himself around over many years.

This is not a good counter argument, because you have idiots who will always say "that is exactly what he would do" for whatever explanation you give on behaviors. They've watched too many shows about reverse psychology and lying, and now proclaim themselves experts as if this itself could be an argument.

I also would like to quote this post.

But I'm really not a fan of the whole "search for Satoshi" genre.

This is the most important part of this. Satoshi is dead, and there will never be proof that someone is satoshi. Any proof that comes with a private key will not be valid, as it can not be proven that the original person is the one who has access to this key in the future. Therefore, objectively he is dead. Most people have issues with permanent death or near permanent death (I'm looking at you @d5000) and want to dismiss stuff like this on weird grounds instead of accepting the reality. This is reflected in their fear of talking about death and so forth, avoid the subject at all cost kind of thing or insert some coping mechanism into the conversation.

Satoshi is dead, the quest is over.

[serjent05]

Why are people wasting their time to know who Satoshi is when Satoshi is not ready to disclose himself, herself or themselves.

Curiosity, fame and money.  I think these are the three reasons why people are wasting time trying to know who the person behind Satoshi Nakamoto is.  We all know that Bitcoin has been so popular, but despite that, no one knows the person behind that invention.

So with curiosity, people do research and with very little information, they start creating assumptions and speculation, and they try to back them up with several theories.  While others look for fame and want to be the one to decipher who Satoshi really is, and others just for the sake of money, rehash several theories, creating articles over and over again, even without additional information backing their claim.

Satoshi is dead, the quest is over.

I also think this one, but there is no factual evidence about this, either.  This has the same issue as others who claim that this guy is Satoshi.  No Evidence to back it up.

[Satofan44]

Satoshi is dead, the quest is over.

I also think this one, but there is no factual evidence about this, either.  This has the same issue as others who claim that this guy is Satoshi.  No Evidence to back it up.

You didn't understand the point then at all. This claim does not require evidence. There is no way for a person to prove that they are Satoshi anymore, so the Satoshi persona is dead forever. Read again carefully what I have said as part of the prelude to that statement. You quoted it out of context and then fabricated a dismissal that does not make sense.

This is the most important part of this. Satoshi is dead, and there will never be proof that someone is satoshi. Any proof that comes with a private key will not be valid, as it can not be proven that the original person is the one who has access to this key in the future. Therefore, objectively he is dead. Most people have issues with permanent death or near permanent death (I'm looking at you @d5000) and want to dismiss stuff like this on weird grounds instead of accepting the reality. This is reflected in their fear of talking about death and so forth, avoid the subject at all cost kind of thing or insert some coping mechanism into the conversation.

You come with an old email account that was Satohi's? Hacked. You write like Satoshi? AI. You reveal some email conversations that Satoshi had? Hacked. Other accounts? Hacked. Genesis private key, PGP keys, other address keys that are P2PK and claimed to be satoshi's? Hacked, one way or another (QC or not). Therefore, how would they prove that they are Satoshi in a mathematically sound way? They can't anymore, therefore Satoshi is dead. If coins that were allegedly Satoshi's ever move to another address, that is not going to be proof that Satoshi did it. Learn it, embrace it and stop with various stages of grief and wasting your lives on bullshit.

[d5000]

Satoshi is dead, and there will never be proof that someone is satoshi. Any proof that comes with a private key will not be valid, as it can not be proven that the original person is the one who has access to this key in the future. Therefore, objectively he is dead. Most people have issues with permanent death or near permanent death (I'm looking at you @d5000) and want to dismiss stuff like this on weird grounds instead of accepting the reality.

My point in the other discussion was just that I consider death "permanent" and not "some state where you could recover from, even if it's unlikely". (So for your original argumentation for example something that's obsolete is "dead" - but look at vinyl records, for example ...) That discussion is not so much about the word "dead" but about "black and white" vs. "grayscale" (or even "colourful") worldviews

And here we've the same problem. I guess that you in general are correct, and that the likelihood that anybody could convince somebody that he's Satoshi is very low. But I would not categorically rule it out that he's found. If someone has access to several private keys of the Satoshi era (as an undiscovered QC which already could run Shor's algorithm, would have difficulties with, as every key would take years even if current maximum qubit numbers would not need error correction at all) _and_ can present timestamped documents (published and/or emailed to other known people) from the pre-AI era, then a lot of people would believe them. I'm sure historians could tell more about accepted methods to prove a fact in the digital past.

I can of course understand your and other Bitcoiners' need to let Satoshi RIP and keep him as a mythological figure. But imo, without some popcorn sometimes, life would be boring. (As long as no personality rights are violated.)

[The Taxman]

Based on what has emerged in the article and from Adam Back’s response to the New York Times confrontation, it is highly likely that he is Satoshi. In this case, it is rather Adam Back who needs to prove that he is not Satoshi — which he could do quite easily. But it isn't easy because he is Satoshi. The end game.

[X-ray]

Based on what has emerged in the article and from Adam Back’s response to the New York Times confrontation, it is highly likely that he is Satoshi. In this case, it is rather Adam Back who needs to prove that he is not Satoshi — which he could do quite easily. But it isn't easy because he is Satoshi. The end game.

How exactly Adam Back could prove that he isn't Satoshi if the general public assumption and media keep calling him the real Satoshi though? there is no actual way to prove that he isn't Satoshi the same way Dorian Nakamoto is having a hard time proving that he isn't Satoshi.

I mean you wouldn't expect him to sign using some random addresses and make announcement that he isn't Satoshi right?

[SilverCryptoBullet]

How exactly Adam Back could prove that he isn't Satoshi if the general public assumption and media keep calling him the real Satoshi though? there is no actual way to prove that he isn't Satoshi the same way Dorian Nakamoto is having a hard time proving that he isn't Satoshi.

I mean you wouldn't expect him to sign using some random addresses and make announcement that he isn't Satoshi right?

Adam Back and other people don't have to prove that he is not or they're not Satoshi Nakamoto. They only have to provide documents to prove that they're Satoshi Nakamoto.

Logically, anyone can point at me and say that "I am Satoshi Nakamoto", but with me, I would prefer simply ignoring them and I won't have to do anything else. Trying to prove that I am not Satoshi Nakamoto firstly is very unnecessary, and it's also very time wasting.

I would like to keep distance from such accusations on me, and with time dust will be settled naturally, as I know who I am, and surely not Satoshi Nakamoto. Social media are noisy and if Adam Back has interactions with such accusations on social media, it's like adding more fuel to the fire, and it's unnecessary too.

Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Jack Dorsey is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

Jameson Lopp has his favorite in finding evidence and writing such articles, so you can expect another one from him like "Adam Back is not Satoshi Nakamoto".

[gwapako]

People are curious that is why they wanted to know who invented bitcoin. This is not just an ordinary invention. It involves a trillion-dollar investment. Then people are just drawn towards mystery (the owner, the money or power).

Whether Adam is Satoshi or isn't Satoshi, that cannot change how bitcoin is working at the present.

[aiying715]

Satoshi Nakamoto will always be a mystery—that's what I think.