New Documentary "Finding Satoshi" Claims Finney & Sassaman as Bitcoin Co-Creator

[ultrloa]

So now they started making up co-satoshis, and that can basically be anyone who ever communicated with Satoshi or worked on code in the early days of Bitcoin.
Before doing that they claimed for both of this guys as the real satoshi, and now they inventing new stories.
I guess it's still better than having countless clowns claiming to be satoshi and creating new crap coins.

Maybe they are widen up the narrative and think about that if they name those two people as the real Satoshi it can catch the interest of people to read those documentaries they release.

But for sure this is another speculation, since what provably they released is pure speculations which it will end up again on another question.

It seems that they are not done bothering and using the name of Satoshi to get views. I will not get surprised if they say in future that there are many of them and Satoshi Nakamoto is a group of experts then those people behind those name is Hal Finney, Len Sassaman, Nick Szabo, Dorian Nakamoto and Wei Dai.

[hd49728]

Maybe they are widen up the narrative and think about that if they name those two people as the real Satoshi it can catch the interest of people to read those documentaries they release.

But for sure this is another speculation, since what provably they released is pure speculations which it will end up again on another question.

It seems that they are not done bothering and using the name of Satoshi to get views. I will not get surprised if they say in future that there are many of them and Satoshi Nakamoto is a group of experts then those people behind those name is Hal Finney, Len Sassaman, Nick Szabo, Dorian Nakamoto and Wei Dai.

They need something to hook attention of people to their documentary films and sometimes they are aware of information or hint they leak is quite wrong but they know the crowd, especially newbies are interested in such information. That's reason of using these things for hyping the crowd and increasing chance of success of their documentary films.

With senior people in this market, of course, it's hard to convince them watching those films and believe in given information in such low value documentary films.

[Satofan44]

It's fodder for conspiracy theorists, but it might be enjoyable for cypherpunk fans. Let's hope it's not just pure espionage and they're not using the Bitcoin name solely for sensationalism.

A Cyperphunk would not enjoy movies or documentaries made particularly to look after the identity of somebody.  It would be interesting to see what methods people are using to try and find out who you are, but looking at people desperately trying to figure out who a person who wants their Privacy to be respected is?  It is not enjoyable.

Speculative bullshit investigations and documentaries are definitely not for cypherpunks. It would only be interesting and enjoyable if they used some advanced digital forensic methods or things like that, instead most of these are made on speculations and pure coincidences. Things such as: Look this user misspelled the same word as the other user did once, and they logged in a few times at the same time.   Furthermore, this is just a business scheme -- they are trying to charge $18 to watch this shit movie.

I have not watched any of these documentaries and I will not entertain any of them considering it stands against who I am.  If it was a criminal, I would get it.  It is somebody who invented the only viable alternative to the current Fiat system however.  It empowered a lot of people.  It strengthened the idea of Privacy and financial Freedom.  Entertaining these feels like disrespecting the person who offered me all of this.  It does not sit right with me.

It may be Finney.  Who cares.  Give the man his eternal peace and let his secret stay in his cryogenic grave with him.

Exactly. I've written this somewhere else, by now satoshi is basically dead. There is no way for some person to prove that they were satoshi in the past, unless they prepared extremely advanced proofs ahead of time (which they did not, life is not a movie). Any key that is associated with satoshi could be compromised by a 3rd party by now one way or another (or if not yet, it soon will be) so that is not worth anything either. Satoshi is dead, we are all Satoshi. Give it a rest people.

But for sure this is another speculation, since what provably they released is pure speculations which it will end up again on another question.

You did not watch it, so to state that it is "for sure" something is false -- the correct way to frame it is that it is probably another speculation. It can be watched, once it is available for free somewhere, if someone has some free time to kill. It is not going to be much worse than 99% of the content that people watch these days, most movies and TV shows are generic shit -- but hey, the sheep like their endless entertainment.  

[marrcelo]

Honestly, all these stories about who Satoshi is seem like people forcing a narrative. They take names like Hal Finney or Len Sassaman and try to fit everything around them, even when the connections are weak. We never see concrete evidence, just assumptions piling up on top of each other. If you research enough, you can make anyone seem suspicious. In the end, it's more about curiosity than about the truth. The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto makes people accept ideas without real evidence.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I believe those skillsets combined = Satoshi Nakamoto's skillset.

You are Dorian. Give me one good reason why you're choosing your birth name for your pseudonym. Same question for Hal. Give me one good reason why you're choosing your neighbor's birth name for your pseudonym. Doesn't make any sense.

Maybe Hal and Satoshi knew each other with their real names, and Satoshi knew Dorian also. Who knows. 

[Satofan44]

Honestly, all these stories about who Satoshi is seem like people forcing a narrative. They take names like Hal Finney or Len Sassaman and try to fit everything around them, even when the connections are weak. We never see concrete evidence, just assumptions piling up on top of each other. If you research enough, you can make anyone seem suspicious. In the end, it's more about curiosity than about the truth. The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto makes people accept ideas without real evidence.

You can't provide something that does not exist, which is concrete evidence. If anyone has evidence on that level if it exists at all that would be the NSA, and for sure they are not going to give it to random idiots playing to be professional journalists. In all likelihood, concrete evidence does not exist at all -- and those that want to capitalize on the mystery of satoshi are making up all sorts of shit in order to regain some relevance for themselves. People who create such documentaries or articles should be banished from society and the profession.

I believe those skillsets combined = Satoshi Nakamoto's skillset.

You are Dorian. Give me one good reason why you're choosing your birth name for your pseudonym. Same question for Hal. Give me one good reason why you're choosing your neighbor's birth name for your pseudonym. Doesn't make any sense.

Maybe Hal and Satoshi knew each other with their real names, and Satoshi knew Dorian also. Who knows.  

Of course it does not make any sense. From an opsec perspective, the person that went far and beyond to hide their identity would provide all sorts of diversions and misdirection. People who do not even know the basic principles of opsec and anonymity in theory have no idea what they are talking about. I'll give a personal example here, my username is Satofan which implies that I am a fan of satoshi -- which I am. In real life, nobody has ever heard me mention his name ever at all. If you looked for real fans of satoshi, you would never find me as I would be in the exact opposite group. This is a basic as it gets, and what satoshi did goes much deeper than that. You can fake the timezone, you can fake the writing style, you can fake anything with enough diligence and effort.

People tend to believe some basic nonsense like look at the time when he was active and writing back, that means he was in these timezones. No, it fucking does not anything at all unless you have proof of this -- you could only derive a higher probability of him being in some timezones but it is not proof of anything. Most users in this example have never even considered that there are plenty of people that live inverse lives to the majority in terms of wakeful times? They are awake during the night time of their timezone. As if night shift workers didn't exist at all? Idiots, without a working brain.

[PrivacyG]

Of course it does not make any sense. From an opsec perspective, the person that went far and beyond to hide their identity would provide all sorts of diversions and misdirection. People who do not even know the basic principles of opsec and anonymity in theory have no idea what they are talking about. I'll give a personal example here, my username is Satofan which implies that I am a fan of satoshi -- which I am. In real life, nobody has ever heard me mention his name ever at all. If you looked for real fans of satoshi, you would never find me as I would be in the exact opposite group. This is a basic as it gets, and what satoshi did goes much deeper than that. You can fake the timezone, you can fake the writing style, you can fake anything with enough diligence and effort.

I have this feeling people ignore things others do that they would not.  And I believe it applies in this situation too.  People would not make any effort to hide their identity.  In fact.  They seem to make all the efforts they can to reveal it.  In the past, people used to make separate accounts to insult, to mock et cetera.  Nowadays they do not even do that any more and use their main accounts with their real face and name attached to it instead.

[coupable]

Honestly, all these stories about who Satoshi is seem like people forcing a narrative. They take names like Hal Finney or Len Sassaman and try to fit everything around them, even when the connections are weak. We never see concrete evidence, just assumptions piling up on top of each other. If you research enough, you can make anyone seem suspicious. In the end, it's more about curiosity than about the truth. The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto makes people accept ideas without real evidence.

This asks the question about what is the goal to search behind the story of bitcoin. What should be the benefit from knowing who is the founder of bitcoin? Should he held accountable of anything? At best scenarios, only authorities can make such an investigation for a good reason. But for others, it is just a subject of grabbing some funds from a new story that can be realized in a movie good for consumption.

I have never thought it ethical to look for the identity of someone who chose to stay anonymous. Especially that his anonymity was a beneficial move that serves the priciples of decentralization and privacy, which are the basics of the blockchain technology behind the cryptocurrency concept.

[AndrewWeb]

When I first looked into this years ago, I thought Finney was Satoshi. Later I thought Back was Satoshi. Now I think Bitcoin and Satoshi was created by Todd & Finney.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe those skillsets combined = Satoshi Nakamoto's skillset.

You are Dorian. Give me one good reason why you're choosing your birth name for your pseudonym. Same question for Hal. Give me one good reason why you're choosing your neighbor's birth name for your pseudonym. Doesn't make any sense.

Maybe Hal and Satoshi knew each other with their real names, and Satoshi knew Dorian also. Who knows. 

I could only guess, but it probably didn't matter for them during that time.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Because who would have believed that Bitcoin would be as important and be as impactful that it could become this generation's Tour De Force? Because who would have believed that the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto" would be one of the most recognizable today? During that time, WHO?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Because who would have believed that Bitcoin would be as important and be as impactful that it could become this generation's Tour De Force?

Based on the careful actions of the creator, I interpret that he did believe it can work out. He said he was working for 2 years, because he was certain of the design. He used Tor for every activity we are aware of. He paid with cash for the domain name transaction by an anonymous domain name registrar.

He was really careful. You're not that much careful for the lolz, and you're definitely not selecting a random person's birth name for fun.

[BluebloodCXVI]

We can see a lot of discussions about Satoshi Nakamoto, but still now it remains a mystery. Recently news popped up in my newsfeed about "New Satoshi documentary makes the case Hal Finney and Len Sassaman were Bitcoin's co-creators". They have presented their arguments, although I am not sure whether the arguments are right or wrong. Because we see a lot of arguments; even a couple of people claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Have you noticed something like this? Have you read the news? Do you think Hal Finney and Sassaman were part of Satoshi's team and they were co-creators of Bitcoin? To me, some key points indicate that both of them had worked with Satoshi, but I can't make sure they are co-creators. What do you think?



Image created by Gemini

Yeah I saw the finding satoshi documentary making the rounds, these type of things make sense at first but when you begin to really ponder about it, you’ll realize how less solid those claims are.
The idea is that Hal Finney and Len Sassaman were behind bitcoin together and they were hiding under the name Satoshi nakamoto. They point to stuff like timing, writing styles and the fact that both guys were deep in the cypherpunk scene. And look, I won’t lie that some of it does make you pause and think, Finney was clearly in direct contact with Satoshi early on, and both of them had the brains to pull off something like Bitcoin so that  part isn’t far-fetched at all.
But here’s where I personally draw the line, there’s still no hard proof, None. No signed message, no movement from Satoshi’s coins, no smoking gun, Just connecting dots and trying to fill in gaps.
And we’ve seen this type of things before, every now and then, a new theory drops, people get excited, it sounds convincing and then all of a sudden, it fades because it can’t actually prove anything.
So yeah, could they have been involved somehow? Maybe contributors , early collaborators, part of the same circle, sure, that’s reasonable.
But calling them co-creators? That feels like a reach without something concrete to back it up. At the end of the day, we’re still exactly where we’ve always been with this nobody really knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is, and maybe that’s the whole point, maybe we might never truly know.

[SquallLeonhart]

So now they started making up co-satoshis, and that can basically be anyone who ever communicated with Satoshi or worked on code in the early days of Bitcoin.
Before doing that they claimed for both of this guys as the real satoshi, and now they inventing new stories.
I guess it's still better than having countless clowns claiming to be satoshi and creating new crap coins.

They will make up whatever they can, and try to act as if they actually "found" something, when in reality what they found turns out to be things that we have known for over a decade.

Otherwise, they can't fund these projects, they do not do this to actually find satoshi, they do this because it's a topic that is hot, and trendy, and then they get funding for it, and after they are done, they can use this to say "I have shot this documentary" and get more funding for their next project. They have absolutely no interest in actually finding him at all, because lets face it, if nobody else did, how could they?

[Satofan44]

Of course it does not make any sense. From an opsec perspective, the person that went far and beyond to hide their identity would provide all sorts of diversions and misdirection. People who do not even know the basic principles of opsec and anonymity in theory have no idea what they are talking about. I'll give a personal example here, my username is Satofan which implies that I am a fan of satoshi -- which I am. In real life, nobody has ever heard me mention his name ever at all. If you looked for real fans of satoshi, you would never find me as I would be in the exact opposite group. This is a basic as it gets, and what satoshi did goes much deeper than that. You can fake the timezone, you can fake the writing style, you can fake anything with enough diligence and effort.

I have this feeling people ignore things others do that they would not.  And I believe it applies in this situation too.  People would not make any effort to hide their identity.  In fact.  They seem to make all the efforts they can to reveal it.  In the past, people used to make separate accounts to insult, to mock et cetera.  Nowadays they do not even do that any more and use their main accounts with their real face and name attached to it instead.

Yeah, that is exactly it. I can not say for sure everything that satoshi did, nobody can -- they would be speculations, but the pattern of behavior with him is clear in terms that one should be expecting all sorts of diversions. Some of the examples there I have listed are very easy, such as faking the timezone or things relating to the username and such. Writing style is perhaps one of the most difficult ones as it requires consistency, but it is actually easier than it seems. It can be done manually or automatically, and the main difference comes in the process of posting instead. Normally we just start writing a reply, edit it a bit and then post it. To fake a writing style, the process would just have a secondary editing stage where the previously ready-to-publish post would go into editing to make it sound different from you. In terms of manual editing it may sound cumbersome but you could design a relatively efficiency word-replacement table which ensures that you never use some words but always use their replacements and things like that. To be honest, I would be quite surprised if he was not faking his writing style.

Anyway, I am not interested at all in this search. Whether alive or dead, satoshi should be put to rest. And if he is still alive, there is no need to ruin someone's life because people couldn't control their curiosity. As they say, they should get a life instead.

Because who would have believed that Bitcoin would be as important and be as impactful that it could become this generation's Tour De Force?

Based on the careful actions of the creator, I interpret that he did believe it can work out. He said he was working for 2 years, because he was certain of the design. He used Tor for every activity we are aware of. He paid with cash for the domain name transaction by an anonymous domain name registrar.

He was really careful. You're not that much careful for the lolz, and you're definitely not selecting a random person's birth name for fun.

Contrary to what the other user thinks, people are not only careful if they believe something is dangerous or if something is going to end up being so significant as Bitcoin. There are people who casually exist in the internet with levels of carefulness that most people do not display when dealing with the most dangerous situations in their lives. It is a style of life, not a "I'll do it when I need to" thing (you won't or you will make errors).

[Wind_FURY]

Because who would have believed that Bitcoin would be as important and be as impactful that it could become this generation's Tour De Force?

Based on the careful actions of the creator, I interpret that he did believe it can work out. He said he was working for 2 years, because he was certain of the design. He used Tor for every activity we are aware of. He paid with cash for the domain name transaction by an anonymous domain name registrar.

He was really careful. You're not that much careful for the lolz, and you're definitely not selecting a random person's birth name for fun.

Or in the context of my post, they probably just wanted the pseudonym to have its own identity, and be its own person, no?

Who truly would have believed that Bitcoin would be what it is today? From the viewpoint of someone from 2010, it does have potential, but to be as our generation's Tour De Force? I would probably too stupid to see it during 2010.

[PrivacyG]

Who truly would have believed that Bitcoin would be what it is today? From the viewpoint of someone from 2010, it does have potential, but to be as our generation's Tour De Force? I would probably too stupid to see it during 2010.

Satoshi did,

I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

Considering all his overall preventive measures, there is no point in NOT preventing your identity from being leaked in the future if the project has a massive success.  A Cypherpunk would have believed and cared to hide their face away.  I do not know if I fit the definition of a Cypherpunk myself.  But I definitely do think of my Privacy first in a lot of the daily things I do.

[hd49728]

Considering all his overall preventive measures, there is no point in NOT preventing your identity from being leaked in the future if the project has a massive success.  A Cypherpunk would have believed and cared to hide their face away.  I do not know if I fit the definition of a Cypherpunk myself.  But I definitely do think of my Privacy first in a lot of the daily things I do.

Satoshi Nakamoto prevented his identity from community in the future long time before his disappearance from communities by this action.

Satoshi Nakamoto deleted topic 3 permanently. It is unbelievable that a person who cared a lot about privacy and anonymity did posted the real name and address.

By quickly deleting topic 3, Satoshi Nakamoto proactively prevented his identity to be known by community in the future.

Is this the first bitcointalk.org topic?
What happened with topic 1,2,3 and 4?

1, 2, and 4 exist in the staff forum. 3 was permanently deleted at some point (it must have contained Satoshi's real name and address).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Or in the context of my post, they probably just wanted the pseudonym to have its own identity, and be its own person, no?

That is obviously fine. What make no sense to me is why selecting "Satoshi Nakamoto" as a pseudonym, when the first person you're talking with and making transactions with is Hal Finney who lives next to "Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto". Isn't that just weird? Why selecting this pseudonym if your ultimate goal is anonymity? It's not as if "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a common Japanese name.

Is this the first bitcointalk.org topic?
What happened with topic 1,2,3 and 4?

1, 2, and 4 exist in the staff forum. 3 was permanently deleted at some point (it must have contained Satoshi's real name and address).

There's no way Satoshi just randomly typed his real name and address on an Internet board. I don't understand why theymos would write that.

[AndrewWeb]

Or in the context of my post, they probably just wanted the pseudonym to have its own identity, and be its own person, no?

That is obviously fine. What make no sense to me is why selecting "Satoshi Nakamoto" as a pseudonym, when the first person you're talking with and making transactions with is Hal Finney who lives next to "Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto". Isn't that just weird? Why selecting this pseudonym if your ultimate goal is anonymity? It's not as if "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a common Japanese name.

The name "Satoshi Nakamoto" was obviously Hal Finneys idea. Don't think Peter Todd knew "Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto" lived a couple of blocks from Hal Finney.

[Wind_FURY]

Who truly would have believed that Bitcoin would be what it is today? From the viewpoint of someone from 2010, it does have potential, but to be as our generation's Tour De Force? I would probably too stupid to see it during 2010.

Satoshi did,

I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

Actually, what Satoshi said was "very large transaction volume OR no transaction volume". - He truly didn't know, but he was wise to say the way he said it.

Considering all his overall preventive measures, there is no point in NOT preventing your identity from being leaked in the future if the project has a massive success.  A Cypherpunk would have believed and cared to hide their face away.  I do not know if I fit the definition of a Cypherpunk myself.  But I definitely do think of my Privacy first in a lot of the daily things I do.

It's getting out of context. Read and re-read the previous posts.