If not Hal Finney, then Len Sasasman Satoshi?

[Nothingtodo]

This topic was originally created out of curiosity and I was very interested in knowing that's why I created it. There is an unknown story surrounding Satoshi all over the world and some compare Satoshi to a group of young people whose cryptographic knowledge is compared to aliens. Many also refer to Satoshi as a single person but have not been able to provide any accurate information about his identity so far.
Many of us may think of Hal Finney as Satoshi, but in reality, although he has some similarities, most of the arguments go against him. Satoshi may have made the first Bitcoin transaction with Hal Finney, but this information alone is not enough to prove Satoshi was.

However, many have found some similarities between Len Sasasman and Satoshi Nakamoto. The most acceptable similarity to me is that Satoshi hid himself from all online activities (Bitcointalk) on December 12, 2010 and has not exchanged any contact, email, or other information with anyone since then. And the last time Satoshi was active online was on April 23, 2011 and he has not been active online since then.
But Len Sasasman committed suicide on July 3, 2011, which is very similar to the date of Len Sasasman's suicide, along with Satoshi's hiding and last active activity. This points a lot to Satoshi. The subject seems very sensitive to me, which one seems more acceptable to you?

[hd49728]

Two years ago, a HBO Documentary film released and there was discussion about it.
Satoshi Identity Revealed LOL

Two years later, people still talk about Sassaman as Satoshi Nakamoto LOL.

My current feeling on Satoshi's identity is:
 - Sassaman is a very bad candidate. If this is their conclusion, then they totally failed to do proper research.
 - 50% chance it's someone nobody's ever heard of, and nobody will ever figure it out
 - 35% chance it's Hal Finney. (Over time, I've moved more probability into this category.)
 - 10% chance it's someone else in the Bitcoin-verse
 - 5% chance it's a group within the CIA

But I'm really not a fan of the whole "search for Satoshi" genre. Being anonymous, Satoshi is an excellent myth and source of inspiration, since we can't see much of his flawed humanity. Mythical-Satoshi is a humble man who, with a lot of persistence and skill, but not with a level of brilliance beyond the reach of us mortals, single-handedly created a clockwork device so powerful that it shook the world. And then, in an action which nobody in the traditional halls of power would ever take, he had the wisdom to walk away: a modern Cincinnatus. I like that myth very much, and I'd rather it not be tainted by association with an actual human.

If Satoshi Nakamoto is an individual person, I believe only Hal Finney can be Satoshi as if Satoshi wanted to play two roles, it's clear that Hal is Satoshi as a receiver of first bitcoin transaction from Satoshi.

[joniboini]

This points a lot to Satoshi. The subject seems very sensitive to me, which one seems more acceptable to you?

Seems kinda forced to me. I mean there're a few months of gap between them, it just sounds too convenience to conclude that "okay, this must be something". Especially when your image said there's no evidence he even contributed anything. Beside, if the subject is that sensitive, why do we even continue to look for it? It's their life to begin with. I've probably mentioned this on other threads before, but I don't think searching for satoshi is really a useful endeavor.

[Gost ms]

I never think much about this subject and I don't even try to find Satoshi anywhere. I always focus on Satoshi sir's invention, he has created a decentralized financial system for us, I am more focused on this invention. The time I will waste to find Satoshi sir, I will gain knowledge about holding or how to protect our assets or other things. So don't worry about it and focus on buying.

I have not seen any aliens found anywhere, so I will never believe that aliens are behind the creation of Bitcoin. I believe one thing Satoshi is a human being like all of us, a person or a few people

[Davidvictorson]

I never think much about this subject and I don't even try to find Satoshi anywhere.

I think the search for the identity, personality or personalities of the created or bitcoin Satoshi will be something some people will decide to carry on as their life’s work. They won’t rest until either to find results or die trying. Therefore folks like us who tell them to get it break or that we have moved past that stage of curiosity will not be able to convince them otherwise. Personally, I wish them good luck on their quest. To add to the OP Hal is no Satoshi. I know this because there are past conversations between them in the early stages of bitcoin which shows that they are two different people.

[Cryptohygenic]

Honestly I enjoys reading posts about fingers pointing at who Satoshi truly is but I bet it is exorbitant seeing the trolls about who is Satoshi.
On that piece of information Finney and Sasasman are all dead for more than decades now so there is no way to still prove this claim even though as it is likely to be convince able according to the data scripts.
Moreover it has been further investigated and no linkage of both enthusiasts behind the scene proves the speculation that they or any of them is Satoshi.
If the US with their intensifietechnologists and professional security and intelligent personnels could not hold up to anyone to be Satoshi then I think we should just stop bothering ourselves and just focus on the technology being provided for us to be in used.

[Italian Panic]

We are talking here about two absolutely brilliant minds, and whilst the person who created Bitcoin was brilliant, it’s hard to believe it was just one person. If it were just one person, they would have to be an expert in cryptography, computer science, programming, economics, macroeconomics, social sciences, mathematics… in short, an absolute genius. It’s more likely that there were several people involved.

One thing remains constant throughout all this: the theories point to people who are now dead, perhaps because it is impossible to ask them, or because it adds to the aura of mystery surrounding them.

[Pumpsta]

If you showed me these 2 faces and asked me to pick one... I'd bet it's Len, he literally looks like what Satoshi looks like in my imagination the likely truth is that neither are Satoshi..

[HelliumZ]

At different times, different people have tried to introduce themselves as Satoshi but no one could survive and prove themselves as Satoshi. Craig Wright even filed several lawsuits to prove himself as Satoshi but he could not prove himself as Satoshi. Many may have wanted to assume Hal Finney as Satoshi but there is no Satoshi compatibility with him. Again today Len Sasasman is being compared to Satoshi but here too he has no compatibility with Satoshi. In fact, we will not be able to identify Satoshi until Satoshi himself becomes public. No one should unnecessarily create chaos by introducing himself as Satoshi.

[JeromeTash]

What is the whole point of trying to speculate who Satoshi is if no one can conclusively prove who he is/was? Every passing year, we have documentaries trying to crack the mystery, and I know all they care about is just viewership.
Satoshi being mysterious is probably a good thing for Bitcoin, and it has been strong for so many years now. Let Satoshi rest and let's not give the wannabes too much attention.

[BitGoba]

From what I’ve concluded by reading the mailing list, and other sources, Nick Szabo seems to me like the strongest candidate for Satoshi Nakamoto. I wouldn’t say there is definitive proof, but based on his writing style, ideas, earlier work on Bit Gold, and deep understanding of money, he is by far the closest match to that profile in my view.

Satoshi Nakamoto is  Nick Szabo


Nick Szabo designed a concept called Bit Gold back in 1998. Although Bit Gold never became a functional system, it already contained many of the elements that would later appear in Bitcoin: Proof of Work, or mining, cryptographic linking of records, and the idea of digital scarcity.
The main thing Bit Gold did not solve was the problem of consensus without a central authority. That is exactly what Bitcoin later managed to solve in an elegant way.


One of the more interesting arguments in favor of the theory that Szabo could be Satoshi is linguistic analysis. A team of forensic linguists from Aston University in Birmingham compared Satoshi’s white paper with the writings of several possible candidates. According to their findings, Szabo’s writing style, choice of phrases, and technical precision were the closest match to Satoshi’s way of writing.Of course, this is not definitive proof, but it is a detail that is difficult to completely ignore.


It is also interesting that Szabo had been writing about Bit Gold for years, but when Bitcoin appeared in 2008 and 2009, he became unusually quiet. Some researchers claim that he later changed the dates or content of his Bit Gold posts, which some people interpreted as a possible attempt to cover his tracks.

Perhaps the strongest connection between Szabo and Satoshi is not only technical, but also philosophical. Szabo deeply understood the history of money and the way people throughout history developed forms of value that could be stored and exchanged.
Most programmers tend to look at money as a database or blockchain software. They may have strong technical knowledge, but they often lack a deeper economic and historical understanding of what money actually is.
His famous essay “Shelling Out: The Origins of Money” is practically required reading for anyone who wants to understand why Bitcoin exists in the first place. In that essay, you can see the same way of thinking that later appears in Bitcoin

[m2017]

Let's say you've managed to discover that the real Satoshi is Sasasman. Okay. What next? How will this information change anything, really? Even if your guess turns out to be true, no one (not even Sasasman or anyone else) will be able to confirm or deny it.

I understand that the mystery of Satoshi's origin excites minds (and will always do so), but I think this is an ineffective waste of "energy". Even if the BTC-community finds out who the real Satoshi is (if he's already dead), it won't affect the bitcoin at all. In fact, the BTC-network and cryptocurrency have long been functioning autonomously without him (in principle, this is how it was intended and should be with decentralization).

The only danger of revealing Satoshi's identity is if he's alive, has access keys to old wallets, and is a weak link that can be used to pressure bitcoin. But if you're a bitcoiner (an investor or user interested in the stable operation of bitcoin), why bother finding out who Satoshi really is if it could negatively impact bitcoin (and on him, as a person)? In that case, it's best to keep Satoshi's identity unknown (for the benefit of bitcoin).