Don't Let Anyone Tell You the Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto Does Not Matter

[sakira]

satoshi might be gavin or andreas.

Do you have a proof for your "judgments"? Or is it only your personal opinion?

then actually who? I am confused and do not know

[redsn0w]

I notice that you use their word "their". So do you really mean to imply that satoshi is not an individual rather than a group of people?

There's this thing called singular they.

In this case maybe for a reason of respect. However I don't like to know who has invented "bitcoin" it is better to keep them (him) secret.

[v0yager]

Sure, if you want him to get killed, it is important.

Even if they kill him, they couldn't stop Bitcoin.

[OROBTC]

...

A new book, The Age of Cryptocurrency (2015, Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey -- the two of them are Wall Street Journal reporters) is out and available at Barnes & Noble everywhere.  The book is good, but I will discuss that more elsewhere and later.

Vigna and Casey wrote several pages on the hunt for Satoshi's identity.  A number of people were thought of as possibly the man (?) himself.

Vigna & Casey also wrote that the Bitcoin community typically was against this search, arguing that we should leave him alone, respect his privacy.  And there is an excellent case for that.

But, the authors also are looking ahead, looking down the road.  To be accepted in a massive way by society, the masses must be convinced that BTC is legitimate and secure.  An anonymous founder does not inspire confidence among the masses...

A snippet from Vigna & Casey (emphasis mine):

"It might even be better for bitcoin if Satoshi's identity is eventually revealed.  Initially, the absence of an identifiable founder meant enforcement agents couldn't find Satoshi and shut down his fledgling project before it gained attraction.  Now it's a different phase.  More than six years into bitcoin's existence, with a global community formed around it, the project is looking to undertake the ultimate community expansion exercise and embrace the wide, all-encompassing "mainstream."  For that exercise, the lack of transparency over bitcoin's founding is a hindrance.  It feeds doubts in the minds of government officials and lawmakers, making friendly regulation that might smooth bitcoin's development a harder sell for cryptocurrency lobbyists.  The same goes for the general public.  Coming clean would put to bed conspiracy theories that bitcoin was created by the CIA or the NSA or the IMF, or that the whole thing is an elaborate scam."

[LiteCoinGuy]

[Paleus]

...

A new book, The Age of Cryptocurrency (2015, Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey -- the two of them are Wall Street Journal reporters) is out and available at Barnes & Noble everywhere.  The book is good, but I will discuss that more elsewhere and later.

Vigna and Casey wrote several pages on the hunt for Satoshi's identity.  A number of people were thought of as possibly the man (?) himself.

Vigna & Casey also wrote that the Bitcoin community typically was against this search, arguing that we should leave him alone, respect his privacy.  And there is an excellent case for that.

But, the authors also are looking ahead, looking down the road.  To be accepted in a massive way by society, the masses must be convinced that BTC is legitimate and secure.  An anonymous founder does not inspire confidence among the masses...

A snippet from Vigna & Casey (emphasis mine):

"It might even be better for bitcoin if Satoshi's identity is eventually revealed.  Initially, the absence of an identifiable founder meant enforcement agents couldn't find Satoshi and shut down his fledgling project before it gained attraction.  Now it's a different phase.  More than six years into bitcoin's existence, with a global community formed around it, the project is looking to undertake the ultimate community expansion exercise and embrace the wide, all-encompassing "mainstream."  For that exercise, the lack of transparency over bitcoin's founding is a hindrance.  It feeds doubts in the minds of government officials and lawmakers, making friendly regulation that might smooth bitcoin's development a harder sell for cryptocurrency lobbyists.  The same goes for the general public.  Coming clean would put to bed conspiracy theories that bitcoin was created by the CIA or the NSA or the IMF, or that the whole thing is an elaborate scam."

That's a great excerpt, thank you for that.

Have you read their new book and if so, what did you think of it overall?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

satoshi might be gavin or andreas.

Do you have a proof for your "judgments"? Or is it only your personal opinion?

No not sure he has proof because Satoshi "'might"' be Gavin or Andreas 

I would go with personal opinion imo

I think Satoshi 'might' even be a lady who pretended to be a man, master of misdirection and you will never find him/her.

OP, Satoshi felt his identity was not important so i think we should go with the flow and just love his baby like our own he may well show his face one day 

I could see Satoshi not wanting to share if that was the case, too many sexist people in the world.

[Kazimir]

It feeds doubts in the minds of government officials and lawmakers, making friendly regulation that might smooth bitcoin's development a harder sell for cryptocurrency lobbyists.  The same goes for the general public.  Coming clean would put to bed conspiracy theories that bitcoin was created by the CIA or the NSA or the IMF, or that the whole thing is an elaborate scam."[/i]

Both these government officials and lawmakers, as well as the general public, are wrong.

Even IF Bitcoin was created by the CIA or the NSA or the IMF, so frigging what? The source code is public, everyone can see what it does and how it works.

And how the f*ck could the whole thing be "an elaborate scam". If you understand Bitcoin, you understand there's nobody who could possibly pull any scam, or be scammed. It's just as stupid as saying that chess (you know, the game) might actually be rigged, and is probably fake, because we don't know who invented it.

The idea is out there, the genie is out of the bottle, that's all there is to it!

[OROBTC]

...

Kazimir

The snippet you reference is from a book just out.  It is the opinion of the two authors.

There are good arguments on both sides of this question.

*   *   *

Theory: It ought make no difference who Satoshi is.  Nor who invented BTC.

Practice: In the minds of the general public (the masses), it might make big a difference!

The general public does not know much about Bitcoin.  There is a "reasonable probability" that the general public will not use it if there is a good chance, in their eyes, that BTC could be an NSA plot or a giant criminal scam.  You can say it isn't so all you want, but will the public believe it?

[Elwar]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883213.0

Finding Satoshi

[Cryddit]

Y'all are acting like one of my college roommates, who, when he got drunk enough, liked to sniff root beer because it made him see a beautiful purple color so bright and vivid  that it could never exist in the real world.   He spent weeks, when sober, looking for paint that reproduced that impossible color, trying to find the HTML hex code for it, etc.  But there was never anything that satisfied him, because "root beer purple" was always brighter and more vivid and more dynamic than anything found in the real world. 

The idea that Satoshi "is" someone is like the idea that the scent of root beer has a color.  A compelling illusion if you're drunk, but otherwise a waste of time.  A 'nym which has been used, successfully, without leaving traceable evidence, remains sealed forever. 

The person who invented Satoshi has probably sealed the 'nym, and deleted all the keys when the need for Satoshi was over.  If so, then nobody - not even him - will ever have any evidence to tie that 'nym to anyone's identity. 

And therefore, there is no such identity. 

[gmaxwell]

Click bait article; don't be suckered.

Bitcoin is a system governed by its software, -- mathematical in nature, its operation is fundamentally transparent.  If Bitcoin is good, it's goodness if available for your discovery and analysis, and likewise if it is not.   It does not matter if it was created by the CIA or whatever.  Any alternative identities of its creator are fundamentally uninteresting in any practical sense as the whole value of the system is its autonomy, its independence from its creation (and any other person or institution). If you think the details of its creation matter, you've failed to understand the system.

The only utility of that information is pointless tabloid gossip, or fodder for Bitcoin's political opponents who would use the humanity behind its origins to discredit it in the eyes of the public which has been too long seeped in opaque trust-based systems where the integrity of the origin has considerable predictive power.

More fundamentally, it just isn't any of our business. That people are constantly so cavalier with the insane allegations (just about every long time Bitcoin user has been accused of being its creator at one time or another; including ones that barely understand the technology) without any consideration of the physical risk of harm these allegations can bring is a constant source of disappointment for me.

If you want to show respect for the Bitcoin system and demonstrate a real understanding of its nature; say no to speculative bitcoin-creation-myth tripe and save your drama-gawking for the scam of the week where it might actually do some good.

[polarhei]

I think the being is not a personal experiment.

Some people think it's an open-secret project of four groups of people. Toshiba, Motorola, Nakamichi, Samsung.

The nature of the four companies, I do not mentioned much here. However I have noticed few things, who can do this well. If for first step of decentralization, then Nakamichi is currently the finest. While Toshiba is good at making worse for the unauthorized, Motorola is good at device design, Samsung is multi. Perhaps Storage?


And they use suffix and prefix to form a 'person' plus there are at least sixth combination based on the reading.

[Kazimir]

The general public does not know much about Bitcoin.  There is a "reasonable probability" that the general public will not use it if there is a good chance, in their eyes, that BTC could be an NSA plot or a giant criminal scam.  You can say it isn't so all you want, but will the public believe it?

The solution is not another feeble attempt to identify Satoshi (by whatever definition of 'identify' you prefer), but by explaining to the general public, over and over again, that Bitcoin is an idea, and now that it's out there, for everybody to use and understand, it doesn't matter who originally made it up.

Again, does it matter for the general public who invented chess, in order for them to play the game? What if the inventor of Chess 'comes clean' and it turns out to be made by the NSA, or some Nazi, or evil Roman emperor, or whatever? Would that change the game? Would the same rules of Chess now suddenly be interpreted differently? Would people worry if the game is actually rigged, or that Chess is actually a scam?
Well, same with Bitcoin!

[HeadsOrTails]

Satoshi Nakamoto set in motion the unraveling of the nation state

You sound like the kind of person who denounces the state as a legitimate authority.

So why then, do you then continually equate 'identity' with only government-approved identity?

I'm glad OP is considering the really important questions. Not what does the future hold, but **who is the person(s) who coded some software**? The ironic part is 90% of the community could hear a name of Satoshi's identity and not know who it is due to never venturing out of the Karpeles, Ver, Shrem circle of names: perhaps reading stuff related to the tech based functions would be more educational than wondering what size shoe God wears

[Kazimir]

For argument's sake, let's assume that Satoshi Nakamoto is actually identified, and found out to be Joe S. Campbell from Urbandale, Iowa, born July 25, 1967, and worked as an accountant at a local library.

Now what the fuck would that change about Bitcoin?

Here's what: NOTHING.

[Cryddit]

For argument's sake, let's assume that Satoshi Nakamoto is actually identified, and found out to be Joe S. Campbell from Urbandale, Iowa, born July 25, 1967, and worked as an accountant at a local library.

Now what the fuck would that change about Bitcoin?

Here's what: NOTHING.

Ding!  We have a winner. 

Joe S. Campbell, however, would have a drastically changed life, starting with harassment by the IRS, the Mafia, the Paparazzi, and every other kind of parasite attracted by money or fame.  It would kind of suck to be him in that case.

[dothebeats]

It's quite nice to know who really is the person behind this great creation. We know him by the name 'Satoshi Nakamoto', but we do not know his real-life identity. if bitcoin's purpose is to be anonymous, wouldn't it be nice to leave the founder alone and let him remain anonymous as well? Curiosity is there, but if he want to remain anonymous, we might as well respect his decision to do so.

[bitsum]

Satoshi has a dream.
He will definitely let his son/daughter or someone close to him know about him before he dies.

[Cryddit]

Satoshi has a dream.
He will definitely let his son/daughter or someone close to him know about him before he dies.

Why the hell would he do that?  What possible purpose would it serve to burden someone with that secret? 

Also, see definition of "secret" -- something known to ONE person.