Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by philsquared_ 616 days ago
Adam Back. Ever notice how anytime anyone mentions his name as possibly being satoshi they get buried? Not a coincidence. Plus Adam had no work history during the dates that Bitcoin was created. Had created the system that bitcoin is based on and never produced the emails of him and Satoshi that supposedly existed. Remember the first email from Satoshi mentions he got "your email from Adam Back". Google also manipulated the search engine results for "Satoshi is Adam Back" for years and basically censored the results for that query.. The list goes on. He is the most obvious candidate and likely the reason he was chosen to head core (I mean he literally wrote hash cash which is basically Bitcoin version 1)
3 comments
adastra22 611 days ago
It is absolutely not Adam Back. The bitcoin protocol is not based on Adam Back's work (though Adam loves to claim otherwise). When Adam came to the bitcoin scene in 2013, he harbored some very large misconceptions about the incentive structure and capabilities of bitcoin.
link
reducesuffering 616 days ago
No. Satoshi IP leaked in LA when Back wasn’t there. Back’s stylometry is way off too. Those two should be enough for you to figure it out with some digging
link
IncreasePosts 616 days ago
I assume a person like Back is familiar enough with opsec that he could intentionally change his writing style, and also "accidentally" leak his IP, (via a VPN), when he is somewhere else in the world.
link
reducesuffering 616 days ago
He would have also had to mimic another cryptocurrency researcher's stylometry that ended up matching far better. Which do you honestly think happened:

A: Back is Satoshi, mimics X (who has many other reasons to be Satoshi) for hundreds of emails.

B: Back isn't Satoshi, X's stylometry matches Satoshi.

link
thisconnect 615 days ago
Adam is mentioned in the Bitcoin white paper. Would you he have done that if he was Satoshi?
link
defrost 615 days ago
Without taking a position either way on who Satoshi is; Yes, of course he would have.

Clearly 'Satoshi' intended from the outset to obfuscate their identity.

Given that axiom many behaviours become probable, including referencing a true identity (or three*) in the paper.

* Satoshi could, of course, be Yet Another Nicolas Bourbaki with a shared voting key of sorts; that's an easy explanation for relative silence over the years if a group cannot or will not reach consensus on action.

link