[kyledrake]

I spent quite a bit of time with Peter Todd in the very early Bitcoin days. I really enjoyed our conversations back then, I have no idea what he is up to now. My gut feeling is that he is probably not Satoshi Nakamoto. Adam Back is a far more likely suspect, particularly for his British english, which Satoshi wrote in.

[philsquared_]

+1 to Adam Back. Who is more likely to build ontop of some obscure code base called "Hash Cash"? Some random people that trolled the same forums or the original creator of it?

Imo this "secret" is known by many people as I have seen so many censorship and misdirection campaigns throughout the years if people mention Adam being the one.

Him being Satoshi also makes bitcoin core seem more legitimate. He can guide his creation without being formally known as satoshi.

It is obvious. Especially if you have ever been a solo dev for an extended period of time (like adam was)

There is a ton more evidence but seems like no one really wants to dig into Adam.

Adam literally stopped updating hash cash and a year later Bitcoin is released... check his website on archive.org.

Its ok. I like that there is still conversation as to who it is. It gives protection to him since there likely wont be anything concrete (if hopefully he was slick enough)

[kyledrake]

Indeed there's really nothing positive to be had from coming out as Satoshi at this point regardless of who it is. Criminals and governments will be falling over each other to try to get their take.

[kyledrake]

One addendum here: If I was personally Satoshi, I would come back and try to convince everyone to switch to proof of stake instead of proof of work and then subsequently disappear again. If you need a non-politicized reason why (something other than climate change), just go with my joke one of solving one of the outcomes of Fermi's Paradox (distant civilizations don't send signals because all energy is used to mine cryptocurrencies).

[nullc]

Proof of stake doesn't solve the problem bitcoin set out to solve.

A proof of stake system is essentially just a rehash on the earlier centralized digital cash systems where a quorum of key holders engage in a consensus that determines further updates to the system (including the set of keys allowed to authorize further updates).

We didn't need Satoshi to come up with that, that idea was already known.

[kyledrake]

I don't follow your reasoning. It seems to me that at an abstract level, Satoshi set out to solve the problem of government meddling in currencies by creating a distributed digital currency not managed by a governmental agency with a predictable and well documented amount of money supply growth. Whether it uses a PoW or PoS approach seems irrelevant to that goal? PoS can lead to centralization if larger stakeholders have more influence over the network, but the same problem applies to PoW as well, and the large miners' substantial influence on Bitcoin development politics feels more like corporatism than distributed consensus. I haven't really been following things lately, but Ethereum seems to be transitioning to PoS as a distributed system just fine?

Neither approach seems perfect, the important difference to me is that one approach, sans some technological advance like fusion energy, presents a major ecological problem that has existential risks for humanity.

[bbunix]

Canadian English isn't that far off, especially in a lot of the spelling...