[petertodd]

> Peter makes it just after joining the form, so he is unlikely to have detailed knowledge of bitcoin.

The fact that the inputs, outputs, and fee of a transaction must add up isn't exactly "detailed knowledge" :) I don't think it took me all that long to figure that out when I first tried understanding how Bitcoin worked.

And frankly, the core of Bitcoin really isn't all that complex! You can have a very good understanding of all the parts after just a few days carefully studying it. Which is exactly what I did: I sat down with the Bitcoin Core codebase and figured out what all the code did. Especially at the time, it really wasn't that big of a codebase.

> After watching the doc it does seem like Adam and Peter know a good deal more than they are letting on, even if it wasn't them specifically, it seems likely that they have some idea who it was.

I can't speak for Adam. But I have no idea who Satoshi is. If anything, I think it could be literally hundreds or even thousands of potential people. Bitcoin is something so simple that you didn't need to be a super-genius to come up with it. You just needed to understand some relatively high-level, basic, cryptography and have a brilliant flash of inspiration. Satoshi was a very competent C++ programmer (it's a myth that his code was bad). But there's lots and lots of very competent C++ programmers out there.

[cachvico]

So basically you're saying that the 3 day gap between your first post and your demonstrated understanding is actually reasonable, assuming you spent those 3 days immersed in understanding the code & design at play.

[jawiggins]

Cool to get a reply from you directly, thanks!

It seems unlikely to me that it could be thousands of people, given the correspondence had with various people it seems likely to me that a few people have information that could lead in the correct direction. But I guess we'll never know.

[xOSBERTx]

I think you misunderstood the context of 'thousands' - - "If anything, I think it could be literally hundreds or even thousands of potential people." - - meaning that, literally, thousands of DIFFERENT people, could be considered, as a potential possibility, of being a possible candidate, of being, Satoshi. Simply put :-P Not that 'thousands' of people are Satoshi, like you misunderstood. - anywho -

[petertodd]

Exactly.

The world is a big place. It's likely that in 2008 thousands of people had the right skillset to create Bitcoin, any one of which might have done it.

As long as Satoshi wants to stay hidden, we're not going to find them.

[vizzah]

Gov/CIA most definitely knows who Satoshi is.

Even if he always used TOR/anonymous IPs, when accessing his @gmx.com account, with the number of sign-in's he had, it must be an absolute certainty, that he want through rogue exit nodes or some other de-anonymization methods we are not aware of, but deployed by gov. agencies.

[acjohnson55]

> Gov/CIA most definitely knows who Satoshi is.

This is my assumption. It's too critical a question to leave unanswered, from a national security perspective.

[olalonde]

Why would he be of interest to national security? He is possibly a rich dude, but beyond that?

[paulpauper]

An IP was leaked in 2009 though tied to Satoshi in Los Angles

[nullc]

I think that "IP leak" is extremely dubious and is predicated on both misunderstandings of how freenode worked and an incorrect assumption that no one else was running Bitcoin early on.

[midmagico]

> The fact that the inputs, outputs, and fee of a transaction must add up isn't exactly "detailed knowledge" :)

They don't have to! (re: txid 5d80a29be1609db91658b401f85921a86ab4755969729b65257651bb9fd2c10d)

[olalonde]

That's a coinbase transaction.

[alchemist1e9]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29728339

Can you prove what you were doing on 2009-01-10?

I find it interesting you have a curious prior interest in that IP leak and your spin on it.

If you are Satoshi then you should think carefully if you have any other OPSEC slip ups and then if you think there might be more … It’s better to confess and handle the issue of your coins.

Your safety should be priority number one.

It’s not bad for Bitcoin or you if it is you. Whomever Satoshi is they gifted the world with something incredible and it’s bigger than them now. The problem is the coins and the uncertainty around the intentions of them.

Destroying the evidence, I’m guessing smashed and/or magnets on drives, that one is Satoshi probably seemed like the best idea at the time. Perhaps burning the coins wasn’t given enough consideration. It means there is a dilemma. What in the game is the best move next?

Investigators who work in the real world have intuitive skills and will find the connections if they exist. Those of us who live in computers and data and math can sometimes underestimate the human pattern finding capabilities. They might be able to see and prove clearly who is Satoshi even if Satoshi thinks well all the data is gone, wiped, they “can’t” prove it, but that doesn’t mean that’s how the rest of society sees “proof” they might be able to “tell”.

[nullc]

> Can you prove what you were doing on 2009-01-10?

Can you? it was more than 15 years ago.

[alchemist1e9]

Now it is starting to look to me almost like you and Peter Todd are panicking and making huge slip ups.

Let me explain.

I see that you are now also arguing the IP leak is questionable and that others were running Bitcoin or could have been. Now combine this with the absurd idea that “retep” could have just been abandoned and it means nothing, even peter backwards, there are a million Peters whatever.

This is crazy you guys are basically accidentally admitting to technical somewhat knowledgable people like myself that retep is Satoshi because the excuses don’t pass the smell test. We know Peter was an actual wiz kid, it’s clear, Hal was emailing him in 2000, all using the email address that included … wait for it … “retep”, his IRC, his website, his freenode. It’s now obvious that he likely changed to his real name because the “cat was out of the bag” among the insiders. Hal would have immediately known Satoshi was Peter.

OMG guys get your act together fast. You need a plan B, no pun intended, because real investigators will tease it out, the top people doing that, have almost supernatural human intuition.

Regarding IP leak. Come on. Obviously it’s his IP. Was there a conference or vacation he was on maybe?

I’m just a dumb ass Bitcoiner from OG days and I can see though this charade so easily. I’m concerned.

Bitcoin is a gift to humanity from Satoshi (perhaps not retep!) and if the keys aren’t destroyed already and Satoshi is alive and has them then perhaps he should consider publicly burning the 1M coins or at least most of them. The nebulous case of supposedly the keys are destroyed is not a good situation tbh.

To answer your question. Yes I can definitely figure out where I was on January 10th, 2009. I know where I lived and worked then. I know if I took any vacations.

I’m hoping Peter Todd has a good alibi if he isn’t Satoshi. If he is … well time to confess and handle it in a way that doesn’t hurt the amazing invention.

EDIT: I wish I didn’t open this can of worms on HN. But I can’t delete it now …

[olalonde]

You obviously haven't done much research on the topic. There are far, far more likely candidates, like Len Sassaman. Anyone that knew a bit about Bitcoin at the time could have made that BitcoinTalk post, it's not a "slip up".

Also, Satoshi almost certainly lived in the Benelux region when he released Bitcoin. See this paper for some actual evidence-based research: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.10257

[alchemist1e9]

I have done a lot and have read that paper.

I’ve been camp Szabo for a while. also have considered Sassaman however it’s not just his anti Bitcoin tweets, which could be misdirection, but people have reported he had genuine conversations with them with same sentiments.

I also initially thought Peter Todd theory was a joke. Wasn’t convinced by doc at all. However once you dig into his life from teen onward and see his current attempts to downplay himself and retell history in strange ways … I don’t know … my position has changed significantly, I think it’s looking more and more possible.

[olalonde]

Not only is there not much evidence backing the Peter Todd theory, but there are many issues with it:

1) Why wouldn't he have used his Satoshi identity to discredit Craig Wright and save himself and fellow core developers a lot of pain and suffering?

2) Why wouldn't he have spent any of his large BTC stash?

3) Why is he fine being known as an early Bitcoin developer and adopter, but not fine being known as its creator?

4) How would he have a copy of the "20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux", given that it was only distributed to attendants and university libraries in the Benelux?

5) How would he have gotten his hands on the British version of a newspaper on 03/Jan/2009?

Due to 1), I highly doubt that Satoshi remained an active member of the Bitcoin community following his departure. The fact that he stayed silent during the "block wars" and the Craig Wright shitshow shows a complete indifference towards Bitcoin or more likely, that he was dead or incapacitated.

I'm not saying Sassaman is Satoshi, but simply that Sassaman is a much better candidate. This is a picture that Sassaman took of his office in 2007: https://www.flickr.com/photos/enochsmiles/488460964/. Notice anything interesting?

[midmagico]

lol, no.

[alchemist1e9]

to which aspect does the lol correspond?

[nullc]

Your tone makes it sound like you're about to break out gematria next. :) You're deep into confirmation bias.

Try considering an alternative hypothesis: This is a new absurd allegation which has only just shown up. Petertodd only learned the documentary would run with this claim hours before it came out as a result of journalists who saw a screener asking him questions. I am not petertodd.

At some point surprising late I realized that the retep account on the forum was petertodd, so it sounded like a fine reason to me that this would be surprising. But it turns out that when you reason backwards from having information after the fact there were already a number of links. Okay so what?

Consider how your logic would work if Todd was maliciously trying to falsely convince people he was a reluctant satoshi-- by e.g. using ineffectual arguments that he wasn't? or failing to to provide "proof".

You would be totally taken by him. Good reasoning doesn't have that vulnerability.

It's not even a speculative attack, this is part of what Wright did to him that enabled him to defraud so many. The kind of reasoning you're using is so vulnerable that it's being accidentally exploited by someone who isn't even trying to do so.

> Regarding IP leak. Come on. Obviously it’s his IP. Was there a conference or vacation he was on maybe?

simply reiterating a position isn't an argument.

> Yes I can definitely figure out where I was on January 10th, 2009. I know where I lived and worked then. I know if I took any vacations.

Where's the proof? That's what you demanded above.

[alchemist1e9]

> Where's the proof? That's what you demanded above.

Most people have jobs or school and maybe kids in school. It means there are records and also we can often have our emails. It’s actually very likely in my opinion that Todd could easily figure out where he was that specific day and there would be corroborating evidence of that.

However it’s not limited to that. It could come from any of the Satoshi timestamps, being on an airplane (no internet back then) somewhere or in some situation that would make it impossible for him to be Satoshi.

You guys are a bit younger than my generation and so you still think 15 years is a long time. It’s not really.

I noticed you are also now questioning the Finney alibi and asking for DKIM email message. I mean yeah not a bad idea to check but interesting that you and petertodd seem to be actively questioning things, which honestly is also good. I mean these details are important.

For example I see you raise something about freenode and IPs with the IP leak. I’m planning to study what you said tomorrow. I don’t on the surface understand what you mean about that. It seems pretty clear the IP in the debug.log file is Satoshi’s node and IRC connection, likely a configuration mistake for the windows VM networking.

> I am not petertodd

I know that. However you and him I believe have a long history together.

> This is a new absurd allegation which has only just shown up.

Yes that’s exactly what I initially thought. But once people look closer I’m not so sure.

A few questions for you: - didn’t Hal actually know retep for a long time? and invite him to join the bluesky list?

- isn’t retep remarkably skilled for his age in 2009 and earlier? he worked professionally on a C++ large codebase at 17! and was clearly very gifted based on an early resume.

- petertodd/retep appears to be trying to misdirect. for instance claiming to he a poor C++ coder?

A good alibi will clear this up if he has it.

[nullc]

> It’s actually very likely in my opinion that Todd could easily figure out where he was that specific day and there would be corroborating evidence of that.

Yet you can't produce it for yourself, you don't see the issue here? I know I absolutely cannot prove anything about my whereabouts on most random days in 2009, I might be able to reason out where I was on some days but even that wouldn't result in transferable proof. Like I can say, 2009 was before I retired from Juniper and the tenth was a saturday-- so maybe I was home which wouldn't leave any evidence. Or maybe I was on a work trip. But if I was I wouldn't have any evidence of it, and even if I did it quite possibly would have been to California (though not socal, thankfully for my kidnapping risk).

Maybe some people can, if you could then I'd have to argue that just because you can it's no reason to assume everyone can, but it seems you can't prove where you were on that day.

So I guess you're Satoshi! Glad we settled it. :D

> It seems pretty clear the IP in the debug.log file is Satoshi’s node and IRC connection

Why do you believe these is clear?

> I know that. However you and him I believe have a long history together.

Sure, but that doesn't extend to knowing what usernames he used where back before I met him, except by chance.

> didn’t Hal actually know retep for a long time?

As far as I can tell the people on the bluesky list were sort of the expected fallout from the dying cypherpunks lists. But I communicated with Hal extensively in 2004-ish about RPOW, am I suddenly Satoshi?

My SO interacted with him due to the extropians list, I guess she's Satoshi now too?

> isn’t retep remarkably skilled for his age in 2009 and earlier?

Petertodd was 24 in 2009. Here is a wired article about a project of mine in 1997, when I was 18: https://archive.is/UT9NE

When I was 20 I helped crack the cryptography underlying CSS, addressing the risk of player key cancellation wack-a-mole. https://web.archive.org/web/20000226011228/http://www.emedia... (not specifically on the crack however)

It's always fun to talk about myself, but also I could give similar or better examples from other early Bitcoin developers, but I don't want to say anything that would drive this sort of bad logic to accusing them of being Satoshi... but an example:

Another early Bitcoin developer created a novel kind of arithmetic coder as a teenager, starting a line of development that eventually became JPEG-XL.

> for instance claiming to he a poor C++ coder?

He is, as am I. (I'm competent in _C_ however).

The standard for claiming proficiency when you are 18 and clueless is different than when you're 40 and competent. C++ has also evolved significantly over the time. While I can't speak for him, after working and Mozilla and with some of the other Bitcoin developers my idea of what qualifies as a good level of skill in C++ has changed radically.

Petertodd's about being poor re-C++ were specifically related to the Bitcoin codebase. And he like me would generally needs to get someone else to explain varrious fancy C++ features in it these days.

> he worked professionally on a C++ large codebase at 17!

I'm missing the context for this, his webpage from around that age says things like " A mass and springs physics sim I wrote in C++ I didn't manage to finish it though, the physics and math proved too difficult for me. :( The code is more messy then I'd like, I didn't have a good mental picture of what I was working on and my usual good commenting and clear style was hurt because of that." and "I was working on a nice large C++ TradeWars like game called Corporate Raiders. However I got bored of it and stopped work around June 2000. The last thing I did for it was make a compiler which I did manage to get working. Oh well, good learning experience. :) "

I don't think this supports what you're saying? But so what?

We may be suffering from a disconnect about the caliber of people that contributed to Bitcoin early on. Every one of them was weird, every one was exceptional. Bitcoin was the most interesting and radical new thing at least since P2P file trading.

But beyond that there are over three hundred million people in North America, so even if you're looking for one-in-a-million people there are hundreds of them, plenty to have a few show up in Bitcoin development, or even in a particularly interesting HN thread.