[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.

[alchemist1e9]

Let’s clarify a few things.

First, thank you for posting on HN and for your time. I also want to express my deep respect for you and all developers who helped build Bitcoin. I recognize it has come at a personal cost.

A brief disclaimer - I’m not a significant open-source developer, but my life trajectory is entirely due to open source software, and I’ve achieved substantial financial success through my C++ and Linux skills. I became interested in Bitcoin in early 2011, yet I’ve never contributed directly, but have followed it closely, own it, and used it extensively for various purposes. I did spend some time on the wizards IRC and read the Bitcointalk forum, where I made a few minor posts.

I mention myself as there’s an interesting asymmetry with pseudonyms online. I know a lot about you since your username is a handle, but you likely know little about me, which is intentional on my part. You jokingly refer to me as a potential Satoshi candidate. The distinction between handle and pseudonym is important.

retep was a handle. Satoshi is a pseudonym. Many usernames are handles, some are pseudonyms like mine. Both you and Peter Todd are pretending that retep was a pseudonym. This is misleading and puzzling, as I’m confident you both understand the difference and its significance in this case. I sense misdirection.

Now, let’s address the foundational question:

Should we try to identify Satoshi?

You, Peter Todd, and the “We are Satoshi” crowd argue against it. This is absurd if we agree that Bitcoin could ideally become a global reserve asset and continue to gain value. Satoshi’s 1.1 million coins are the elephant in the room. They likely hold back Bitcoin significantly due to the uncertainty surrounding their status and intentions.

> 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

There is no disconnect. We can agree that Satoshi could have been any number of them. The question is: Who?

> Petertodd's about being poor re-C++ were specifically related to the Bitcoin codebase.

As a professional C++ developer since the mid-'90s, I respectfully disagree with the narrative that something is "different" or "special" about either the nov08 draft code and version 0.1. There are two variants of this narrative - the Amir Taaki view that the coder was an amateur or scientist, and your and Todd’s claim that it was a skilled C++ coder. I find both takes to be misguided. The genius lies in the design, the code itself is neither amateur nor professional, but something in between. Version 0.1, with roughly 7000 loc, isn’t particularly impressive stylistically, the design, however, is stunning, as is the whitepaper.

> And he like me would generally needs to get someone else to explain varrious fancy C++ features in it these days.

This is strange because we’re discussing Satoshi’s code from 2008/2009, not C++17 or contemporary features. Again, I sense misdirection in claiming that Todd or you couldn’t have written the code.

> > 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 can. I looked through my old emails and know exactly where I was that day. It’s not particularly hard for many people. It was right after Christmas '08, during the market crisis, while CES was happening. I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

> 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).

Let’s revisit this later. I have a question for you

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

People who know me in real life but lack deep technical knowledge have asked me this seriously it seemed. It was amusing. One pointed out I used hashes of hashes in a tool I wrote at work! Very suspicious!

If someone genuinely believes this, what would I do? I’d release evidence to prove I’m not Satoshi. It’s not particularly difficult, there are 575 posts on Bitcointalk alone. I’ve likely been verifiably present in various locations during that time—presentations, on a plane, in a family video, at dinner, in a doctor's office. Those timestamps can serve as alibis. It seems like you don’t like Hal’s alibi based on the timestamps approach, but it can be a pretty solid approach I think.

Why don’t more candidates show alibis? Are they “protecting” Satoshi or objecting on principle? Adam Back should release all his emails (with DKIM-signed headers). Seriously, he should. Why? Because money is a social construct. If anything, Bitcoin has proven this threefold. Satoshi’s privacy cannot trump the need to determine the status and intentions of his coins. It’s the coins, stupid! should be the slogan.

> (though not socal, thankfully for my kidnapping risk).

I deeply sympathize with any trouble bad actors may have caused you. It’s horrific and outrageous. I fully understand. Personally, I carry multiple weapons for self-defense. Unfortunately, there will be a cost to the "disintermediation of the nation-state." I should read up on your experience if it’s been described, unfortunately, I’m unfamiliar with the details, just that I’ve seen it mentioned several times.

That said, did you have a risk in 2008/9 for some reason?

Before I say something extremely controversial, I want to draw an analogy about conspiracy theories and why, in my opinion, their purpose and function are often misunderstood and under appreciated. We understand that truth can’t be based on a central authority, they will corrupt it. Like economics, it must be messy, organic, distributed, and even error-prone. Conspiracy theories are like boundary conditions in math for the collective consciousness of a sociological system; they are designed to explore and push limits.

Can you explain this?

----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----

This Transaction was made by Paul Leroux to Hal Finney on January 12, 2009 #bitcoin

----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE---- Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0) Address: 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3

HM7vpPSUbNsfDHRX6gv8xxWcVNHEc/3pOk0YrVehaGoUdbWizznfzOdELkLd1EjSXsW1oE5vHAkNAPzrAVzhuoI= ----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE----

How does this exist? What is a logical explanation? It appears to show that the private keys to the address where Hal received the first Bitcoin transaction signed the message. At what date we have no idea, most likely after Hal’s passing. Yet it seems to exist and be properly signed. Did Hal lose his keys? To whom? When? Why?

Paul Le Roux is a certifiable madman, likely a sociopath, a mafia boss turned agency informant, and yet also likely a genius.

Did his people kidnap you once? Did he hire Craig Wright? Does he somehow have a copy of one of Hal’s drives with his keys?

What is going on here?

Are you sure identifying Satoshi isn’t the right thing to do?

[nullc]

> Satoshi’s 1.1 million coins are the elephant in the room

The 1.1 million claim is a part of Craig Wright's fraud and is pedantically false (it's too many coins-- we know too many other owners).

What is actually known is that starting two weeks after bitcoin's release and running up to about a year after some person or organization mined with custom software that makes it possible to identify their blocks. None of these 13 thousand-ish blocks have been spent (the ish comes from the fact that the fingerprint is fuzzy). There is no evidence connecting this mining to Satoshi specifically though it's surely not a entirely crazy guess. The blocks that are known to be connected to Satoshi aren't part of this pattern.

The people most interested in this seem to be the pathological liars and so the claim gets continually expanded. Someone on reddit a day or two ago even insisted it was 2 million coins.

In any case even at the upper limit of common (false) claims it's 5% of all coins. Other entities are known to control more coins than that and it normally goes without remark. I think your argument is a grasping justification for abusive and unethical conduct, and the _pursuit_ of Satoshi is a gross prurient interest. You're not entitled to Satoshi's identity, full stop. If that makes you not want to use Bitcoin-- that's a choice you're free to make, no one is forcing you to use it.

> This is strange because we’re discussing Satoshi’s code from 2008/2009, not C++17 or contemporary features.

No. You're being sloppy. You and HBO have faulted Todd for making public statements about not being much of a C++ coder. These were statements made in the context of bitcoin conferences regarding his own ongoing contributions to Bitcoin. HBO implied that this was untrue and deceptive and constituted evidence that he was Satoshi because he was trying to mislead people about his background.

When it comes to "could someone have done it" -- it doesn't go very far, as Satoshi could have learned C++ specifically for that project precisely because it wasn't their preferred language. If your willing to believe a very young and inexperienced person could have created Bitcoin (still learning as they went) then someone writing in something other than their favorite language should seem even more likely.

In any case, feel free to go find some actual similarity in published code and bring it up. Absent that it's just a bunch of handwaving befitting only the code-illiterate.

> People who know me in real life but lack deep technical knowledge have asked me this seriously it seemed. It was amusing. One pointed out I used hashes of hashes in a tool I wrote at work! Very suspicious!

Yes, so you've seen the kind of fallacious reasoning people can engage in. "I know of a couple technical people interest in bitcoin, among them this one has some extra factor-- so they're probably satoshi". It doesn't just happen to people who lack deep technical knowledge.

> If someone genuinely believes this, what would I do? I’d release evidence to prove I’m not Satoshi. It’s not particularly difficult,

You keep reiterating how easy it is to produce proof. But when you first did it I requested you do so. You still haven't!

> I carry multiple weapons for self-defense.

The concern of many people isn't just the self-defense. It's what comes after. So you killed the idiot that was threatening you? Now you have to live with the consequence of that, which may include arrest and imprisonment. People who kill in obvious self defense still often go through a world of trouble for it.

Certainly it's better to be alive and charged with murder than dead. But it is very bad.

Harms like those created by being accused of being satoshi can be somewhat mitigated but they can't be eliminated except by not making the accusation in the first place.

The most recent attack pattern used by the cryptokidnappers seems to be to break into your home when you're not there and hide. You come home and find yourself facing a gun. It's pretty hard to secure against that without considerable cost.

> Can you explain this?

Yes, I can: https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte... search maxwell.

> At what date we have no idea, most likely after Hal’s passing

Certainly after because the particular signing algorithm used postdates him.

Le roux was in custody since September 2013, I don't think there is any reason to believe he was involved in that message. Considering that the message is reported to have been made public by an investor that previously went to prison from securities fraud, my assumption is that the key was purchased from the extortionists that attacked Hal's family and then was deployed in that manner in lame market manipulation attempt that was thwarted by competent journalism.

> Are you sure identifying Satoshi isn’t the right thing to do?

As much as one can be sure of anything of that sort, but it's also an irrelevant question: I don't know who Satoshi is, and as far as I can tell no one does.