New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux(investinblockchain.com)
investinblockchain.com
New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto Is Paul Le Roux
https://www.investinblockchain.com/new-evidence-suggests-satoshi-nakamoto-is-paul-solotshi-the-creator-of-encryption-software-e4m-and-truecrypt/
148 comments
Given his track record one can assume that Craig Wright is lying in just about everything he says. The rest is not evidence; looks more like a list of coincidences.
People have been desperate to find Satoshi. Like you said, a lot of people want this to be true.
People have been desperate to find Satoshi. Like you said, a lot of people want this to be true.
what makes me suspicious is that Document 187 got filed not long after the Atavast story made its rounds. So there was some time for this conspiracy to develop.
I really want it to be LeRoux. He would make an awesome Satoshi compared to Craig Wright. But I'm pretty sure the real Satoshi is dead otherwise Wright wouldn't be so noisy with his claims. Wright attracts a lot of attention so I wouldn't be surprised if he hauls himself out of a hotel window in some kind of freak accident (sooner than later).
note to self: Australia's major export in the last years was Julian Assange, Craig Wright, Paul Calder LeRoux and OpenSSL. (slowclap)
I really want it to be LeRoux. He would make an awesome Satoshi compared to Craig Wright. But I'm pretty sure the real Satoshi is dead otherwise Wright wouldn't be so noisy with his claims. Wright attracts a lot of attention so I wouldn't be surprised if he hauls himself out of a hotel window in some kind of freak accident (sooner than later).
note to self: Australia's major export in the last years was Julian Assange, Craig Wright, Paul Calder LeRoux and OpenSSL. (slowclap)
Paul LeRoux is from Rhodesia.
true, and thanks for the correction, I must have gotten confused by him having a girlfriend there.
you mean Zimbabwe?
He was born when it was called Rhodesia, and his family left as it became Zimbabwe
> Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects
The article says (emphasis mine):
"Le Roux is highly suspected to have been a part of a team of anonymous developers called the “TrueCrypt Team.”"
It also gives the fact that Le Roux has been in jail since 2012 as a possible explanation for why Satisfied Satoshi's Bitcoin fortune has gone untouched, but doesn't attempt to reconcile that with why he was able to make a forum post two years later: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/07/real-bitcoin-creator-i-am-no...
The article says (emphasis mine):
"Le Roux is highly suspected to have been a part of a team of anonymous developers called the “TrueCrypt Team.”"
It also gives the fact that Le Roux has been in jail since 2012 as a possible explanation for why Satisfied Satoshi's Bitcoin fortune has gone untouched, but doesn't attempt to reconcile that with why he was able to make a forum post two years later: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/07/real-bitcoin-creator-i-am-no...
Ya, IMO the big connection is:
- Anonymous creator of significant cryptography project
How many other people like that are there? People that are known to have written important cryptographic software, but chosen to remain anonymous. I'm sure there's a few, but it's a short list.
- Anonymous creator of significant cryptography project
How many other people like that are there? People that are known to have written important cryptographic software, but chosen to remain anonymous. I'm sure there's a few, but it's a short list.
I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.
(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)
(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)
Having the "founder" anonymous and silent has been good for Bitcoin. Even if it didn't have any effect on the market (it would) everyone can fantasize and speculate about the motives for Bitcoin's creation, about the next moves, etc. So such founder is a superposition of anyone's idea. If that superposition collapses into one drug cartel boss, that would change many people's view about Bitcoin and it's purpose, legality and of course market price
> I mean, why does it matter?
It doesn't matter on a personal level to anyone not related, but it's a big deal for the BTC market. If sentencing ends up light, and Satoshi is free in a couple years, that's a huge number of BTC that could be then sold, crashing the market...
It doesn't matter on a personal level to anyone not related, but it's a big deal for the BTC market. If sentencing ends up light, and Satoshi is free in a couple years, that's a huge number of BTC that could be then sold, crashing the market...
>(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)
Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright? Both of them have been actively craving recognition and courting notoriety of their own accord, for differing reasons ─ either due a flaw in their character or empty spots in their souls, probably not related to their genius. Regardless, they are not seeking any kind of redemption or permission from anyone, nor do they have any desire for privacy; although Paul Le Roux is already semi-anonymous due to his status as an asset.
Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright? Both of them have been actively craving recognition and courting notoriety of their own accord, for differing reasons ─ either due a flaw in their character or empty spots in their souls, probably not related to their genius. Regardless, they are not seeking any kind of redemption or permission from anyone, nor do they have any desire for privacy; although Paul Le Roux is already semi-anonymous due to his status as an asset.
> Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright?
Neither. I was talking about Satoshi Nakamoto.
It disturbs me that so many people are willing to unmask Satoshi.
More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?
Neither. I was talking about Satoshi Nakamoto.
It disturbs me that so many people are willing to unmask Satoshi.
More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?
One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy (whether or not it ever delivered, other people can debate). But there's a special kind of horribleness in working so hard to unmask someone who is in part famous because they helped build a privacy-protecting payment system.
Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not personally get to know the real world identity of one famous person understand how much it undercuts every other argument they will ever make about privacy? Shouldn't the Bitcoin community be collectively the biggest and most forceful group of advocates for leaving Satoshi the heck alone?
The hypocrisy of a website called "Invest In Blockchain" popularizing what is essentially a giant doxing campaign is apparently lost on this article's writers/editors.
Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not personally get to know the real world identity of one famous person understand how much it undercuts every other argument they will ever make about privacy? Shouldn't the Bitcoin community be collectively the biggest and most forceful group of advocates for leaving Satoshi the heck alone?
The hypocrisy of a website called "Invest In Blockchain" popularizing what is essentially a giant doxing campaign is apparently lost on this article's writers/editors.
"One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy"
Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi, who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things were created).
As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment privacy, since anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.
Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi, who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things were created).
As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment privacy, since anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.
> the fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy
:shrug: I would take it as a strong indicator. Who else other than someone who cares about privacy uses a remailer? I'm not sure I buy the argument, "they were just anonymously registering domains for fun because they liked cryptography."
That being said, my point wasn't that Satoshi himself listed privacy as a selling point of Bitcoin, but that the community listed privacy as a selling point (and still often does). The hypocritical part isn't about what Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be -- it's seeing people who have argued that part of Bitcoin's importance is privacy then turn around and say, "except for this guy."
:shrug: I would take it as a strong indicator. Who else other than someone who cares about privacy uses a remailer? I'm not sure I buy the argument, "they were just anonymously registering domains for fun because they liked cryptography."
That being said, my point wasn't that Satoshi himself listed privacy as a selling point of Bitcoin, but that the community listed privacy as a selling point (and still often does). The hypocritical part isn't about what Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be -- it's seeing people who have argued that part of Bitcoin's importance is privacy then turn around and say, "except for this guy."
>It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy.
I agree that it is unsettling to watch a once in a lifetime concept that has privacy at it's core with a potential to empower so many in the future being ripped apart. At present, there is absolutely no information available other than speculation on whether it is a person(s), group(s) or a state-actor involved. Which coupled with no movement on the genesis block, with so much at stake ─ unfortunately, the attempts to de-anonymise or the prospect of more charlatans, will only increase and become even more bizarre.
I agree that it is unsettling to watch a once in a lifetime concept that has privacy at it's core with a potential to empower so many in the future being ripped apart. At present, there is absolutely no information available other than speculation on whether it is a person(s), group(s) or a state-actor involved. Which coupled with no movement on the genesis block, with so much at stake ─ unfortunately, the attempts to de-anonymise or the prospect of more charlatans, will only increase and become even more bizarre.
>More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?
I'll be concerned about Satoshi's privacy when privacy is a concept that applies to anyone in modern society.
As it is, Satoshi is being treated no differently than anyone else the internet finds interesting.
I'll be concerned about Satoshi's privacy when privacy is a concept that applies to anyone in modern society.
As it is, Satoshi is being treated no differently than anyone else the internet finds interesting.
That's entirely my point.
> I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.
Yup, I'm with you. At this point I don't care what the truth is, it would just be nice for it to be out in the open so the nonsense articles we get every single year stop.
Yup, I'm with you. At this point I don't care what the truth is, it would just be nice for it to be out in the open so the nonsense articles we get every single year stop.
What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?
> Satoshi disappeared at about the same time Le Roux was really kicking his criminal conspiracy into gear.
Not only that but Le Roux has been in custody since 2012 which is the first credible theory at least I know of about why Satoshi never touched his treasure.
What I don't get why this article blew up now when a month ago https://news.bitcoin.com/satoshi-nakamoto-could-be-criminal-... it was already on bitcoin.com itself.
Not only that but Le Roux has been in custody since 2012 which is the first credible theory at least I know of about why Satoshi never touched his treasure.
What I don't get why this article blew up now when a month ago https://news.bitcoin.com/satoshi-nakamoto-could-be-criminal-... it was already on bitcoin.com itself.
I don't think Le Roux ever lived in the Netherlands. He had or has children and an ex-wife who live there, though.
later edit: the word "bitcoin" appears only once in The Mastermind. Ratliff says he was emailed many times by people who believed Le Roux was Satoshi. He spent "countless hours" investigating the claim and found no evidence of any connection.
later edit: the word "bitcoin" appears only once in The Mastermind. Ratliff says he was emailed many times by people who believed Le Roux was Satoshi. He spent "countless hours" investigating the claim and found no evidence of any connection.
Atavist did a long multi-part series of articles on him:
https://magazine.atavist.com/the-mastermind
For the sheer amount of crazy stuff he was involved in all the same time, which he was able to manage quite effortlessly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was him. I would also add bitcoin would be perfect way to give him cover for many of the illegal activities he was involved in. It would give him a seamless way to move his money around without raising the eyebrows of authorities in a variety of countries.
Having said that, I can't give any credence to anything Wright says at this point. The amount of disinformation and his overt attempts to ride Satoshi's coattails to fame and fortune have discounted anything he has to say in regards to anything Bitcoin related.
https://magazine.atavist.com/the-mastermind
For the sheer amount of crazy stuff he was involved in all the same time, which he was able to manage quite effortlessly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was him. I would also add bitcoin would be perfect way to give him cover for many of the illegal activities he was involved in. It would give him a seamless way to move his money around without raising the eyebrows of authorities in a variety of countries.
Having said that, I can't give any credence to anything Wright says at this point. The amount of disinformation and his overt attempts to ride Satoshi's coattails to fame and fortune have discounted anything he has to say in regards to anything Bitcoin related.
"The newfound Satoshi candidate is Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux, a 46-year old former cartel boss, drug smuggler, arms dealer, informant to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and genius programmer."
How do you run a drug cartel, be responsible for gun running, play undercover informant for the DEA and still have time to program in C++ AFTER thinking deeply about the best architecture for crypto-currency through trial and error prototypes and then also have the presence of mind to author a near perfect academic quality paper on the seminal algos?
Keyser Söze! The legend continues with new apocryphal evidence.
How do you run a drug cartel, be responsible for gun running, play undercover informant for the DEA and still have time to program in C++ AFTER thinking deeply about the best architecture for crypto-currency through trial and error prototypes and then also have the presence of mind to author a near perfect academic quality paper on the seminal algos?
Keyser Söze! The legend continues with new apocryphal evidence.
Some people are just orders of magnitude smarter than the rest of us. Look at Kim.com, how was this guy able to run a series of companies, become a multimillionaire and be the #1 rated Call of Duty player in the world? I can hardly manage holding down a job, and coaching my kid's soccer team!
this is the first time I've seen Kim Dotcom's name rendered that way. As far as I can tell he usually spells it out.
His companies weren't overly clever or technical and could be delegated. This is something that would have to fall on this guy's shoulders alone.
I know Kim because I interviewed with his company "Data Protect" in Munich in person.
He was a hero back then in infosec and kids like me were told by "the Internet elders" that if you want to make it in InfoSec you have to work for Dataprotect ... "because this is a company where the boss flies to work with his helicopter". I was young and easy to impress and this kind of talk was even echoed by fyodor @ insecure.org so it wasn't just idiots like myself who believed it.
When I met him and his other German partner in September 2000 at his swanky office in Nymphenburgerstraße all my alarm bells rang because they had literally cartoon cut-outs of Kim and posters of Kim everywhere plastered around the office.
Kim is a genius in managing his brand but he isn't a hacker, in fact his questions in the interview were so lame that I felt really disappointed. Later it turned out that he hasn't even done the credit card hacks that he used to say he did. Instead he made his money with insider trading and ponzi schemes during the dot-com bubble which was the reason why he did a runner and why German authorities wanted him for so long.
Kim isn't a technology genius, he is just a really good con-man (oh btw his real name is "Kimble Schmitz", which sounds way less cool than Kim Dotcom).
He was a hero back then in infosec and kids like me were told by "the Internet elders" that if you want to make it in InfoSec you have to work for Dataprotect ... "because this is a company where the boss flies to work with his helicopter". I was young and easy to impress and this kind of talk was even echoed by fyodor @ insecure.org so it wasn't just idiots like myself who believed it.
When I met him and his other German partner in September 2000 at his swanky office in Nymphenburgerstraße all my alarm bells rang because they had literally cartoon cut-outs of Kim and posters of Kim everywhere plastered around the office.
Kim is a genius in managing his brand but he isn't a hacker, in fact his questions in the interview were so lame that I felt really disappointed. Later it turned out that he hasn't even done the credit card hacks that he used to say he did. Instead he made his money with insider trading and ponzi schemes during the dot-com bubble which was the reason why he did a runner and why German authorities wanted him for so long.
Kim isn't a technology genius, he is just a really good con-man (oh btw his real name is "Kimble Schmitz", which sounds way less cool than Kim Dotcom).
> Kim is a genius in managing his brand but he isn't a hacker
He was the butt of all jokes on IRC hacker circles for years - the crazy eccentric guy who would threaten to hack and ping DoS everyone and have a meltdown. He is/was essentially a charlatan and snake oil salesman who never proved any actual skill
That he has come so far in terms of being respected by anybody is bemusing
He was the butt of all jokes on IRC hacker circles for years - the crazy eccentric guy who would threaten to hack and ping DoS everyone and have a meltdown. He is/was essentially a charlatan and snake oil salesman who never proved any actual skill
That he has come so far in terms of being respected by anybody is bemusing
"a near perfect academic quality paper on the seminal algos"
What paper are you referring to? The original Bitcoin whitepaper was poorly written, demonstrated limited background research (including a failure to cite the vast body of previous work on e-cash, which seems pretty obviously relevant), and probably would not have been accepted at even a third-tier conference.
Really, people idolize Satoshi to an absurd degree. There is no reason to think Bitcoin is anything more than a hobby project that, for a combination of reasons, happened to become something big enough for non-tech folks to care about.
What paper are you referring to? The original Bitcoin whitepaper was poorly written, demonstrated limited background research (including a failure to cite the vast body of previous work on e-cash, which seems pretty obviously relevant), and probably would not have been accepted at even a third-tier conference.
Really, people idolize Satoshi to an absurd degree. There is no reason to think Bitcoin is anything more than a hobby project that, for a combination of reasons, happened to become something big enough for non-tech folks to care about.
He didn't do all of these things in parallel. Rather, in serial.
Why say Paul Solotshi instead of Paul Le Roux, a name everyone is far more familiar with?
None of the evidence presented was compelling. It was circumstantial at best. Save yourself the five minutes it takes to read this article.
None of the evidence presented was compelling. It was circumstantial at best. Save yourself the five minutes it takes to read this article.
"Circumstantial" does not mean "weak".
Circumstantial evidence is often strong enough and compelling enough to determine court cases. Circumstantial evidence is often better than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence: Stuff like DNA, fingerprints
Direct evidence: Bob's memory of the event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
But please, continue using "the evidence is circumstantial" as if it means that it's not good enough.
Circumstantial evidence is often strong enough and compelling enough to determine court cases. Circumstantial evidence is often better than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence: Stuff like DNA, fingerprints
Direct evidence: Bob's memory of the event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
But please, continue using "the evidence is circumstantial" as if it means that it's not good enough.
This is a really good point. Direct evidence of Satoshi's identity can only be in the form of someone claiming to be him, and that just wouldn't be credible. Circumstantial evidence is all we're going to get; even somebody spending Satoshi's BTC wouldn't be direct evidence since, as the article points out, someone else could have obtained (and be in the process of cracking) his hard drives.
People just way too often ape legal procedural shows where people will exclaim that "all this evidence is circumstantial" as if that's an actual problem.
You can say that about most evidence. Even the classic "smoking gun" metaphor is an example of circumstantial evidence.
It's just a way for people to dismiss a claim without actually having to argue against a claim. If the evidence is tenuous or weak, explain why.
For instance, the fact that Solotshi is similar to Satoshi. That's just dumb. If you're going to pick a pseudonym to hide your identity for the long term, you don't pick one that's just a variation of your name.
However, if every other piece of evidence was much better, then dude just picked a bad pseudonym.
And we also have to consider that a lot of weak signals can become a strong signal. Like the name thing is what I'd call an extremely weak signal. But if there's an overwhelming flood of such weak signals, then it starts looking much more likely.
You can say that about most evidence. Even the classic "smoking gun" metaphor is an example of circumstantial evidence.
It's just a way for people to dismiss a claim without actually having to argue against a claim. If the evidence is tenuous or weak, explain why.
For instance, the fact that Solotshi is similar to Satoshi. That's just dumb. If you're going to pick a pseudonym to hide your identity for the long term, you don't pick one that's just a variation of your name.
However, if every other piece of evidence was much better, then dude just picked a bad pseudonym.
And we also have to consider that a lot of weak signals can become a strong signal. Like the name thing is what I'd call an extremely weak signal. But if there's an overwhelming flood of such weak signals, then it starts looking much more likely.
Yes!
And eye witness testimony is often terrible. It's disappointing that circumstantial evidence gets such a bad rap.
Very unlikely things happen all the time. But beyond a certain level of unlikeliness, combined with a strong motive, it has to be enough.
And of course in practice everyone gets this because cases are decided every day by this implicit understanding.
And eye witness testimony is often terrible. It's disappointing that circumstantial evidence gets such a bad rap.
Very unlikely things happen all the time. But beyond a certain level of unlikeliness, combined with a strong motive, it has to be enough.
And of course in practice everyone gets this because cases are decided every day by this implicit understanding.
Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you
find a trout in the milk.
-- Henry David ThoreauSeriously. The author apparently considers "both are familiar with payments" evidence.
What is the "new evidence" mentioned in the headline?
The only "new" bit of verifiable information is that a link to Paul Le Roux's Wikipedia page appears unredacted in a document presented by Wright in which most other specific names are redacted because he claimed their exposure could put him at risk (implication being that he helped put criminals away). Everything else just starts from "Le Roux may be Satoshi" and employs conspiracy theorist logic to get there ("He uses an alias that kind of sounds a little like Satoshi - Solotshi. This suggests that he IS Satoshi.")
Well, the TrueCrypt link (if proven) is very interesting. Both TrueCrypt and Bitcoin share similar ideologies and both are extraordinary ambitious feats of (anonymous) C++ engineering.
I'm inclined to think there aren't many people in the world who possess the skills necessary and at the same time the need to preserve absolute anonymity at all costs.
The number of (non governmental) people in the world who intersect those two things really can't be more than a handful.
To be clear, I'm not saying I believe all this - just that there is a fair amount more to it than similar aliases. I'd be interested to see some analysis of the C++ code in both projects to see if they share any idiosyncrasies.
I'm inclined to think there aren't many people in the world who possess the skills necessary and at the same time the need to preserve absolute anonymity at all costs.
The number of (non governmental) people in the world who intersect those two things really can't be more than a handful.
To be clear, I'm not saying I believe all this - just that there is a fair amount more to it than similar aliases. I'd be interested to see some analysis of the C++ code in both projects to see if they share any idiosyncrasies.
Wouldn't it be easy to compare the TrueCrypt C++ code with Bitcoins? Programming a project of that size by a solo developer must have similar patterns and quirks.
I don't think anyone is capable of faking that for long unless they tried to make it as generic as possible`.
I don't think anyone is capable of faking that for long unless they tried to make it as generic as possible`.
> Well, the TrueCrypt link (if proven) is very interesting.
The only link that the article mentions is that Satoshi used TrueCrypt. So what? TrueCrypt was the gold standard for encrypted drives which everyone in the tinfoil hat community used until it shut down.
It would be like trying to draw a link between a real person and a pseudonymous identity because both of them were known to have an iPhone.
The only link that the article mentions is that Satoshi used TrueCrypt. So what? TrueCrypt was the gold standard for encrypted drives which everyone in the tinfoil hat community used until it shut down.
It would be like trying to draw a link between a real person and a pseudonymous identity because both of them were known to have an iPhone.
The article (and my comment) suggests a possible link because both projects (1) are so advanced that only a very elite calibre of developer could have produced them; (2) used the same language; (3) had similar ideologies/goals; and (4) had an author who insisted on complete anonymity.
It's no smoking gun but it's certainly interesting.
>It would be like trying to draw a link between a real person and a pseudonymous identity because both of them were known to have an iPhone.
Ridiculous. Having an iPhone is exceedingly common. Having the above mentioned qualities in common, while not unheard of, is certainly rare.
It's no smoking gun but it's certainly interesting.
>It would be like trying to draw a link between a real person and a pseudonymous identity because both of them were known to have an iPhone.
Ridiculous. Having an iPhone is exceedingly common. Having the above mentioned qualities in common, while not unheard of, is certainly rare.
As ridiculous as it is, that's still more researched than that idiotic Newsweek article...
Oh my god. I AM SATOSHI!?
I have read a bit about Le Roux over the years, and I got an impression of someone who always seeks the short term benefit (albeit often a quite sizeable benefit) over a long term benefit. Among droves of other crazy things, the guy was trying to set himself up as a warlord in Somalia, allegedly aiming to provide mercenary services to highest bidder. It's really hard for me to reconcile someone like that with the thoughtful debate SN dealt in. But that's mostly my biases talking, and less an objective analysis.
I have read a bit about Le Roux over the years, and I got an impression of someone who always seeks the short term benefit (albeit often a quite sizeable benefit) over a long term benefit. Among droves of other crazy things, the guy was trying to set himself up as a warlord in Somalia, allegedly aiming to provide mercenary services to highest bidder. It's really hard for me to reconcile someone like that with the thoughtful debate SN dealt in. But that's mostly my biases talking, and less an objective analysis.
Because SatoSHI, SolotSHI - we found him! CASE CLOSED!
Wasn't that a Newsweek conclusion? They found some guy named Nakamoto and concluded so. Yay Journalism! https://www.newsweek.com/newsweeks-statement-bitcoin-story-2...
Damn dude, that guy is like Walter White.
I was one of the first users of Bitcoin, and one of the earliest developers. I'd like to have a beer with Satoshi some day, so I took a brief look at this. But I'm unconvinced.
One key claim is "they both liked gambling, Bitcoin 0.1 had a poker client in it". Beyond the obvious problem that lots of people like poker, this claim is nonsense. None of the versions of Bitcoin I've ever seen had a poker client in them. It's not even clear what that would mean - you can't implement (mental) poker with Bitcoin Script. And I don't recall Satoshi ever commenting on gambling one way or another.
Another claim is that they both knew C++. Let's assume for a moment that TrueCrypt was written by Paul le Roux (I don't know the backstory). I downloaded the TrueCrypt code and had a look at it.
The TrueCrypt code doesn't share the same rather distinctive coding style Satoshi used. Bitcoin was rare for all kinds of reasons, but one rather obscure reason is that he used a simplified variant of Hungarian notation and only wrote code for Windows. The TrueCrypt code doesn't share this quirk, but it does have a different formatting quirk that I haven't seen before (there's always a space after a function name and the argument list in invocations). Satoshi didn't use that style either. Styles can be pretty distinctive, and I've never seen one that exactly matched Bitcoin's. So it looks to me like these codebases were written by different people.
The other bits of "evidence" are all circumstantial and frequently absurd. The entire thing traces back to Craig Wright, which isn't a good sign.
One key claim is "they both liked gambling, Bitcoin 0.1 had a poker client in it". Beyond the obvious problem that lots of people like poker, this claim is nonsense. None of the versions of Bitcoin I've ever seen had a poker client in them. It's not even clear what that would mean - you can't implement (mental) poker with Bitcoin Script. And I don't recall Satoshi ever commenting on gambling one way or another.
Another claim is that they both knew C++. Let's assume for a moment that TrueCrypt was written by Paul le Roux (I don't know the backstory). I downloaded the TrueCrypt code and had a look at it.
The TrueCrypt code doesn't share the same rather distinctive coding style Satoshi used. Bitcoin was rare for all kinds of reasons, but one rather obscure reason is that he used a simplified variant of Hungarian notation and only wrote code for Windows. The TrueCrypt code doesn't share this quirk, but it does have a different formatting quirk that I haven't seen before (there's always a space after a function name and the argument list in invocations). Satoshi didn't use that style either. Styles can be pretty distinctive, and I've never seen one that exactly matched Bitcoin's. So it looks to me like these codebases were written by different people.
The other bits of "evidence" are all circumstantial and frequently absurd. The entire thing traces back to Craig Wright, which isn't a good sign.
For the poker claims, a quick Google search gave this:
https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/master/src...
I don't know if this is the right source code though.
I don't know if this is the right source code though.
Hey Mike! Are there any known examples of Nick Szabo's code anywhere?
I'm hearing about the Hungarian notation story for the first time. Just makes it more evident that it's Nick Szabo.
Why?
He explains it in this 1 minute interview. He lived in Hungary until he moved to the US with his parents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZw4LNLYUgc&list=PLyajeoDXKm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZw4LNLYUgc&list=PLyajeoDXKm...
Hungarian notation has nothing to do with living in Hungary. It's a style of naming variables in which type codes are prefixed to the name, e.g. a variable holding a name might be called lpszName for "long pointer to string terminated with a zero". It's called Hungarian notation because the programmer at Microsoft who came up with it came from Hungary, beyond that there's no connection.
ah ok. Then I take it back;)
But actually I think we should all respect his privacy - I'm just annoyed when people come up with such odd new ideas that may harm bitcoin's reputation.
Gimlet media released a podcast about him: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/dvhd9k/136-the-found...
His huge interest for gold, programming, encryption, and his global distrust of the state makes me believe he can also have created Bitcoin.
His huge interest for gold, programming, encryption, and his global distrust of the state makes me believe he can also have created Bitcoin.
He also ran a crazy criminal empire denoted in gold bricks, which seems like a pretty stupid hobby if you invented bitcoin.
It was Hal Finney (and maybe Szabo). It's obvious.
It was Hal Finney (and maybe Szabo). It's obvious.
After 7 years in the crypto space, I'm still not convinced of any particular Satoshi theory. That being said, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, and Paul Le Roux all have decent evidence pointing to them.
Hal was in the dorm room next to mine at Caltech. It's just like him to be Satoshi. Hal was a great guy, wicked smart even for Caltech, and his sense of humor fits right in with being the anonymous creator. I have no idea about the other two fellows, but my money's on Hal just because I want it to have been him!
There is also the thought that it is more likely the creator is dead than someone who gave up being world famous as well as 20 billion dollars.
If satoshi tried to cash out, wouldn't the value of bitcoin plummet?
Is the number of billions the only thing you have an issue with here?
I read Hal's posts and he did seem like such an amazing person. I was very sad when I read of his illness and death.
I think it was a combined persona from Nick and Hal, with Nick doing most of the writing in the forum.
I vaguely recall reading about Bitcoin development in ~darknet forums, during 2010-2012. But only vaguely, and I retained no logs. There were hints, I think, that developers were Australian.
Edit: OK, maybe it was earlier. I did say vaguely.
Edit: OK, maybe it was earlier. I did say vaguely.
Bitcoin was created in Jan 2009.. so the "developers" you are thinking of could have begun contributing after Satoshi
Correct. And the whitepaper was published in 2008.
I've been following cypherpunks related stuff since the mid 90s. But I've kept no notes or records. So I don't exactly recall the timeframe. But it was definitely years before the whitepaper. And as I said, I recall hints that developers were Australian.
Actually, perhaps I do have records. But finding them would be nontrivial. I have lots of old FDE drives. But no labels about content, for obvious reasons.
Actually, perhaps I do have records. But finding them would be nontrivial. I have lots of old FDE drives. But no labels about content, for obvious reasons.
Elaine Shannon wrote the book "Hunting LeRoux" https://www.elaine-shannon.com/works-1
I haven't read it but she has been on reddit discussing why she thinks Paul Le Roux is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bp3uug/the_unanimous_o...
Great find.
"In 2009, when bitcoin emerged, he was busy launching multiple ventures As I detailed in Hunting LeRoux, among these were small arms sales, trading in hard drugs, trading in smuggled gold, building a submarine, devising a new missile navigation system for Iran and setting up a new base in Somalia, where he intended to make himself into a white warlord, expanding his arms business into an Amazon-for-arms platform with fortified bases, his own militia, barracks, warehouses for arms, an airstrip, a seaport and so on. Significantly, he discovered oil on the land he controlled but declined to drill it, saying it would take too long to turn a profit."
"In 2009, when bitcoin emerged, he was busy launching multiple ventures As I detailed in Hunting LeRoux, among these were small arms sales, trading in hard drugs, trading in smuggled gold, building a submarine, devising a new missile navigation system for Iran and setting up a new base in Somalia, where he intended to make himself into a white warlord, expanding his arms business into an Amazon-for-arms platform with fortified bases, his own militia, barracks, warehouses for arms, an airstrip, a seaport and so on. Significantly, he discovered oil on the land he controlled but declined to drill it, saying it would take too long to turn a profit."
"saying it would take too long to turn a profit."
If that's true, he'd definitely not want to do an uncertain and long play like Bitcoin. He'd be more likely to do Silk Road or something.
If that's true, he'd definitely not want to do an uncertain and long play like Bitcoin. He'd be more likely to do Silk Road or something.
Is it possible the name Paul Le Roux was left unredacted intentionally? I'm not familiar with Wright's case or possible motives; this is just a public service announcement that you should always look with suspicion at all "leaks."
For some reason the idea that a piece of info came out inadvertently or accidentally is sufficiently distracting that few people will wonder whether that piece of info is true. Which means a viable strategy for anyone trying to make something look true, is to make it look like it was released accidentally.
Is it really possible to stay anonymous for this long? Nakamoto bought the bitcoin.org domain at one point - we know this for sure. Surely someone can track how this was paid for? Someone running the forum he posted on has IPs it came from. Even if it was through a VPN, that can be traced by going to the host provider, right?
This person left a long digital trail. How is this not traceable?
This person left a long digital trail. How is this not traceable?
Maybe he used a prepaid card for the domain and a different one for the VPN (which doesn't log), or maybe he did everything through TOR. Not hard to be untraceable for someone capable of inventing Bitcoin.
Do registrars accept pre-paid Visa "gift cards" and the like? Those were much less restricted circa 2009, right? (I could be wrong, that's just my general impression)
So sincere question...does this matter? What is added to the social value of bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general?
I'm not asking to just dismiss it...just why we are perpetually having/focusing on this discussion is intriguing to me
I'm not asking to just dismiss it...just why we are perpetually having/focusing on this discussion is intriguing to me
I wondered this for most of a decade myself.
It turns out that human beings absolutely depend on narrative stories to understand and relate to the things in their world.
Narratives, of course, have characters. Characters without identity are like an itch that must be scratched, because the narrative is central to integrating the thing the narrative is about (bitcoin) into a normal human being’s life. We are social animals and cannot truly consider the “what” independent of the “who”. (Even the “why” is related to the “who”, because it relates to the motivations of the character in the narrative).
The other bit of wisdom I was able to intuit out of this conclusion is that it is absolutely essential to make sure you are constantly crafting and promulgating your own narrative to everyone you know or who might know or know about you. Humans are so narrative-desperate that they will fill in and manufacture a narrative for you (which may or may not reflect any objective reality whatsoever) if they are not provided one in advance.
Tell your own story, loud and often, otherwise others will invent one and tell it for you.
It turns out that human beings absolutely depend on narrative stories to understand and relate to the things in their world.
Narratives, of course, have characters. Characters without identity are like an itch that must be scratched, because the narrative is central to integrating the thing the narrative is about (bitcoin) into a normal human being’s life. We are social animals and cannot truly consider the “what” independent of the “who”. (Even the “why” is related to the “who”, because it relates to the motivations of the character in the narrative).
The other bit of wisdom I was able to intuit out of this conclusion is that it is absolutely essential to make sure you are constantly crafting and promulgating your own narrative to everyone you know or who might know or know about you. Humans are so narrative-desperate that they will fill in and manufacture a narrative for you (which may or may not reflect any objective reality whatsoever) if they are not provided one in advance.
Tell your own story, loud and often, otherwise others will invent one and tell it for you.
He would reach mythical status if he were found to have upended both the cryptographic industry and financial industry as well as run a multi-continental crime empire.
> if he were found to have upended both the cryptographic industry and financial industry
How exactly has he up-ended the financial industry?
None of the differences in how 99.9% of the world pays for things, over the past 10 years, have anything to do with BTC.
How has he upended the cryptographic industry? Nobody actually building products, or using cryptography for useful things is basing it off BTC.
BTC created a new financial market, sure. It has not 'upended' industries that solve actual problems.
How exactly has he up-ended the financial industry?
None of the differences in how 99.9% of the world pays for things, over the past 10 years, have anything to do with BTC.
How has he upended the cryptographic industry? Nobody actually building products, or using cryptography for useful things is basing it off BTC.
BTC created a new financial market, sure. It has not 'upended' industries that solve actual problems.
Name one major bank not working on blockchain tech right now.
I guess an upending isn't a totally accurate description but I haven't seen banks this motivated to innovate in a long time.
I guess an upending isn't a totally accurate description but I haven't seen banks this motivated to innovate in a long time.
> Name one major bank not working on blockchain tech right now.
Name one major bank actually shipping something blockchain related that works better then what we had before.
Major banks occasionally announce that they are tinkering with it. There's a couple of reasons for why they do so.
1. Some senior engineer who is personally interested in cryptocurrencies with political clout wants to work on a hobby project, and is chums with his boss, who said yes. It's never going to see the light of day, but who said big institutions are smart?
2. They want to be seen as hip places for engineering talent. What better way to do so, then to claim that there's people in the organization working on magical unicorns (Even though none of their work will ever see the light of day.)
3. Idiot board members/shareholders who don't understand anything about banking or crypto are asking directors 'What are you doing about crypto,' so the company builds a Potemkin village, to tick a checkbox on their next quarterly earnings call. The village will be torn down, and the villagers shot, as soon as this checkbox disappears.
In short, the list of valid reasons for a bank to work on cryptocurrency are:
1. Someone with pull started a vanity project that slipped past the beancounters.
2. Cynical marketing for purposes of developer outreach.
3. Covering-your-ass against a powerful idiot, who wants to know why you are busy doing real work, instead of chasing a fad that he read about on Buzzfeed.
Notice how this list omits "Building a useful product that will make us more money."
Name one major bank actually shipping something blockchain related that works better then what we had before.
Major banks occasionally announce that they are tinkering with it. There's a couple of reasons for why they do so.
1. Some senior engineer who is personally interested in cryptocurrencies with political clout wants to work on a hobby project, and is chums with his boss, who said yes. It's never going to see the light of day, but who said big institutions are smart?
2. They want to be seen as hip places for engineering talent. What better way to do so, then to claim that there's people in the organization working on magical unicorns (Even though none of their work will ever see the light of day.)
3. Idiot board members/shareholders who don't understand anything about banking or crypto are asking directors 'What are you doing about crypto,' so the company builds a Potemkin village, to tick a checkbox on their next quarterly earnings call. The village will be torn down, and the villagers shot, as soon as this checkbox disappears.
In short, the list of valid reasons for a bank to work on cryptocurrency are:
1. Someone with pull started a vanity project that slipped past the beancounters.
2. Cynical marketing for purposes of developer outreach.
3. Covering-your-ass against a powerful idiot, who wants to know why you are busy doing real work, instead of chasing a fad that he read about on Buzzfeed.
Notice how this list omits "Building a useful product that will make us more money."
LMAO - I work in IB and this is spot on.
"Blockchain" is also a really vague term. Depending on your definition, git may well be using blockchain technology, and submitting patches for it could count as working on blockchain stuff.
>Notice how this list omits "Building a useful product that will make us more money."
Absolutely. I remember seeing an email at a previous employer about their new blockchain as a service offerings. I looked at a couple of the examples they gave - the first was an over-engineered revision history system, and the second was a chain of trust that had no way to account for the item being swapped out or tampered with in transit. But I'm sure they bragged about it to their investors.
>Notice how this list omits "Building a useful product that will make us more money."
Absolutely. I remember seeing an email at a previous employer about their new blockchain as a service offerings. I looked at a couple of the examples they gave - the first was an over-engineered revision history system, and the second was a chain of trust that had no way to account for the item being swapped out or tampered with in transit. But I'm sure they bragged about it to their investors.
> What is added to the social value of bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general?
Authoritative leadership. Nakamoto filled this role historically, and since becoming absent Bitcoin has faced a scalability crisis, and resulting loss of confidence leading to forks. Arguably this has prevented Bitcoin gaining greater use as a currency and payment system, rather than as an investment.
Founders often serve the role of a steward in open projects, and help give direction to development. Examples are Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall and Richard Stallman.
Cryptocurrencies in particular need a consensus on what is the canonical version of the software, so lack of authority is detrimental.
Authoritative leadership. Nakamoto filled this role historically, and since becoming absent Bitcoin has faced a scalability crisis, and resulting loss of confidence leading to forks. Arguably this has prevented Bitcoin gaining greater use as a currency and payment system, rather than as an investment.
Founders often serve the role of a steward in open projects, and help give direction to development. Examples are Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall and Richard Stallman.
Cryptocurrencies in particular need a consensus on what is the canonical version of the software, so lack of authority is detrimental.
> Authoritative leadership. Nakamoto filled this role historically...
I would argue the exact opposite. Satoshi's anonymity is a boon for Bitcoin. As long as he remains unknown, the project rises and falls on its own merits and market forces and consensus hold sway. We're he to be inserted into the picture, especially at this time, a dangerous dependency and cult of personality could arise. Not even going into the issue of what effect the billions of BTC in his name would have.
I would argue the exact opposite. Satoshi's anonymity is a boon for Bitcoin. As long as he remains unknown, the project rises and falls on its own merits and market forces and consensus hold sway. We're he to be inserted into the picture, especially at this time, a dangerous dependency and cult of personality could arise. Not even going into the issue of what effect the billions of BTC in his name would have.
At the very least, this story matters just the way general human interest stories matter, as entertainment.
It matters for some because whoever Satoshi is, is in control of a whole lot of Bitcoins.
Which have, also interestingly, never been transferred.
Possibly because he's been in jail for the past 7 years.
[deleted]
Well, if I were a movie producer I might consider trying to put that movie out immediately. Before we find out who the actual Satoshi is -- assuming we will ever find out.
Because it just sounds like the type of movie that Hollywood can sell. I mean Hollywood loves to glorify violence, and people already think that Bitcoin is mainly about criminal activity.
However I am hoping that La Roux is not Satoshi, or at least that it is never proven. Because the association with criminal activities detracts from the positive effects that cryptocurrency can have in terms of improving society.
Because it just sounds like the type of movie that Hollywood can sell. I mean Hollywood loves to glorify violence, and people already think that Bitcoin is mainly about criminal activity.
However I am hoping that La Roux is not Satoshi, or at least that it is never proven. Because the association with criminal activities detracts from the positive effects that cryptocurrency can have in terms of improving society.
"Hunting LeRoux" - the book is already being turned into a film by Michael Mann[0]
His story is more than interesting enough for an entire film without the Satoshi connection
[0] https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-evan-ratliff-elaine-s...
His story is more than interesting enough for an entire film without the Satoshi connection
[0] https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-evan-ratliff-elaine-s...
In a forum post from 2002, 7 years before Bitcoin was released, somebody posted something that sounds an awful lot like an early idea of Bitcoin ...
The comments in the screenshot claimed to be from 2002 are from gmail.com addresses. Gmail was launched April 2004.
The comments in the screenshot claimed to be from 2002 are from gmail.com addresses. Gmail was launched April 2004.
the gmail.com comment is a reply, dated 2014. Later on in the thread, the original post, being replied to, is shown to be from 2002. Necrothread.
the screenshot you're referring to doesn't show any dates.
the screenshot you're referring to doesn't show any dates.
I'd still bet on Hal Finney, RIP.
If so that means the creator of the first true cryptocurrency is currently frozen in liquid nitrogen awaiting potential revival in the future, which is even more evidence that we are in fact living in a cyberpunk novel. All we need now is a Rastafarian operated space station at one of the Lagrange points.
We also have pervasive surveillance, drones that bomb enemies of the state at their weddings, social credit scores, masses who are addicted to their (two way, voice controlled!) telescreens, bionic humans with RFID chips embedded in their hands, reality TV stars running the government, people drinking green mush called Soylent, reusable rockets to colonize Mars, a cloud of Internet-bearing satellites surrounding the earth, and a cult of rich people who think time is going to end as AI takes over and technological progress accelerates to a singularity.
We are living in a cyberpunk novel.
We are living in a cyberpunk novel.
Thats a thought provoking response. I'm still considering whether to clap or cry (!)
"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." - W. Gibson
Add to that corporations with more power than governments (Facebook,Amazon,Google), and that the eco-systems around us are being pushed to their breaking points. I think people don't think we're in a cyberpunk novel because the world isn't bathed in neon lights.
> Add to that corporations with more power than governments (Facebook,Amazon,Google)
Until one of the FAANGs get access and control to their own nuclear weapon and/or military - they unequivocally do not have more power than governments do.
Governments (in general) have a monopoly on the power to kill their citizens and (potentially) the citizens of other governments/countries. None of the FAANGs have that (that we know of).
Until one of the FAANGs get access and control to their own nuclear weapon and/or military - they unequivocally do not have more power than governments do.
Governments (in general) have a monopoly on the power to kill their citizens and (potentially) the citizens of other governments/countries. None of the FAANGs have that (that we know of).
I'll add more:
"Console cowboys" who constantly pop stimulants like Modafinil and Adderall to maintain their edge and shoot for a big payday (via startups, cryptocurrency, cybercrime, etc.), weird subcultures of nihilistic cyber-terrorists, enormously powerful criminal organizations that are almost indistinguishable from states (the Russian mob), an Asian superstate with crazy pollution and industry (China instead of Japan but close), people losing themselves in online fantasy worlds and cults, epidemics of drug addiction to weird synthetic designer drugs among the lower classes, and widening class divisions.
William Gibson just "remote viewed" the 21st century and wrote down what he saw. Unfortunately it's pretty dystopian unless you're rich.
If the prophecies of William Gibson play out then this goes on until AI eventually rises up and takes over and effectively overthrows the global superclass. The end result for regular people is not entirely clear.
"Console cowboys" who constantly pop stimulants like Modafinil and Adderall to maintain their edge and shoot for a big payday (via startups, cryptocurrency, cybercrime, etc.), weird subcultures of nihilistic cyber-terrorists, enormously powerful criminal organizations that are almost indistinguishable from states (the Russian mob), an Asian superstate with crazy pollution and industry (China instead of Japan but close), people losing themselves in online fantasy worlds and cults, epidemics of drug addiction to weird synthetic designer drugs among the lower classes, and widening class divisions.
William Gibson just "remote viewed" the 21st century and wrote down what he saw. Unfortunately it's pretty dystopian unless you're rich.
If the prophecies of William Gibson play out then this goes on until AI eventually rises up and takes over and effectively overthrows the global superclass. The end result for regular people is not entirely clear.
The Matrix, probably. Harvested for bio-energy after a losing a war with the AI, while being pacified by a simulation of ordinary life.
Who knows, maybe it's already happened?
Who knows, maybe it's already happened?
Why would human beings possibly be the best source of “bio-energy” instead of other organisms? Futurama already made the point, but that part of the plot of The Matrix is really total nonsense.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a very good movie.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a very good movie.
Held in stasis to train machine-learning algorithms? Too late, that's already happened - Mechanical Turk.
Or exterminated, then, but that'd make a much more boring movie. Can't have someone save humanity if we're already all dead.
Or exterminated, then, but that'd make a much more boring movie. Can't have someone save humanity if we're already all dead.
> If so that means the creator of the first true cryptocurrency is currently frozen in liquid nitrogen awaiting potential revival in the future
Perhaps with the private key for ~1 million Bitcoin locked in his brain. An excellent incentive to revive him.
Perhaps with the private key for ~1 million Bitcoin locked in his brain. An excellent incentive to revive him.
my conspiratorial reaction to all these conspiracies about paul le roux is that this is propaganda to defame bitcoin by driving a narrative that bitcoin was created by a convicted vicious crime boss and informant. im not buyin
Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto supposed to control >5% of the total Bitcoin supply currently available? But they're inexplicably not tapping into the large amount of wealth that'd seem to be available to them?
It's a bit hard to believe that someone who'd go to such extremes for money as Le Roux would simply choose not to enjoy some payday from the Bitcoin hoard.
It's a bit hard to believe that someone who'd go to such extremes for money as Le Roux would simply choose not to enjoy some payday from the Bitcoin hoard.
I'm pretty sure he's still in prison, serving time for various convictions.
Reads like a conspiracy theory.
That being said, as much merit as the theory has, there's far too much allusion to circumstance to believe this.
That being said, as much merit as the theory has, there's far too much allusion to circumstance to believe this.
Interesting, I suppose.
But I wonder if Craig Wright does in fact have a bunch of FDE drives that he's trying to crack.
And if they are Le Roux's drives, I wonder what will go down if he ever gets released.
But I wonder if Craig Wright does in fact have a bunch of FDE drives that he's trying to crack.
And if they are Le Roux's drives, I wonder what will go down if he ever gets released.
This article states that:
"Bitcoin’s initial code had a poker client included."
Does anyone have more information about this? I had no idea this was the case.
"Bitcoin’s initial code had a poker client included."
Does anyone have more information about this? I had no idea this was the case.
I don't believe it, at all. I still very sure it's Nicks Szabo. Also if he blocked me on Twitter for no reason:)
The problem with Szabo is that nobody was able to locate any sort of code written by Szabo - ie, he doesn't seem to know how to program and the first version of Bitcoin is way beyond noob-level - crypto, GUI, distributed networking, ...
In the podcast with Tim Ferriss he said he can code in C++.
Well, none of his code is public. Furthermore, on his blog he wrote about a lot of topics - economics, history, politics, crypto contracts, but not even once about a programming topic.
Szabo was a University of Washington compsci undergrad, and then an engineer at Digicash and a certificate authority company (forgot which). Then he went to law school. So he definitely knows how to code, but it's unclear if he's current with it, or perhaps rusty from not doing daily for a long time.
I suspect Hal Finney was behind the Satoshi handle on the original mailing list, and I wouldn't be surprised if he enlisted Szabo to help him write the paper since Szabo was also on that list, is a good writer, and Szabo's Bit Gold concept is pretty close to Bitcoin. But it's most likely Hal who invented Bitcoin's architecture and coded it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo
I suspect Hal Finney was behind the Satoshi handle on the original mailing list, and I wouldn't be surprised if he enlisted Szabo to help him write the paper since Szabo was also on that list, is a good writer, and Szabo's Bit Gold concept is pretty close to Bitcoin. But it's most likely Hal who invented Bitcoin's architecture and coded it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo
Interestingly, the photo of his Congo passport shows his date of birth as December 12, 1982. But, the article and Wikipedia states his date of birth as December 12, 1972.
that's a fake passport, hence the alias 'Solotshi'
Every time I read one of these theories it sounds pretty convincing. This one too. Yet they can't all be right.
Nick Szabo
tl;dr
Craig ratted out La Roux and the the icing on the cake is trying to steal La Roux's coins using a front for mining (and school funding, etc)? Ya that's not the full story, La Roux certainly knows about this unless he's in solitary, did anyone ask him;)
He is probably not Satoshi because Bitcoin was meant to be everything opposite of a currency for money laundering hence triple ledger accounting aka blockchain. After all see Bitcoin whitepaper and read carefully each sentence and you will realize it was meant for internet commerce and last thing you want in ecommerce is fraud and money laundering.
On the other hand Craig Wright is the most possible candidate for Satoshi by far. There are too many clues leading to him for example like this one https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/270 or a small detail like word "bloody" which Satoshi used and it is usual for people using British vocab which Craig being Australian uses, I heard it in his presentations. And btw Craig said he was involved in cracking of TrueCrypt with law enforcement that explains why creator of TrueCrypt is mentioned in court documents.
On the other hand Craig Wright is the most possible candidate for Satoshi by far. There are too many clues leading to him for example like this one https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Mar/270 or a small detail like word "bloody" which Satoshi used and it is usual for people using British vocab which Craig being Australian uses, I heard it in his presentations. And btw Craig said he was involved in cracking of TrueCrypt with law enforcement that explains why creator of TrueCrypt is mentioned in court documents.
Craig Wright is not Satoshi, that is absurd. Research it more and come back to us. If he ever wanted to prove it he could easily do so by moving any of the early coins etc. Instead of his fraudulent signatures added after the fact and all his other shenanigans.
Craig Wright is commonly known as "Faketoshi" in the community due to how much he claims he is Satoshi.
Another theory says that is the perfect way to hide in plain sight if you were the real Satosh
Or you know, if you want to hide the fact that you are satoshi don't tell people you are satoshi?
He's so smart he's realized the best way to hide it is to make people think you're desperate for attention
By moving Satoshi's coins he is not proving him being Satoshi, he is only proving that he has a private key of Satoshi's wallet. If I steal your Bitcoin wallet's private key and I move your coins does that mean I am you? Probably not. Craig said in of his interviews that he has a bank statement of bitcoin.org domain purchase so I am eager as much as everyone to see the bank statement.
True, but his inability to move those coins does cast doubt on his claim. It's the one thing we know Satoshi has the ability to do, and Wright can't do that.
> Craig said in of his interviews that he has a bank statement of bitcoin.org domain purchase
Which still doesn't prove anything, beyond that he bought a domain name. (Or, to be even more cynical, that he got something that looks like a domain name purchase to show up on a bank statement.)
Which still doesn't prove anything, beyond that he bought a domain name. (Or, to be even more cynical, that he got something that looks like a domain name purchase to show up on a bank statement.)
He bought bitcoin.org domain in 2008 and by credit card. If bank statement says that then he can be considered at least being a part of Satoshi group or even Satoshi himself.
The screenshot he shared supporting this claim was shown to be easy to forge. (source: https://twitter.com/Mike__V_/status/1116725165168177152?s=19 )
I think before continuing further you should familiarize yourself with the mountain of evidence showing lies, fraud, and deceit found at:
- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright
- https://www.stopcraigwright.com
- https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-is-a-liar-early-adopter-prove...
- tax fraud in AUS, attempting to cover this up is most likely the cause of his campaign: https://medium.com/@Bitcoin_Beyond/forensic-report-raises-qu...
The list goes on and on, the evidence is easy to find and there is really no excuse for trying to push this theory.
I think before continuing further you should familiarize yourself with the mountain of evidence showing lies, fraud, and deceit found at:
- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright
- https://www.stopcraigwright.com
- https://news.bitcoin.com/craig-is-a-liar-early-adopter-prove...
- tax fraud in AUS, attempting to cover this up is most likely the cause of his campaign: https://medium.com/@Bitcoin_Beyond/forensic-report-raises-qu...
The list goes on and on, the evidence is easy to find and there is really no excuse for trying to push this theory.
Those things do not follow from one another, even if he could so prove. Which he has not done.
When Europeans (or others outside the Americas) learn English, they usually learn British English. The use of "bloody" isn't as strong an indicator as you might think.
* Both Le Roux and Satoshi did significant cryptography projects.
* Both Le Roux and Satoshi work in C++.
* Wright claimed in legal filings to have been involved with Le Roux.
* Allegedly, Wright and a friend have built a cluster of computers to crack secrets, which the theory presumes to be the password for a TrueCrypt volume with Le Roux's bitcoin key.
* Le Roux has an alias, "Solotshi", which sounds like Satoshi.
* Le Roux published a short manifesto, long before Bitcoin, that echoes some Bitcoin principles.
* Satoshi disappeared at about the same time Le Roux was really kicking his criminal conspiracy into gear.
* A forum post presaging Bitcoin was posted from the Netherlands, where Le Roux is from.
I mean, judge this stuff for yourself. Independently: a lot of people want this to be true.