And, I still do not think @petertodd is Satoshi Nakamoto. Hoback, like anyone else, can be very confident of his conclusion but that doesn't mean he's right.
So, you edit some asterisks out of a post and you're Satoshi? Hmmph.
To summarize the "evidence" in this article*:
. Satoshis code seemed like a non-pro wrote in and Todd was 22 then
. Todd once tweeted about about "framing" someone else
. He edited out some asterisks in a bitcointalk post
. Boom
The asterisk comment doesn't read to me like Satoshi corrected himself (forgetting to switch sock puppets, that's the theory?).
It reads like Peter (a different person) found a (small) mistake in Satoshi's argument, and wanted to show it. It shows how well he understands the issue.
If it was Satoshi correcting himself, I think the tone would have been different.
I find it unthinkable for people who wants to remain anonymous to have a public presence for decades... Peter Todd, Adam Back etc...
Perhaps if from the early days of bitcoin people had bothered to reveal Nakamoto's identity they would have found out who he really is. But we're talking about a very small community that didn't get attention in the early days. Today I find it unlikely that the real identity will be found and everything I read is speculation without proof.
Speculation runs rife, and hundreds of people have been claimed to be Satoshi. In the face of debates that still circulate on Nakamoto's identity, the much-needed reminder is that the essence of Bitcoin is not vested in any one person. It is the freedom and self-sovereignty it offers to the people of every nationality in this world that matters.
Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin white paper in 2008 and then released the first Bitcoin software in 2009. Since the release, Nakamoto had been ensuring he was anonymous, using a pseudonym to maintain this. Of course, it is not an afterthought but a deep realization of what freedom entails: safety, security, and privacy. He kept anonymity so that Bitcoin would not be anchored to one person's thoughts or influence.
I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.
This anonymity is not a bug, but rather a feature. In designing Bitcoin, Satoshi gave it a trustless environment wherein users are free from the dependence on any one person or authority. In effect, it is the collective consensus of the users that validates and secures network. It is by creating such distance that Satoshi made sure this system would be resilient against personal biases, manipulations, and influences.
But if Bitcoin were to be pegged with Satoshi's identity, then it would undermine its principles by default. The value of Bitcoin is not rooted in who created it but rather in its network. And this huge network of developers, node runners, and users around the world is continuously patching and securing it. It is this cumulative effort that returns Bitcoin's viability and not the influence of any individual.
Here's a list of some persons who claimed or are believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym used by the creator of Bitcoin:
1. Craig Wright
2. Hal Finney
3. Nick Szabo
4. Wei Dai
5. Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto
6. James A. Donald
7. Vili Lehdonvirta
8. Adam Back
9. David Chaum
10. Ross Ulbricht
11. Len Sassaman
12. Philippe Dybowski
13. Julius Baer
14. Sergio Lerner
15. Timothy C. May
16. Gavin Andresen
17. Greg Maxwell
18. Evan Duffield
19. Martti Malmi
20. Peter Todd
21. Dan Kaminsky
22. Peter Todd
Argument on who Satoshi Nakamoto is, has led many to claim their identity, but the only person who can actually prove his identity is Satoshi himself. Satoshi, however has kept the revolution noble and allowed it to work for itself. This decision has drawn the line between Bitcoin and its creator that Bitcoin is not its creators' product but a revolutionary tool, a means to freedom.
Conclusion
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, is beside the point. What's important is the freedom and sovereignty that Bitcoin gives. Satoshi's decision to keep himself anonymous reinforces the decentralized nature of the revolution and helps it operate independently.
I had said in the earlier HBO post that a good attack on bitcoin, if someone wanted to attack it, would be to label a false Satoshi and make him/her prove otherwise in the eyes of the public. Hopefully this stuff with @petertodd doesn't catch fire and end up in everyones MSM feed. They really did endanger him and it's surprising to me that they did this without much consulting.
Downloading it now to watch and see.
Its on piratebay already.
My reason is curiosity but yeah maybe I'm being played by the HBO MSM?
It does not sound like they have provided conclusive proof more just some coincidence and a 'gotcha' moment in an interview set up, which again is not conclusive proof.
Surely though this thing will play out but if hes not Satoshi how can he prove that?
P.S. I would be disappointed if they have found Satoshi as it would somewhat undermine the mythology and cryptographic purity of the protocol but do not believe it would be too damaging long term.
Incredible really that his identity has remained concealed so long already...and hoping it remains so.
i think if it has a look at the different people in the cryptography space and has some bitcoin history , then it might be worth a watch
that being said, it's better that nobody knows who satoshi is because it undermines the purity of the protocol and that was probably one of the last periods in time that someone could be truly anonymous and then vanish
It Doesn't Matter Who Satoshi Nakamoto Is: It's The Freedom, Bitcoin Gives That Matters.
The Anonymity of Satoshi Nakamoto
The Only True Proof