I don’t know how many other very early wallets have suddenly become active in the last decade, and it could be a complete coincidence, but those wallets being drained is the smallest crumb of evidence that someone’s figured something out in my eyes.

There's very little veracity to his claims QAnon was run by some 8chan rando in the Philippines as well, so I agree with your guess here.

I'm really enjoying the multiple confident assertions that it's different people in this thread. Kind of a spoiler for the documentary I guess: it'll be another confident assertion about someone, with as satisfying a conclusion as all these comments.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, but please don't continue to spread this. Len Sassaman left behind family and heirs, and although it is very unlikely that Satoshi's mining keys survived in any form, if this rumor spreads they will never be safe.

It’s so interesting how people are so confident in multiple different people that have known exculpatory issues. Stylometry and code style doesn’t match at all.

Complete nonsense, lol.

Adam Back. Ever notice how anytime anyone mentions his name as possibly being satoshi they get buried? Not a coincidence. Plus Adam had no work history during the dates that Bitcoin was created. Had created the system that bitcoin is based on and never produced the emails of him and Satoshi that supposedly existed. Remember the first email from Satoshi mentions he got "your email from Adam Back". Google also manipulated the search engine results for "Satoshi is Adam Back" for years and basically censored the results for that query.. The list goes on. He is the most obvious candidate and likely the reason he was chosen to head core (I mean he literally wrote hash cash which is basically Bitcoin version 1)

I'm guessing it was a national intelligence agency trying to create a mostly deniable way to pay their agents.

my moneys on le roux

Could you provide some instances of how hard evidence might look like?

Show me a "community effort," and I'll find a leadership hierarchy, influential people, ect.

The only way there'd be shockwaves is if it turned out to be Theo de Raadt.

There's historical interest here and in some case, the fate of the "1 million Satoshi bitcoins" depends on who the creator is. If it was someone like Finney who passed away a decade ago, it's extremely unlikely that those coins will ever be recovered/spent.

To historians it does matter.

Users flagged the post correctly, since the article doesn't actually include the critical bit of information that it's dangling.

The actual (new) content of this article can be summarized as "TV special soon to be released", which is not an intellectually interesting story. Perhaps the show itself will contain interesting information, and if so, the community may find something to discuss about it then. On HN, there's no harm in waiting. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

There's also the aspect that Satoshi speculation is one of the most-trodden topics in HN history, so a new story has a pretty high bar to clear to count as interesting.

Disclosure of an inventor for Bitcoin is spectacularly technically interesting!

I've been deploying continent-wide distributed industrial systems and writing, theorizing and producing prototypes for scalable digital money since before 2009 (when Bitcoin was "invented"). It was a gobsmacking breakthrough then -- and it has only gotten more interesting, as we discover the profound insights of its "inventor", by watching other nascent cryptocurrencies and other distributed systems make mistakes that Bitcoin's "inventor" somehow knew to avoid (UTXOs vs. account balances, I'm lookin' at you..., and that's the least of them).

For someone to ex nihilo solve byzantine fault tolerant global consensus w/ robust authority-free rejection of sybils? And then go dark for 15 years? Any non-trivial semi-reliable claim of identification (see: HBO's skin in the game) is automatically almost the most technically interesting claim this year!

So, for some religious (see: beliefs based in faith in a narrative rather than observation, hypothesis and testing) "expert" to "Flag" this post as uninteresting is pretty much the opposite of the credo of the HN of the decade past.

HN seems to have become the "mainstream media" of the technical world -- interested only in findings acceptable to righteously-aligned cultists, boring to everyone actually observing interesting and novel facts about the technical world.

[flagged]

That would be hilarious

How do you know?