It would be great if you could elaborate on that technically. Are you saying Satoshi wasn’t running a node that day? or there were more than the two nodes? I plan to read the code tomorrow they were running and look at the debug.log and would like to understand what you are trying to say technically.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have late 2010 backups with a copy of the "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements" paper. It was rendered with a January 2009 copy of ghostscript. Just based on the dates there are reasonable odds my copy is the same one Satoshi had. Satoshi contacted the authors he cited for information on how to correctly cite their work, he didn't actually have to have seen the symposium document. Considering that it's title used the same language as Satoshi, it wouldn't have been surprising for him to have turned it up -- or one of the people Satoshi contacted might have suggested it.

Lots of possibilities.

I would take the source that you're taking these arguments from with a huge grain of salt.

> I'm not saying Sassaman is Satoshi, but simply that Sassaman is a much better candidate.

A hand full of random coincidences which are unsurprising for people of their interests isn't good evidence for any of them.

And it's also not unusual for people to have access to proceedings for events they didn't attend, or even to have them outright, e.g. I have a big set of FC proceedings but only was actually attending for a couple-- https://files.catbox.moe/w1dhwn.jpeg.

We all want Sassaman to be Satoshi. For the sake of debate I’ll reply to your issues with the Peter Todd theory:

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

In the documentary he tells you himself. He destroyed Satoshi thats “what he would do if he was Satoshi”. I can relate even. I’ve “destroyed” one of my own pseudonyms once and it was probably a panic move on his part.

Also don’t forget the 2015 “satoshi” email which people assume is “hacked” yet it’s completely possible it’s authentic. Satoshi may have retained access to the email address after all other data was “destroyed” simply because he remembered the passwords and didn’t delete the email account. Yet what was the lesson from that? nobody would believe it’s Satoshi unless the message is signed … which Satoshi can’t do … because the PGP keys are deleted.

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

Again because he destroyed Satoshi. But alternatively why move or spend coins if you don’t need to? I have unmoved coins from 2013. Somebody from very very early felt the need to move their coins recently, likely for security reasons as it moved to multisig.

29 Jan 2009 - mined coinbase transaction ——> !! https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/77fe7a6eb5e98bf53...

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

There is a LOT of baggage being Satoshi. Without PGP keys or other keys to sign with NOBODY will believe him anyway, is that not true?

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

retep could have easily been emailed this. He was also working on timestamping project like Sassaman though I have yet to see this project and code that supposedly exists.

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

Borders. It was awesome back then. My wife and I often reminisce over the foreign newspapers section of Borders. They were only 1 or 2 days old and very enjoyable. In Toronto Borders they would have had an excellent selection of newspapers from all over the world and especially British newspapers. They were flown in air mail since 1980s like that. I miss Borders over Barnes and Noble A LOT.

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

As we can see your issues with Todd are not as solid as you think.

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

I wish his wife could help prove it was him. She is clearly traumatized overall so perhaps she doesn’t yet accept she should help. The tweet about “according to it’s creator” is almost a smoking gun.

Let’s hope Satoshi is Sassaman, however I fear the case for Todd is much stronger than we all would think initially.

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?

I agree we should see headers. I support your request for email headers with or without DKIM signatures.

I suspect we actually agree on many items.

I also support your question about the debug.log IP leak. I hope to study that in the next few days. That IP leak if real is probably the strongest lead we have on Satoshi.

Do you support unmasking Satoshi if it is possible?