Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I read the whole thing just out of morbid curiosity. The biggest shocker in this (assuming it as real... who knows) is this guy claims he was basically a kid when he got started and was around college age when he launched Bitcoin. I don't know... That just wasn't what I imagined. Interesting read, whoever did this at least did enough homework, not to immediately get discredited by the crypto-community.
I don't really get the point though. If someone says they are the man, all they need to do is break out the old genesis block and prove it and there will be no doubts.
What do you guys think?
Ian
In the analytical world there is no such thing as art, there is only the science you know and the science you don't know. Characterizing the science you don't know as "art" is a fools game.
I have no real idea and zero knowledge. But if I were to guess, I'd guess that whoever created Bitcoin was likely already super wealthy because they haven't sold any coins. I think the distributed nature of Bitcoin might suggest an executive at Google or Microsoft possibly someone working on distributed database systems. A simple predictor of anyone claiming to be Satoshi would be to calculate their known net worth. The higher that number the more likely they are to be Satoshi.
I think you might be on to something with this logic. It seems that after BTC hit 20K then took a nose dive anyone (not already very wealty) holding 1 million bitcoins (Satoshi) would have unloaded at least some of them.
1. Satoshi is either loaded and doesn't need money
2. Satoshi is crazy and while maybe not be wealthy has no regard for money and doesn't care about every giving up the original 1 million on principle or possibly because it could somehow out him.
3. Satoshi is a front for a company and there are 10,20, 50 people involved and they all have some legal agreement where they can't draw into the original satoshi stash until 2020 or > for example.
4. It could possibly give more credence to Craig Write's claim that he and Dave Kleiman had a trust known as the "tulip trust" that held the original 1 million bitcoins... There was a condition that this amount could not be used, spend, etc, until some point in time in the future. So this could explain things. There is also an ongoing legal dispute over this trust, and in the coming months it might be made public just what exactly is inside this.
Interesting stuff either way.
In the analytical world there is no such thing as art, there is only the science you know and the science you don't know. Characterizing the science you don't know as "art" is a fools game.
Right, I think you have to go back to why Satoshi wanted to be anonymous to begin with and what would change that. I think if he were a Google executive or whatever then that could explain it because he wouldn't want it associated with his company for any number of reasons. There are, of course, other explanations. But I think distributed databases make sense.
There are, of course, many possibilities:
1. He is dead. Not likely but possible. 10%
2. He lost the original coins or didn't bother to save them. Very unlikely. 10%
3. He had the original intent to keep all original mined coins intact and mined a second batch of coins shortly after creation. For this thesis, you would want to identify the first say 50-100 largest coin holders as possible candidates. I'd say rather possible. 65%
4. Right there is some sort of trust or they were borrowed against. But, why would you let someone borrow against something you couldn't sell unless they had mined additional at the start? 50%
5. Already super wealthy. 65%
Next, why did he pick the name Satoshi Nakamoto? Sounds vaguely similar to Shigeru Miyamato? It might have been a homage to the Nintendo developer. Now come to think about it, Mario busted blocks for coins. Bitcoin, block chain, etc very similar. I believe this is my original insight but did a search and others noted similarities as far back as 2011. Cool.
So, here's my final guess on who Satoshi might be, I think it is more interesting if he remains unknown personally:
1. Likely worked for Google (1st choice) or Microsoft. Likely distributed databases (1st choice) or cryptography (2nd choice)
2. He would have been at minimum a multi-millionaire and is most likely around 42 years old today.
3. Gamer and Nintendo fan.
4. Likely one of the largest miners of Bitcoin shortly after it was released.
5. Very possibly was a passing side project and is now continuing working in distributed databases or big data and might now be CEO of a big data company.
From what I read Satoshi was pretty active in the early days of bitcoin then stopped..could it be he just gave up on the project and it took off on its own and the reason those coins havn't been touched is because he lost the password to his wallet?
I think the site is by an imposter since Satoshi always wanted to remain anonymous.
Satoshi Nakamoto sounds like Shigeru Miyamoto and may also be a play on Satoshi Tajiri creator of Pokemon. Shigeru was Satoshi's mentor. This has been noted by others. It fits with the fan theory.
This is completely speculation on my part, but if I was Satoshi I would wait until all coins have been mined before selling any of the holdings. There's some potential economic issues to deal with if supply is completely shut off. Having extra coin would allow you to release some to help calm down markets and decrease volatility.
