[HN Gopher] Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
Satoshi leaked his Los Angeles IP address (2016)
Author : sahil50
Score : 154 points
Date : 2021-12-29 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (whoissatoshi.wordpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (whoissatoshi.wordpress.com)
| paulsutter wrote:
| Anyone have an 2009 vintage geo-IP table? (the current mapping
| doesnt mean a lot)
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Maybe look on Internet Archive to find an old MaxMind database?
| DantesKite wrote:
| It's pretty remarkable he's been able to keep secret for this
| long.
| edf13 wrote:
| Possibly passed away... it would be hard for anyone to resist
| the amount of money his early coin holding is now worth.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| There are enough stories like the 10,000 BTC pizza and lost
| hard drives it's entirely plausible he doesn't _have_ that
| early coin any more.
| hwers wrote:
| It would be funny if he's just a normal engineer somewhere
| who did this as a quick side project and won't come out as
| the creator because he's too embarrassed that he lost the
| keys.
| rcpt wrote:
| No way that paper and implementation is a "quick side
| project". Even if Satoshi were some kind of Bill Joy,
| Jeff Dean, John Carmack hybrid that's a full time
| endeavor
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Embarrassed is one thing, at this point he'd be putting
| himself in mortal danger
| edf13 wrote:
| I may be wrong but aren't their a significant amount held
| from day 1 that haven't been moved?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| To be clearer: that people would give away 10k of them to
| buy a pizza indicates back then they were seen as
| essentially worthless, meaning you'd probably not take
| much care to preserve the ones you mined for a while
| while playing with the software you wrote.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| A lost key would explain it. Maybe that was your point.
| [deleted]
| Someone wrote:
| If money didn't move, that may be because the owner
| didn't _want_ it to move, or because they _couldn't_ move
| it bascule they lost the access key.
|
| From an outsider's perspective, both look 100% identical.
| sdmike1 wrote:
| That or they nuked the private key
| spir wrote:
| I think somebody smart enough to invent Bitcoin seems likely
| to have been smart enough to mine coins on a separate
| account, knowing he would never be able to touch the genesis
| wallet. I think Satoshi is alive and well and enjoying his
| riches. Good for them
| [deleted]
| someguydave wrote:
| Satoshi probably destroyed the keys to the genesis wallet
| as a gift to humanity
| vmception wrote:
| Exactly. Anybody that mined those earlier blocks on the
| weird unknown hardware was also able to mine on known
| hardware under another identity.
|
| so
|
| A) Satoshi has other earnings, in bitcoin, that was held
| long enough to make Satoshi extremely rich, and sold under
| their normal known identity. While never needing to
| associate with the other identity.
|
| B) The private keys to the bitcoin mined in those original
| blocks were sold for cash over the counter for very large
| amounts to funds with longer time horizons. Bitcoin can
| operate in temporarily trusted environments. Bitcoin price
| has tanked every time very old Bitcoin is transferred
| onchain, so there is no need to transfer them onchain. We
| would never know.
| jcpham2 wrote:
| You seem like a guy that's read the studies/blogs on the
| Satoshi/genesis nonces
| vmception wrote:
| yeah, I have, there are so many ways to elevate or
| downrank any altrustic version of Satoshi, or a
| dead/hiding Satoshi, or an incompetent Satoshi that lost
| private keys, since its also possible for there to
| already be an extremely rich Satoshi that doesn't have
| any incentive to look back
|
| its all fruitless to speculate
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| The problem with those private keys being sold off-net is
| that the buyer can never be sure the seller deleted every
| copy. Who would take that risk? And who would buy it and
| not use any of it?
|
| Even if the value tanks it'll still be a ton of money.
| vmception wrote:
| Correct, with all single signer ownership you can never
| be sure how many custodians there are
|
| So you're right and we would never be able to prove that
| any amount has changed hands or not, only assume that
| others wouldn't take the risk
| diab0lic wrote:
| I think what they were trying to say was that buying them
| off chain would be extremely unfavorable as the buyer
| gains zero of the protections that a blockchain claims to
| offer in this case.
| vmception wrote:
| And my original post wrote that bitcoin works in trusted
| environments, and maybe they didn't know that meant small
| networks of humans trusting each other with private keys
| off of the blockchain even though that was the only
| context possible, now they know so we're just
| intentionally talking past each other at this point
| yob28 wrote:
| [deleted]
| mrkramer wrote:
| If you want to find out who Satoshi is follow the money. How he,
| she or they bought bitcoin.org domain and bitcoin.org hosting?
| Cash in mail, credit card or bank transfer. All things that are
| tracked and recorded somewhere in someone's database or archive.
| cyberbanjo wrote:
| How is cash in mail recorded?
| AcedJF wrote:
| 34.168904,-118.455922
| greyface- wrote:
| A decade-old dynamic IP is one thing. Current GPS coordinates
| to someone's personal residence are another. I don't think this
| is appropriate to post on HN.
| pdevr wrote:
| For whatever it is worth, Dorian Nakamoto (whom Leah Goodman
| claimed to be "The Face Behind Bitcoin"[1]) stays nearby - within
| the realm of possibility :)
|
| [1] https://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-
| bitcoin-2479...
| rurban wrote:
| So Paul Le Roux is out now as prime suspect. He was arrested
| 2012, and in 2009 he was still on the run, and certainly not in
| the US. More like in Brazil, Philippines or Hong Kong.
| servytor wrote:
| edit: krapp below me is right, I AM AN IDIOT. I just ran it
| through an anagram website and trusted it without even checking.
|
| ---
|
| I always thought Satoshi Nakamoto was an anagram.
|
| Antonomasias ~ Satoshi Nakamoto
|
| Antonomasias: the substitution of an epithet or title for a
| proper name (e.g., the Bard for Shakespeare).
|
| So it seems like a play on words, because Satoshi Nakamoto is a
| real name, and therefore a group might have wanted the creator to
| have a human name.
| krapp wrote:
| >I always thought Satoshi Nakamoto was an anagram.
|
| >Antonomasias ~ Satoshi Nakamoto
|
| Doesn't work. No H or K, too many N's.
| [deleted]
| wallacoloo wrote:
| the closest anagram i can make from "antonomasias" is:
|
| Satosi nanamo
|
| seems like a stretch, unless there's more that i'm missing.
| petertodd wrote:
| "In the Jan of 2009 when Hal and Satoshi were working on Bitcoin
| Alpha version, Hal encountered an error with the software and he
| posted the debug log to the mailing list."
|
| The "dox" assumes that only three people were using Bitcoin at
| the time, and thus one of them must be Satoshi. That's a bad
| assumption, as Bitcoin was publicly available at that time, and
| was announced on the public cryptography mailing list, and we
| know for a fact that a few people tried it out early on.
|
| The IRC initial seeding mechanism was _not_ mandatory to use, let
| alone full time. So it wouldn't be surprising at all if Satoshi
| wasn't using it.
|
| "This is not a TOR exit node which implies that this is the IP
| address used by Satoshi on 2009-01-10 and he was in Van Nuys on
| this day"
|
| It's not a TOR exit node in 2016, when this article is published.
| That doesn't tell us anything about 2009.
| victor22 wrote:
| Peter himself! Thank you for your work, I had a great time
| chatting with you in Colombia back in 2017. Cheers!
| finite_jest wrote:
| As per LinuxBender's comment [1], ExoneraTor [2] tells us it
| hasn't been a TOR relay in 2009 either.
|
| I think Szabo is the most likely Satoshi candidate. He seems to
| have disappeared from public view since March, despite being a
| prolific Twitter [2]. I hope he is doing well, chilling on a
| beach in a Caribbean island.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729498
|
| [2]:
| https://metrics.torproject.org/exonerator.html?ip=68.164.57....
|
| [3]: https://twitter.com/nickszabo4
| davidgerard wrote:
| yeah, the leak is 2009-01-10, two days after Bitcoin 0.1
| dropped
| rshnotsecure wrote:
| The reverse DNS of the IP address mentioned is:
| h-68-164-57-219.lsan.ca.dynamic.globalcapacity.com according to
| SecurityTrails.
|
| The article also gives the following information:
|
| - HOST DETAILS: H-68-164-57-219.LSANCA54.DYNAMIC.COVAD.NET
|
| - IP Address: 68.164.57.219
|
| The IP address is within a /16 block owned by Megapath, a Los
| Angeles hosting provider.
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| _EDIT: Please explain in the comments - because I seriously do
| not understand that - why on earth you are downvoting this!? You
| 're advocating something cruel. WTF? What is the problem about
| saying "leave a person alone who apparently WANTS to be left
| alone?". You're advocating stalking._
|
| The people who trying to figure out who Satoshi is and make it
| public should realize this:
|
| What they're effectively doing is trying to completely destroy
| someone's life just for them having written a piece of software.
|
| Because then everyone will assume ( _EDIT: not *know*, see the
| comments_ ) that the person is insanely rich. And beyond the
| glorification of being rich everyone forgets what it actually
| means:
|
| You're a prisoner of your money.
|
| Want to go to a pub and have a beer? Not possible, you might get
| kidnapped or at least harassed by paparazzi.
|
| Want to go outside for a walk? Same as above.
|
| Want friends? Nope, how are you gonna find them if you cannot go
| outside? How can you trust anyone? Maybe they just want your
| money?
|
| Of course, the rich can mingle among each other. But this very
| much limits your possible circle of social contacts, and there's
| no law of nature which says that someone like Sathoshi might even
| _want_ to be friends with Justin Bieber etc., or vice versa.
|
| Hobbies? Only those you can do alone.
|
| Want a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse? See above.
|
| Also as a bonus a large portion of the public will HATE you, no
| matter what you do. Just see how much HN hates crypto.
|
| You might get tortured for money, lynched or whatever cruel
| imagination you can come up with. Enough people know you =
| anything is possible.
|
| Satoshi apparently wants to be left alone so you should do just
| that.
|
| They gave you a software for free which spawned a whole industry,
| they don't deserve to be harassed for that. If you don't like it
| then don't use it, but don't destroy the developer's life. Nobody
| forces you to use it - and even if someone did then go harass
| them, not the developer.
| nullc wrote:
| > You're a prisoner of your money.
|
| Moreover, all these claims of Satoshi having a lot of money are
| pretty much just speculation -- all they do is show that some
| early miner mined a few hundred thousand bitcoin. They don't
| show that miner is Satoshi, that's just a plausible guess
| because the people speculating know of few other early Bitcoin
| users. They also don't show that whomever mined those coins
| hasn't lost the keys for them.
|
| Any person 'identified' as Satoshi may not actually be Satoshi
| anyways, people have shown that they're remarkably able to
| believe utter drivel.
|
| So now imagine all the problems you listed but apply them to
| someone who isn't actually wealthy because because that early
| miner wasn't them, they're not Bitcoin's creator, or because
| the assets had been lost back when they were worth very little.
| They'd still be subject to all the assumptions and thus
| threats, but not be able to buy their way out of them to the
| extent that it's possible to do so-- e.g. they couldn't afford
| the multi-million dollar a year security.
|
| (Someone might reply to you that if their problem was wealth
| they didn't want they could always dispose of it, but that just
| reduces to the problem above: people wouldn't believe they did
| so it wouldn't solve the problem, it would only remove the best
| tool they have to ameliorate it)
|
| > They gave you a software for free which spawned a whole
| industry, they don't deserve to be harassed for that. If you
| don't like it then don't use it, but don't destroy the
| developer's life. Nobody forces you to use it
|
| Not just that, the very premise and fundamental design of
| Bitcoin was to give its creator no particular control or
| authority over it. So their identity doesn't really matter. The
| fetishization of the identity of Bitcoin's creator is a
| stupendous act of missing the entire point.
|
| People shouldn't delude themselves that they're not engaging in
| a mean and harmful act against someone who never caused them
| harm. It's gross and creepy. If Satoshi is still alive and
| wanted to be known, he would be. Not only did he expressly
| complain about the speculation about his identity when he was
| around (in the last message he sent before disappearing), his
| continued silence shows he isn't interested in now.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Paparazzi don't care about Satoshi. Neither does the public,
| which is why the paparazzi doesn't.
|
| He might have a person or two recognize him in a month. Most of
| them would never approach him.
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| Even if that is true there is no guarantee it will stay like
| that:
|
| Bitcoin has amassed a $1T valuation in like what, 10 years?,
| of existing.
|
| Who knows how popular it will be in another 10 years, 20
| years? Could be gone. Or could have replaced the dollar.
|
| If you de-anonymize the person now, they will be affected by
| that forever, not just now.
| xqoiu wrote:
| Example: Warren Buffett's personal security budget
|
| > Keeping the boss safe has cost [Berkshire] an average of
| US$339,000 a year since 2008, or US$4.4 million in total.
|
| https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/style/luxury/article/3126736/...
| triceratops wrote:
| No sarcasm, that honestly sounds pretty cheap. About the
| price of a mid-level FAANG SWE.
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| If you had to be constantly followed by security people the
| whole day, would your complete loss of privacy be
| alleviated by them being cheap?
|
| Include in the equation that Satoshi additionally likely is
| a person who puts a high value on privacy, given that they
| ensured to be anonymous up to now.
| triceratops wrote:
| I think you misinterpreted the meaning of my comments.
| $339k is a bargain for Berkshire (or whoever pays it)
| considering who they're protecting. That's all.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Comparing it to an SWE is not a good comparison.
|
| However that sum is low. You need 24/7 security people at
| watch, both guarding him and the home and then also key
| family members.
|
| It is possible that he prefers a low attention detail,
| which reduces cost. But we're still easily talking about a
| mid two digit number for full-time personal.
|
| It is however likely that different aspects are accounted
| differently (general company estate security etc.)
| db65edfc7996 wrote:
| Seems cheap for a man worth $100B?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I say this only partially in jest: not just harassed, but
| harassed by crypto nerds
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Or harassed by that supposed journalist who tried to expose
| that old guy she tracked down just because he was Japanese
| and was formerly some kind of engineer
| wallacoloo wrote:
| i agree with the sentiment, however, it's wishful thinking.
|
| Bitcoin exists in a space within game theory where everyone is
| in a constant adversarial relation with everyone else. it's an
| explicit design, and that relationship is the only way we
| _really_ know that the software and cryptography are sound. but
| you can't completely isolate the protocol from its
| surroundings. the adversarial challenge of trying to break the
| bitcoin protocol is going to leak into the adjacent challenge
| of trying to de-anonymous the person who explicitly wanted to
| remain pseudonymous. in a twisted sense, if SN remains
| pseudonymous under the extreme pressure of thousands trying to
| de-anonymize him, that's the only way we can _really_ be sure
| that anonymization is still possible in the modern age.
| nullc wrote:
| > remains pseudonymous under the extreme pressure of
| thousands trying to de-anonymize him, that's the only way we
| can really be sure that anonymization is still possible in
| the modern age.
|
| Other unwilling human beings aren't appropriate test subjects
| for your conjectures about security and privacy. If you'd
| like to test a security hypothesis, offer up yourself or your
| family for attack-- don't nominate other people.
| wallacoloo wrote:
| see:
|
| > i agree with the sentiment, however, it's wishful
| thinking.
|
| if you're trying to persuade me that i shouldn't use SN as
| an unwilling test subject, save your breath: i'm not
| engaged in any effort to de-anonymize him. his project is
| founded on adversarial mechanics within an extrajudicial
| (i.e. lawless) space: it's naive to think those mechanics
| won't bleed over from the project to its adjacencies.
| that's the point i'm trying to make.
| nullc wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying.
|
| Your comment still could be read as justifying "he was
| asking for it", or at least "he should have expected it".
| I'm not sure if that's what you intend, but I don't agree
| with that.
|
| When Satoshi left Bitcoins were worth essentially nothing
| (and obviously when it was created). There is no shortage
| of example 'experts' from back then that were convinced
| that Bitcoin would always be worth nothing or nearly so.
| In such a state Bitcoin is just some random obscure open
| source P2P application (in fact, Wikipedia initially
| deleted the article on it exactly as such).
| MrMan wrote:
| finally someone speaking my language
| krm01 wrote:
| Nice try Satoshi
| [deleted]
| fairity wrote:
| Well, to start with, you're exaggerating. His life will
| meaningfully change (perhaps for the worse, by his standards),
| but his life won't be "destroyed" -- at least not by any
| reasonable standard. There are plenty of well-known
| billionaires who are perfectly happy.
|
| To put this another way: is the search for knowledge immoral,
| if discovering that knowledge will inadvertently harm a person?
| That's sort of a deep question -- one which doesn't have a
| definitive answer, but your comment preaches as though it did.
| eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote:
| Thanks for taking the care of explaining!
|
| > but his life won't be "destroyed" -- at least not by any
| reasonable standard. There are plenty of well-known
| billionaires who are perfectly happy.
|
| 1. The person has actively signaled that they do NOT want to
| be known by trying to stay anonymous. You're acting against
| their will. It is thus false to assume that they would like
| it. They have basically told you that they won't.
|
| 2. Destruction, in a minimal definition, means changing
| something so much it is completely different from what it
| was.
|
| So to prove this is not destructive, name me the aspects of
| their personal life which will NOT be affected by suddenly
| the whole planet assuming they are rich.
|
| There are probably none. Everything of their existing life
| will likely change.
|
| So this is quite destructive isn't it?
|
| And sure, their new life afterwards (if they don't get
| murdered) might be likeable as well.
|
| But is it your right to replace the whole of someone's life
| with something different and expect them to like it?
|
| It's a pretty intrusive attitude.
|
| > To put this another way: is the search for knowledge
| immoral, if discovering that knowledge will inadvertently
| harm a person?
|
| Yes in this case, because that knowledge is completely
| worthless for producing any real usable thing. So there is no
| benefit of the knowledge to value its harm against.
|
| You can read how Bitcoin works in the source code, and deduce
| all necessary financial decisions from that. No need to know
| about the developer is needed. Bitcoin is trust-less so they
| have zero power on what it does. The code is its law.
|
| So overall, what people are seeking is not knowledge but
| entertainment.
|
| And it is super cruel to hurt someone for entertainment.
| petertodd wrote:
| > What they're effectively doing is trying to completely
| destroy someone's life just for them having written a piece of
| software.
|
| Also, in the process, they could easily destroy someone else's
| life through a mistaken identification.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > This is not a TOR exit node which implies that this is the IP
| address used by Satoshi on 2009-01-10
|
| How do we know it was not a tor exit node in January 2009?
| LinuxBender wrote:
| One might use the ExoneraTor [1]
|
| [1] -
| https://metrics.torproject.org/exonerator.html?ip=68.164.57....
| deafsquid69 wrote:
| The keys can move without the coins moving. Think of it like the
| ultimate Casascius coins. There's no way to know whether or not
| Satoshi cashed out. I can't find the thread, but I'm pretty sure
| Adam Back even said this on bitcointalk and said that that would
| be how he'd move the money if he were Satoshi.
| Cantinflas wrote:
| How could that work? If I sell you a private key, then you get
| the private key, and I get the money... and the private key.
| You either move them right away or risk me moving them (or me
| selling the private key again to another guy)
| mbreese wrote:
| That's true, but if someone bought the keys, then they'd be
| more likely to start moving/spending the coins.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| How to dodge transaction fees and internet sleuths in one pass:
| Put a bitcoin in a wallet and sell the wallet.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| Doesnt this mean that somewhere, buried deep in a a database,
| someone can run a query to see who had the IP address on that
| day, and assuming it is a private residence there is at least a
| chance that is SN?
| desireco42 wrote:
| I am perfectly fine not knowing ever who Satoshi is. I think we
| need to learn to accept these things.
| sktrdie wrote:
| Yeah but leaking such data from an ISP would be considered
| illegal.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Why would that be illegal? Data like this is bought and sold
| daily.
|
| (Not condoning this, but privacy laws in the US are pretty
| weak)
| KiranRao0 wrote:
| Is there some "legal process" (subpoena, etc) that could
| reveal this?
| ncmncm wrote:
| The spooks know, anyway. They don't even need to ask
| anybody.
| yucky wrote:
| The US Intelligence community knows who Satoshi is. After all,
| they created it to destabilize competitor currencies. Satoshi
| is likely a Project Name, not a person. Nobody else could laugh
| at the idea of wanting to cash in $70 billion.
| tsywke44 wrote:
| Is there a term for this, where a person discovers something
| extremely interesting, but doesn't know the proper channels to
| make the knowledge public?
|
| In this case, releasing the info on a random spammy looking WP
| blog.
| alphabet9000 wrote:
| the term is 'liberating'
| johnnyfived wrote:
| Thank you
| teekert wrote:
| So... What are the proper channels?
| ljm wrote:
| It feels like an ARG, like Daniel Mullins is going to release a
| game in a few years that uses something in this blog as the key
| for a cypher.
| [deleted]
| joseloyaio wrote:
| It's Nick Szabo.
|
| He uses his initials for his Pseudonyms (N.S)
|
| Nakamoto Satoshi = Bitcoin
|
| Nicolas Saberhagen = Monero
| Jerrrry wrote:
| I am glad Obama gave Nick SS protection.
| finite_jest wrote:
| That's one of most amusing conspiracy theories I've heard in
| a while :-)
| yucky wrote:
| The most likely explanation I've read is that Szabo was
| involved on the Bitcoin project, at the behest of US
| Intelligence (perhaps team lead, working within a defined set
| of goals - it's speculation for now). Bitcoin is a very
| effective means of destabilizing currencies and extracting
| wealth out of non-friendly areas, so for the US Intelligence
| community it is a boon.
|
| Szabo later went on to improve on the concept with Monero,
| without the involvement of US Intelligence (obviously, since
| Monero is very unfriendly for the US Govt). Again, speculation.
| The only person capable of creating both, is likely Szabo.
| Monero being a big middle finger to "the team" behind Bitcoin,
| who still control the keys.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| 2016 article. 2009 leak.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| Can't believe that guy's like "I'm Satoshi" goes to court
| anm89 wrote:
| I feel like Hal Finney and Nick Szabo were the two people who
| seem plausible and the fact that Hal and Satoshi were on
| different IP addresses that day seems to me like it's not Hal.
|
| So for me it feels pretty much settled that Satoshi is Szabo.
| berberous wrote:
| I suspect (or at least hope) it's not Szabo given he seems, to
| put it nicely, a little unhinged about politics on Twitter.
|
| Although I suppose he's but one of many ostensibly smart and
| decent people who seem to devolve into terrible people after
| being on Twitter too long with a large following.
| tehlike wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=szabo+van+nuy
|
| Lot's of szabo references in google in Van Nuys.
| drawkbox wrote:
| Nick Szabo has been potentially mentioned as Satoshi for
| sometime [1] due to him working on decentralized currencies
| since 1998 with Bit Gold [2].
|
| Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as
| Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto
| and currencies. [3]
|
| > "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as
| though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible
| for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk, adding, "he
| claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be the one more
| responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone else."
|
| > Szabo is best known as the inventor of one of bitcoin's
| predecessors, Bit Gold, and digital smart contracts--which
| eventually evolved to become a key part of the ethereum
| blockchain. Szabo has previously denied he's Satoshi Nakamoto,
| telling financial author Dominic Frisby in 2014, "I'm afraid
| you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it."
|
| Szabo's full name is Nicholas Szabo [4]. Just seems quite a bit
| like Satoshi Nakamoto. It feels like there is something there
| potentially.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Bit_gold
|
| [3]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/12/28/elon-...
|
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as
| Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto
| and currencies. [3]
|
| >> "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems
| as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else
| responsible for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk,
| adding, "he claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be
| the one more responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone
| else."
|
| Why do Elon Musk's speculations have any credibility here?
| It's not his field, and even in his field he has a track
| record of making confident public statements that turn out to
| be wildly wrong.
| WoodenChair wrote:
| > Why do Elon Musk's speculations have any credibility
| here? It's not his field, and even in his field he has a
| track record of making confident public statements that
| turn out to be wildly wrong.
|
| Actually it's very much his field. Elon Musk was one of the
| founders of X.com which eventually merged to become PayPal.
| He was interested in digital currency since the '90s and
| has been active in the cryptocurrency space as well.
| [deleted]
| Jerrrry wrote:
| Same thing with Bill Gates: they pay for advisory.
|
| Nick is Satoshi. It pains me to type that out.
|
| We were always supposed to look for Satoshi, never to find
| him.
| aeternum wrote:
| He was one of the creators of PayPal, so digital money is
| his field. If you read the quote carefully, he is also not
| speculating on Nakamoto. Elon instead states that Nick
| Szabo contributed to the ideas behind cryptocurrencies.
| This generally is not disputed.
| nescioquid wrote:
| > He was one of the creators of PayPal, so digital money
| is his field.
|
| He was one of four people listed as founders of X.com,
| which merged with Confinity, which changed its name to
| PayPal where he was fired as CEO; PayPal was then
| purchased by EBay, whereupon Musk took a big payday.
|
| Judging by his involvement with Tesla Motors Inc -- he
| became chairman and CEO by investing 6.5 million into the
| existing company; a lawsuit brought by an incorporating
| founder resulted in an agreement whereby Musk and four
| others can call themselves founders -- makes me wonder
| what his contribution to X.com actually was.
|
| Whatever else he may be, he's an extraordinarily good
| investor.
| gimmeThaBeet wrote:
| I think no matter how you feel about Elon Musk, I feel it
| can sort of be universally appreciated how insane of a
| pivot/second act he's had where being a part of paypal's
| early days is basically a footnote.
| [deleted]
| berberous wrote:
| Is there a theory for why Nick Szabo would be public about
| Bit Gold but go to great efforts to hide himself when
| creating Bitcoin?
|
| It seems unlikely to me that someone who previously had no
| issue being public would suddenly be so secretive, especially
| given how unlikely it was for Bitcoin to turn out the way it
| did.
| 1066 wrote:
| As unlikely as traction to Bitcoin was/is, surely he would
| have understood the implications it could have to the
| practitioner of this idea? "bitcoins can not be manipulated
| by governments or financial institutions and bitcoin
| transactions occur directly between two parties without a
| middleman." If he figured that he could make it
| functionally work with Bit Gold, why would you expose
| yourself to that.
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20091129231620/http://sourc
| eforg...
| finite_jest wrote:
| There is a counterargument to that: Craig Wright. He
| openly claims to be Satoshi (almost certainly
| fraudulently), and he seems to be doing kinda OK. [1]
|
| [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/06/miami-jury-rules-in-
| favor-of...
| drawkbox wrote:
| Bit Gold was maybe to test out interest, then when the real
| one was made it would be more anonymous. If you think about
| it, bitcoin being anonymous is a feature as it makes it
| seem less centralized eventhough Satoshi owns a large chunk
| of it. Today companies or individuals will control a large
| chunk of other coins/platforms and it feels more
| centralized or even autocratic. At any time those big fish
| could wreak havoc. Satoshi seems more hands off.
|
| Another potential reason is the money it would generate and
| the recognition would attract too much attention. The
| successful decentralized currency like bitcoin might have
| been foreseen as a threat to the creator after it takes off
| and gains in value.
|
| From the wiki on Nick Szabo, he is more 'reclusive' and not
| wanting to be known. On his blog he mentioned his intent on
| creating a live version of the currency as Bit Gold was
| more of a prototype/demo and was never launched. Even the
| name Bit Gold and bitcoin are very similar as is the name
| Nicholas Szabo (N.S.) and Satoshi Nakamoto (S.N.) in a few
| ways. Satoshi Nakamoto always seems like a purposeful
| shroud of a name, looking for someone by that name is
| probably not going to find them:
|
| > _Nathaniel Popper wrote in The New York Times that "the
| most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American
| man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo." In 2008, prior
| to the release of bitcoin, Szabo wrote a comment on his
| blog about the intent of creating a live version of his
| hypothetical currency._ [1]
|
| Hal Finney was the first to receive 10 bitcoins from
| Satoshi Nakamoto [2]. Hal Finney was the next employee
| after Phil Zimmermann at PGP. So he knew the potential for
| being pursued by governments for software creations. Hal,
| who died in 2014 unfortunately, probably knew Satoshi and
| would have known he was shrouding/anonymous for good
| reasons as seen in the PGP history just before that and
| around the same time bit gold was being created.
|
| The very likely people to be Satoshi Nakamoto are Nick
| Szabo and Hal Finney due to the early interactions and
| transactions, and potentially Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, but
| that seems unlikely they would use their real name [3].
| Maybe it was all three or someone else entirely, these guys
| are just around the early days and some of the first
| transactions. Either that or someone or some group saw the
| need for decentralized currency from their efforts and then
| front ran them and made it seem more like them to help
| shroud themselves.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamo
| to_sp...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scie
| ntist...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Possible
| _iden...
| JetSetWilly wrote:
| I don't understand why, when satoshi used UK english very
| consistently, including quite obscure references tucked away
| in source code etc, and was active in GMT compatible hours
| (more so than US hours!) - nonetheless every theory ignores
| all this and has him being American.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| He was on a podcast and misspoke saying he invented it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_z-vzkA0r4
| throwawaydroid wrote:
| FYI 11 minute Satoshi infomercial with ads. mentions Szabo
| @7:30
| rmasters wrote:
| I worked with Nick's brother Paul for many years at F5. Several
| years ago I asked him if Nick was Satoshi and he said Nick
| denied being Satoshi and Paul also added that it wouldn't make
| sense because "He still owes me money!". Pretty funny. But I
| guess he could have fooled his own brother.
| sktrdie wrote:
| I think of Satoshi as a genius for the invention. Unfortunately
| the invention is causing a global climate crisis. Similar to how
| Einstein's laws helped create the atomic bomb.
| smokey_circles wrote:
| Come on. You can't believe ASICS pull more power than mining
| operations. Aluminum smelters are not cheap
| wyldfire wrote:
| > Unfortunately the invention is causing a global climate
| crisis.
|
| This is straight up bonkers. Yes: humanity's energy consumption
| is likely the cause of climate change. But the energy consumed
| goes into a lot of outputs: shelter, transportation,
| entertainment, commerce.
|
| You could legitimately regard proof-of-work as an inefficiency
| whose cost keeps increasing. If proof-of-stake is sufficient,
| then it's remarkably inefficient. But it produces something
| useful.
|
| Let's have some sense of perspective [1] about energy
| consumption before you put bitcoin or proof-of-work as the
| culprit for Earth's climate problems.
|
| [1] https://www.otherlab.com/blog-posts/us-energy-flow-super-
| san...
| shkkmo wrote:
| Bitcoin isn't the only culprit, but it certainly isn't
| helping.
|
| > But it produces something useful.
|
| That is debatable, but even if it does, it does it at a much
| higher energy cost than the preexisting alternatives.
| xunn0026 wrote:
| jandrese wrote:
| It's certainly not helping. Bitcoin is astoundingly energy
| hungry and produces effectively nothing with the energy
| consumed. Textbook definition of wasteful behavior.
| xunn0026 wrote:
| Assuming humans are somewhat rational it must produce
| something! At its worse interpretation it could be a
| casino.
|
| Humanity does a whole lot of wasteful things. Should we ban
| music, too? Parks perhaps? Switch to plain clothing?
|
| In other words, who are you to decide what's wasteful and
| what should be banned?
|
| I would more consider the ad industry to fit this
| definition. Yet I saw no computation how much energy and
| human brains it is wasting.
| zaxbeast wrote:
| Does the blockchain log the miner's IP addresses? That's why I
| don't like to mine on my local network
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| No, it does not. Transactions also do not contain IP addresses.
|
| Some chain explorer will track 'first seen IP', eg: the first
| IP that relayed the transaction, but this does not mean the
| sender. Same deal with blocks -- you can see the IP sent your
| peer the block, but not the IP that created it, which may or
| may not be the same. With Dandelion routing, you can mask the
| sender IP behind multiple other relaying nodes.
| https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0156
| Jerrrry wrote:
| Transactions can contain IP addresses.
|
| You can send BTC to an IP address.
|
| This is not a good thing to do - the documentation even says
| it "will probably be stolen immediately"
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| Many many years ago. The initial designs for Bitcoin had a
| 'pay to IP' feature, probably to approximate traditional
| banking IP to IP transfer. It has not existed for almost 8
| years now.
|
| "This feature has been removed from Bitcoin Core as-of
| v0.8.0[1]." (Feb 2013).
| Jerrrry wrote:
| damn time flies.
|
| I haven't bought a bitcoin since it went from $20 to
| $400.
|
| the change in my tumbling accounts are worth more than
| everything i had bought since then combined.
|
| thanks china!
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| I recommend dollar cost averaging over time to 'stack
| sats'. You can probably never get back to your original
| position if you sold, but you can try.
|
| I also bought then, I continue to buy now. I will buy in
| the future. Regret every sale, No regrets on every
| purchase.
| drawkbox wrote:
| Van Nuys, Los Angeles, CA was where the IP was located.
|
| > IP Address: 68.164.57.219
|
| > IP Block: 68.164.57.128 - 68.164.57.255
|
| > Reverse DNS: h-68-164-57-219.lsan.ca.dynamic.megapath.net
|
| > Host: Covad Communications. Van Nuys, CA, USA
|
| > Location: Van Nuys, CA, USA
|
| Could have even been something like Satoshi wasn't on his normal
| setup at the time and it slipped through. Maybe on vacation or a
| wireless connection that connected near there. Or the IP lookup
| was even slightly off and they were in Sherman Oaks or anything
| really. Sometimes even wireless connections can appear to come
| from an entirely different state based on the network. The IP
| could have also been spoofed or temporary.
|
| Covad Communications was the 16th biggest ISP at the time and
| then "Covad was acquired a by private equity firm, Platinum
| Equity, in April 2008. In 2010, it was sold to U.S. Venture
| Partners, which merged Covad, and Speakeasy into MegaPath." [1]
|
| It appears when this IP connected (Jan 2009) it was owned by the
| private equity firm Platinum Equity [2].
|
| The IP was definitely logged in Los Angeles, beyond that it could
| be anything.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covad
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Equity
| petertodd wrote:
| > Maybe on vacation or a wireless connection that connected
| near there.
|
| Bitcoin had been released a few days prior to that log file. So
| unlikely to be on vacation.
|
| As I mentioned in another comment, the IRC seeding mechanism
| isn't necessary to use Bitcoin, and it was publicly released at
| the time, so no reason to assume this is Satoshi.
| drawkbox wrote:
| Potentially just living there, or there for something, or a
| false positive.
|
| > Bitcoin had been released a few days prior to that log
| file. So unlikely to be on vacation.
|
| Vacations are great for after shipping though, after the long
| slog of a project. Since it was new it would be a good time
| to escape before all the support requests and more usage
| increased. Maybe they couldn't stay away from that draw and
| then got a bit lazy on vacation in terms of opsec. Or maybe
| not. Good info nonetheless, it is one potential clue or not
| in the mystery.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| And Van Nuys is a premiere vacation destination. I'm sure
| he was feeling the pull toward that idyllic locale more
| than ever after that long slog.
| davmar wrote:
| So I went to https://anarchapulco.com/ in 2018. There I met a
| guy who claimed to know who Satoshi is. He said Satoshi was
| from LA, and that the keys to the wallet that hold all those
| unclaimed bitcoins are buried in a backyard in LA. Would be
| worth billions now.
|
| No idea if true.
| pishpash wrote:
| To place some Bayesian value on this we first need to have
| all the "I know where Satoshi lives" stories on the table.
| koolba wrote:
| If you think LA housing prices are crazy now, just wait till
| people start factoring in potential billions of dollars
| buried in the backyard.
| seoaeu wrote:
| A couple billion dollars divided by the number of houses in
| LA... actually wouldn't add that much value to the housing
| prices. After all, the total assessed value of real estate
| in the county is about $1.7 trillion.
| [deleted]
| larsiusprime wrote:
| As best I can figure, America's land alone is worth
| somewhere between $22-44 trillion, and that's not
| including any of the buildings. (Manhattan's land alone
| is worth about $1.7 trillion according to my sources)
|
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-
| is-...
|
| So one multibillion dollar thumb drive is even less when
| spread out over everything in LA!
| robocat wrote:
| Does it even make sense to divorce the price of land from
| the buildings? Developed farmland also has a different
| value from virgin land, but the difference is ignored.
|
| Manhattan's land would not be worth 1.7T$ if it were just
| farmland.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-24/manhat
| tan...
| zaxbeast wrote:
| Does the blockchain (or other miners) log the miner's IP
| addresses? That's why I don't like to mine on my local network
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-29 23:02 UTC)