[HN Gopher] Paul Le Roux is Satoshi?
___________________________________________________________________
Paul Le Roux is Satoshi?
Author : kvathupo
Score : 99 points
Date : 2022-12-13 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (martinshkreli.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (martinshkreli.substack.com)
| seqizz wrote:
| Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the
| word "no" - Betteridge's law of headlines
| Octokiddie wrote:
| Summary: a private key associated with the very first non-
| coinbase transaction in Bitcoin appears to have signed a message
| making the claim in the title.
|
| For those downplaying the claim based on the source, this is
| irrelevant. The signature and the public key are all that are
| needed. The author is irrelevant to verification, although he
| probably has an interesting story to tell about how he came about
| this message and signature.
|
| The payment was locked to this address:
|
| 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3
|
| The first payment can be viewed here:
|
| https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57...
|
| You can see that this payment was included in block 170. The
| network produces ~144 blocks/day. So this transaction occurred
| almost at the launch of the network.
|
| Hal Finney has claimed, without proof AFAIK, that this payment
| was made by Satoshi to him:
|
| https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0
|
| The implication is that a private key known by Finney signed the
| message claiming that Satoshi was Paul Le Roux. The latter was
| the subject of a piece speculating that he was Satsoshi:
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...
|
| This doesn't necessarily mean that Finney was involved. You can
| browse the transaction history associated with the address here:
|
| https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwx...
|
| As you can see, a signed transaction was published as late as
| 2018. Finney died in 2014.
|
| So there are a few possibilities for what's going on, including:
|
| 1. Finney is not dead.
|
| 2. Finney's private key was leaked to someone who signed the
| message.
|
| 3. secp256k1 cryptography (the kind used for Bitcoin signatures)
| is now broken.
|
| 4. Finney signed the message sometime before he died.
|
| Given that few outside of Bitcoin know about Finney's legendary
| status, (3) seems unlikely because the attacker could have just
| signed with the private key for the genesis block.
|
| This leaves (1) and (2), and (4). I'm doubtful about (1). Finney
| suffered from a horrible, fatal disease and it was obvious in the
| interviews he gave.
|
| The most likely explanations are (2) and (4) IMO. The presence of
| the transactions signed after Finney's death is consistent with
| (2).
|
| When a Bitcoin payment is spent, the private key often has little
| monetary value (but a lot of privacy value). So the cryptographic
| material encoding it might be treated in ways allowing it to be
| used by others.
|
| Then again, it's possible that Finney signed the message, later
| died, and his private key was leaked.
|
| However, you slice it, this is not clear cut. There are various
| kinds of proof that would make it more so, but AFAICT, they have
| not yet surfaced.
| 323 wrote:
| Was Paul Le Roux known before he was arrested? As in, is it
| possible that Satoshi tried to create a fake trail?
| ggm wrote:
| Does this make all his historic bitcoins property of the state
| for crimes committed? That's a lot of public debt to retire.
| kvathupo wrote:
| Assuming no shenanigans, there is a layer of deniability since
| the message was made from Hal Finney's address and private key,
| i.e. Finney is lying.
| ggm wrote:
| Hal Finney is dead, his keys were used in 2017 after he died
| in 2014.
|
| Somebody knows his keys == nothing said to have been done by
| his key can be demonstrably proved to be him, even back to
| the beginning: how do we know when his private key was
| compromised?
| [deleted]
| smoldesu wrote:
| Craig Wright is pulling his hair out rn
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| For those who don't know:
|
| > Craig Steven Wright (born October 1970)[1] is an Australian
| computer scientist and businessman. He has publicly claimed to
| be the main part of the team that created bitcoin, and the
| identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. These claims
| are regarded as false by much of the media and the
| cryptocurrency community.
|
| source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright
| notacop31337 wrote:
| Please don't call him Australian, we don't want him.
| mmastrac wrote:
| > Paul Le Roux operated under numerous pseudonyms:
|
| > Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux, backed with a Congolese
| diplomatic passport[4]
|
| Interesting... Solotshi
|
| This is a good read: https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-
| created-by-this-inte...
| drclau wrote:
| In case you wonder who Paul Le Roux is, here's the Wikipedia page
| [0] and what I believe is the original investigation by Evan
| Ratliff [1].
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux
|
| [1]: https://magazine.atavist.com/the-mastermind/
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Ratliff says in his book that he could find no evidence that Le
| Roux had any connection to Bitcoin, though many people suspect
| him
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| And from the above:
|
| > Le Roux was arrested on 26 September 2012 for conspiracy to
| import narcotics into the United States, and agreed to
| cooperate with authorities in exchange for a lesser sentence
| and immunity to any crimes he might admit to later. He
| subsequently admitted to arranging or participating in seven
| murders, carried out as part of an extensive illegal business
| empire.
|
| > Le Roux was sentenced to 25 years in prison in June 2020.
| drclau wrote:
| It's worth sharing the entire paragraph:
|
| On 12 June 2020, Le Roux was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
| According to the presiding judge, Ronnie Abrams, "the scope
| and severity of Mr. Le Roux's criminal conduct is nothing
| short of breathtaking. I have before me a man who has engaged
| in conduct in keeping with the villain in a James Bond
| movie." However, she also added that the sentence reflected
| Le Roux's cooperation and the danger he faced.
| macjohnmcc wrote:
| I worked with Paul before he went down the path of the
| criminal. He seemed really smart too bad he went bad. This
| would be in 1991 or 1992. I also worked with one of the
| programmers caught as part of the Madoff 5. I'm hoping that is
| all of my brushes with people who go bad.
| nothrowaways wrote:
| From your experience with him, do you think he has the
| academic background to write the Bitcoin paper?
| simplyinfinity wrote:
| After some digging I found this:
|
| 1) The address that was used to send this message is not the
| first address that the genesis(the first "mined") block sent
| money to.
|
| 2) The "genesis"/Satoshi address has been used through the years
| a lot
|
| 3) The "Paul le Roux" address is far less active
|
| 4) this transaction was made 9 days after the first block was
| mined
|
| My conclusion here is: Paul le Roux _MIGHT_ be Satoshi, but
| unlikely, more like very early adopter who either knew Finney,
| Satoshi or both. But neither can be said with 100% certainty.
| lostmsu wrote:
| 5) the transaction in question does not contain the message in
| the post. The message was just signed by the receiver's key,
| whose current owner is unknown.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Satoshi is a German or Swiss. Nobody in the world has GMX email
| addresses except the Germans and the Swiss.
| fishnchips wrote:
| Very much not true, I'm neither :)
| ratg13 wrote:
| I do this sort of thing to mask my identity.
|
| GMX, yandex, I've used them all without living in the countries
| they call home.
|
| In the early 2000s I was probably the primary user of
| britneyspearsemail.com despite not caring about this celebrity
| at all.
| kxr wrote:
| I have a GMX account and I'm neither. A few decades back they
| were one of the few free email providers offering POP3 access.
| sph wrote:
| I'm pretty sure created a gmx.de account around the turn of the
| Millennium and I'm not from a German speaking country. They had
| an email service and I needed an email.
|
| The problem with absolute statements is that they always get it
| wrong.
| Lutzb wrote:
| The interesting thing is that satoshi was using a gmx.com
| address, emphasis on the .com. Those were only available to
| paying customers of GMX.de.
| elkos wrote:
| So GMX might know who Satoshi is but... GDPR?
| constantcrying wrote:
| >Nobody in the world has GMX email addresses except the Germans
| and the Swiss.
|
| You can just _make_ one, right?
| [deleted]
| guerrilla wrote:
| I'm neither and I did, so...
| frank_bb wrote:
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| _1. 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3 is Hal 's address, so that
| means the message was written by someone with Hal's private key
| (not from Satoshi's).
|
| 2. Hal died 2014, that address last sent btc in 2017, so someone
| else (estate?) had access to the private key. I wouldn't be
| surprised if the private key got leaked (maybe even sold), so
| it's entirely possible that someone else signed that message (and
| recently at that).
|
| 3. Not sure if there's evidence that Hal even knew who satoshi
| was
|
| But yeah, crazy... I verified the message too, I just don't think
| it's conclusive evidence of who satoshi is/was_
|
| Interesting and important note from playerTwo in the comments.
| kvathupo wrote:
| Per the link, the signature corresponding to the address and
| message is valid. The address belongs to Hal Finney, and the
| message implies Satoshi (who sent him the initial btc) is Paul Le
| Roux. Any insights?
| raingrove wrote:
| 1. The signature was created using a private key that corresponds
| to the address "1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3".
|
| 2. 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3 is Hal Finney's (Not
| Satoshi's) address.
|
| 3. Hal Finney passed away in 2014.
|
| 4. Some coins that belonged to that address were spent in 2017.
| [1]
|
| It appears that someone else (definitely not Hal) has the private
| key to that address.
|
| [1]
| https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/70ec308460a38f6de25f89c6ed...
| [deleted]
| mjfl wrote:
| > It appears that someone else (definitely not Hal) has the
| private key to that address.
|
| So Paul le Roux, by the message?
|
| > 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3 is Hal Finney's (Not
| Satoshi's) address.
|
| Where do you get this?
|
| EDIT: I am proposing not that Paul LeRoux is Satoshi, but that
| he is in possession of Hal's key, and produced that signature
| as a troll.
| raingrove wrote:
| I would believe it if the signature came from one of
| Satoshi's addresses, but this is not it.
| [deleted]
| jaycroft wrote:
| No, that particular message could be created by anyone
| (including people who are not Paul le Roux), who has the key
| to the 1Q2 address, at any time, past or present.
|
| All we have to go on right now is that someone knows the
| private key that corresponds to the 1Q2 address and used it
| sometime before the last hour to generate a hash of a message
| that says that Paul le Roux sent bitcoin to Hal Finney.
| bmitc wrote:
| Wouldn't it be likely that his wife or a close friend has the
| private key?
| tripplyons wrote:
| I see. Are you implying whoever has access to Hal's wallet
| could have produced this signature after his death?
| paulpauper wrote:
| exactly. this has nothing to do with proving it is Santoshi,
| nor is it a hash collision.
|
| All it means is multiple people have Hal's private key and
| somehow either Martin is one of them, or he was told to post
| this message.
| rosnd wrote:
| That's correct.
| Niksko wrote:
| This just feels like another entry in a long list of supposed
| proofs of who Satoshi is, which is missing detail (almost
| certainly by design) and which could have many other plausible
| explanations. The most obvious of which is that a private key
| leaked.
| tripplyons wrote:
| It could also be that Hal Finney lied about who it was, or was
| deceived about who it was. I find those to be plausible as
| well.
| paulpauper wrote:
| why would it take so long to discover this?
| 323 wrote:
| Because cryptography.
|
| It's impossible to brute-force "decrypt" this message, you need
| to know it before hand.
|
| More technically: you need to generate a pre-image of the
| sha-256 hash.
| tripplyons wrote:
| No one broke any cryptography in this situation.
| 323 wrote:
| Which is exactly the point why we didn't find out about
| this until someone leaked it.
| 323 wrote:
| Anyone know where he got this info? Is there a previous source?
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| I don't know but Martin's claim just showed up on the Wikipedia
| page > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux
|
| > On December 13, 2022, Martin Shkreli alleged that a message
| connected to a January 12, 2009 transaction sent to the Bitcoin
| wallet belonging to Hal Finney, who received the first ever
| Bitcoin transfer, revealed Le Roux as being the sender.[44]
| retrac wrote:
| Hal Finney passed away in 2014. But the address has been active
| since:
| https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwx...
|
| I see four possibilities:
|
| * An absurdly elaborate conspiracy. (This is _always_ a
| possibility.)
|
| * Ghosts can do cryptography.
|
| * ECDSA is cracked.
|
| * Someone else has a copy Finney's key.
|
| Occam's razor: spectral signatures!
| nkzd wrote:
| I am not sure I understand, how could this be a conspiracy?
| stainablesteel wrote:
| its plausibly debatable
|
| someone who isnt paul le roux left their signature saying it
| was paul le roux, in case it ends up being read one day
| retrac wrote:
| Sorry, I was being somewhat sarcastic and it misfired. The
| only real option is the last one. The key is most likely
| compromised.
| retrac wrote:
| Oof. Apparently my irreverent tone was not well-received.
|
| I'll be more sober about it. A cryptographic hash is not proof
| that data was signed by a particular individual, unless you
| know for certain that individual is the only person who has the
| key. That is a hard standard to meet with a dead man when the
| key has demonstrably been used after his death. That
| transaction in 2017 means that someone besides Finney simply
| must know Finney's key. Anything signed by this key cannot be
| trusted to have come from Finney.
| bmitc wrote:
| Keys are just keys and are not tied to a person's identity.
| When can they ever be trusted to come from a single person?
| inasio wrote:
| Came expecting a long convoluted argument, Craig Wright-style,
| but this is like one of those short papers that have the proof in
| the abstract.
| lostmsu wrote:
| It does not have a proof though.
| hokkos wrote:
| previous HN discussion : New Evidence Suggests Satoshi Nakamoto
| Is Paul Le Roux - June 6, 2019
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20115607
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| How did Martin Shkreli figure that out?
| dibt wrote:
| It's not an original idea. It was popularized a few years ago
| by Evan Ratliff, author of a book about Paul Le Roux, 'The
| Mastermind'
|
| Convenient for the author to discover the link to Le Roux. Then
| talk about it on podcasts while promoting his book, and have
| articles written about him.
|
| All Shkreli does is promote himself to get eyes on whatever
| he's doing next. You can't ignore the incentives. It's
| difficult to prove who Satoshi is or is not. Craig Wright made
| a succesful career out of it.
|
| Also, Shkreli has been critical of Bitcoin. Picking Le Roux, a
| criminal, as Satoshi helps to paint Bitcoin in a bad light.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Thanks for sharing that important context and perspective.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Also, my question means: How did he figure out how to decrypt
| that hash into the plain text message?
| dibt wrote:
| Someone gave him the signature to verify the hash.
|
| He explains it during this stream here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjE4dEX2z9E
|
| You can just watch the first 10-ish minutes to get the
| gist.
|
| He gets the same push back he's getting here. Still
| confidently says "Paul Le Roux is Satoshi."
| lostmsu wrote:
| The question is where did he get the signature from?
| dibt wrote:
| Someone gave him the signature to verify the hash.
|
| He explains it during this stream here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjE4dEX2z9E
|
| Someone else suggested he could have bought the signature.
| It wouldn't surprise me.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Ratliff in the book said a lot of people suggested this to
| him, and he never found any evidence of it.
| paulpauper wrote:
| someone told him . likely someone who knows hal
| [deleted]
| reactspa wrote:
| Could someone please clarify the connection between the wallet:
|
| 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3
|
| And the signature:
|
| HM7vpPSUbNsfDHRX6gv8xxWcVNHEc/3pOk0YrVehaGoUdbWizznfzOdELkLd1EjSX
| sW1oE5vHAkNAPzrAVzhuoI=
|
| _how do we know that the two are connected?_ (I 'm guessing one
| of them hashes to the other.)
| spiorf wrote:
| When you run signature verification on that text with that
| signature and that address, it checks out. It wouldn't
| otherwise. The text links the two.
| cmatthias wrote:
| I know next to nothing about the internals of bitcoin, but
| based on a high-level understanding of public key cryptography:
|
| - 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3 is the wallet address but
| can also be thought of as a public key. The owner of the wallet
| also has a private key corresponding to that public key.
|
| - HM7vpPSUbNsfDHRX6gv8xx...[etc] is a cryptographic signature
| generated by signing an arbitrary message using a private key.
| To generate the signature, you need the plain text of the
| message, and a private key. To "verify" the signature (i.e.,
| confirm that it was generated by the private key you expect),
| you only need the message and the public key (or the wallet
| address, in this case).
|
| - Shkreli claims (and it has indeed been confirmed) that the
| signature he posted is valid for the message and the wallet
| address. In other words, someone in possession of the private
| key for the wallet in question, has signed the message given
| using that private key.
|
| What I don't understand is where the signature came from -- I
| do see a Jan 2009 transaction involving that address on various
| blockchain explorers, but that particular signature is nowhere
| to be found. This could absolutely just be me not understanding
| how all of this works, but in order for this to be "really big
| news" I think you'd have to show proof that the signature given
| was posted with the transaction back in 2009. Otherwise, it
| just means that Hal Finney's wallet is compromised and someone
| has been signing random messages with it.
| paulpauper wrote:
| You can sign a message without broadcasting it . This message
| could have been created an hour ago for all we know.
| kxr wrote:
| > What I don't understand is where the signature came from --
| I do see a Jan 2009 transaction involving that address on
| various blockchain explorers, but that particular signature
| is nowhere to be found. This could absolutely just be me not
| understanding how all of this works, but in order for this to
| be "really big news" I think you'd have to show proof that
| the signature given was posted with the transaction back in
| 2009. Otherwise, it just means that Hal Finney's wallet is
| compromised and someone has been signing random messages with
| it.
|
| This.
| jaycroft wrote:
| Furthermore we know that the wallet spent coins in 2017,
| three years after Hal's death. Someone other than Hal had
| (has?) access to the private key for that address.
| reactspa wrote:
| However, I couldn't find this signature:
|
| HM7vpPSUbNsfDHRX6gv8xxWcVNHEc/3pOk0YrVehaGoUdbWizznfzOdELkLd1
| EjSXsW1oE5vHAkNAPzrAVzhuoI=
|
| ... anywhere on the blockchain:
|
| https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/search?search=HM7vpPSUbN.
| ..
|
| Why not?
|
| _Update: I get it now. It doesn 't have to have been on the
| blockchain. It's just a message that was signed with a
| private key, and using Hal Finney's public key (wallet
| address), the message, and the message signature, we can
| confirm that it was signed by Hal Finney's private key._
| tripplyons wrote:
| You can verify the signature along with the public key and the
| message: https://www.bitcoin.com/tools/verify-message/
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Can someone independently verify the decryption claim here?
|
| Should I interpret this to mean that either bitcoin signatures
| can be attacked via hash collisions, or that they're not actually
| cryptographically secure, given enough time and computing
| resources? Either seems bad.
| maherbeg wrote:
| I think it would be highly unlikely to create a hash collision
| that is so specific like this.
| cmatthias wrote:
| You can verify yourself here: https://reinproject.org/bitcoin-
| signature-tool/
|
| Use the Bitcoin-QT tab, and don't include the "---- BEGIN" and
| "---- END" comment lines. It checks out.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| OK (and thanks)...so how should I interpret this?
|
| As in, how is it possible to decrypt an encrypted signature,
| and what does that mean for the security of cryptocurrency?
| cmatthias wrote:
| Unless I'm grossly mistaken, it seems Shkreli doesn't
| understand the basics of cryptography because he's using
| incorrect terminology here.
|
| The signature isn't encrypted at all, it's just a piece of
| data (a hash, if you will) that was generated using the
| private key associated with the wallet in question.
|
| In order to generate the signature, you need to have a
| message to sign, and a private key. All Shkreli has shown
| is that the signature he posted is valid for the given
| message and the wallet (which is in fact an old wallet of
| Hal Finney's). I've posted elsewhere in this thread about
| this, but so far I can't find any evidence that the
| signature he posted actually appears in the blockchain
| associated with that January 2009 transaction. Until we
| have proof of that, the most likely alternative explanation
| is that the wallet's key is compromised and someone is
| signing random messages with it that say whatever they
| want.
| hcs wrote:
| A public key signature works by encrypting the hash with
| the private key, to verify you decrypt the hash with the
| pubic key and check it against your own hash of the
| payload.
|
| Edit: No argument with your second point, just pointing
| out the mechanism does involve the signature being an
| encrypted form of a plaintext hash/message digest.
| cmatthias wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification! I didn't explain myself
| well at all, but what I was getting at was that Shkreli
| claims the sig "decrypts to" the message given, when it
| does nothing of the sort.
| paulpauper wrote:
| right. it has nothing to do with being published to the
| blockchain.
|
| for example:
|
| HB2dakxE7SgbuSQX6qQYByHkx3pTG0Tx2ymb8mVd2Bg6E+4Qk7O2/E/Bi
| E9sjcLKp0rF+m3U0YHwI1Yv8Gjvjw0=
|
| public:
|
| 1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN
|
| message: hackernews
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Thanks, I did what you said and it worked.
|
| I used the Bitcoin-QT tab and filled out the three fields and
| got a green message at the top of the page that said "Message
| verified to be from 1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3"
| thisisnotapipe wrote:
| The most credible candidate is someone who was very familiar with
| and keen on its technology yet did not engage publicly in the
| first few years [1].
|
| [1] https://chainbulletin.com/the-unmasking-satoshi-aftermath
| cmatthias wrote:
| Can someone who knows more than me about the internals of bitcoin
| help me understand:
|
| 1) Is there a place on a blockchain explorer somewhere where I
| could find the signature that Shkreli has posted? I tried looking
| up the wallet address and found the transaction from Jan 2009,
| but I don't see that signature anywhere.
|
| 2) The reason I ask the first question is that I believe that if
| the private key is compromised, then whoever has it could have
| generated a new signature corresponding to that wallet address
| and any arbitrary message, correct? So if Shkreli is in
| possession of the private key, he could just be banking on people
| not actually verifying that the signature he posted appears on
| the blockchain?
| tripplyons wrote:
| 1) Not all signatures are on chain. All that is needed is to
| post the signature somewhere and verify it with the message and
| public key. 2) Whoever has the private key can produce the
| signature, and the signature can only be produced by someone
| who has the private key (assuming the cryptography is secure)
| cmatthias wrote:
| I realize not all signatures are on the chain, that's obvious
| if you know what a signature is. That's why I'm asking
| whether it appears on the chain. :)
|
| If it appears somewhere associated with that transaction,
| that's pretty strong evidence that Shkreli is correct.
|
| If it does not appear on chain at all, then Shkreli is wrong
| and his post proves nothing about the identity of Satoshi.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Your reaction was my reaction, for what it's worth. It seems
| like everyone more or less is suspecting the same thing.
| (Private key leaked, no way to backdate the hash, therefore
| this proof isn't as newsworthy as it seems.)
|
| On the other hand, if it does appear somewhere in the
| blockchain, it's a pretty big scoop.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| I've always believed it is Nick Szabo.
| yucky wrote:
| Of the non-government agency guesses, this one would be the
| most credible if not for one thing - not even Szabo could sit
| on $50 Billion in bitcoin and just casually never spend it. The
| NSA is the most credible culprit as Bitcoin creator.
|
| However, I do think Nick Szabo is the mysterious "Nicolas van
| Saberhagen" creator of Monero. Besides, Monero aligns more with
| his ideology. Bitcoin is supremely traceable and a handy tool
| for government. Monero, not so much.
| sschueller wrote:
| Would also explain why Satoshi went silent since the guy is
| sitting in federal prison.
|
| When is he getting out? I would sell my BTC before he can move
| all those coins.
|
| It would be in the interest of the Bitcoin community to agree on
| a fork to start burning those large wallets that are know to
| belong to Satoshi ensuring future stability.
| urmish wrote:
| Martin has been out for a few months now.
| qeternity wrote:
| GP is talking about Le Roux, who is in prison.
| akeck wrote:
| Not Martin, Le Roux. I think he's still being held by the
| U.S. Feds.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Would also explain why Satoshi went silent since the guy is
| sitting in federal prison.
|
| A cursory Google suggests that Satoshi's last communication was
| on April 26, 2011. Paul Le Roux was arrested on September 25th,
| 2012.
| matthoiland wrote:
| "Le Roux was sentenced to 25 years in prison in June 2020" [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux
| [deleted]
| ethanbond wrote:
| Trying to crowdsource Treasury-style monetary enforcement, are
| we?
| ratg13 wrote:
| I don't think administratively destroying wallets on the
| blockchain is going to add any trust into the system .. quite
| the opposite.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rOOb85 wrote:
| If this is true, wow.
|
| I've read about Paul Le Roux before as he is likely the person
| behind Trucrypt.
|
| While he's a criminal, if he really created Truecrypt and Bitcoin
| and also ran an international drug/gun running operation...I'm
| impressed. I think this dude's story could make a awesome
| book/movie some day...
| cocacola1 wrote:
| Here's at least one book on him: _The Mastermind: Drugs.
| Empire. Murder. Betrayal._ by Evan Ratliff.
|
| Another is: _Hunting LeRoux: The Inside Story of the DEA
| Takedown of a Criminal Genius and His Empire_ by Elaine
| Shannon.
|
| Michael Mann has the rights to turn _Hunting LeRoux_ into a
| film. He did _Heat_ , _Ali_ and _Collateral_ (probably one of
| my favorite movies). Unfortunately, he also did _Blackhat_.
| rOOb85 wrote:
| Ha, awesome. I should have googled for books/movies first.
|
| Thanks for the info!
| nothrowaways wrote:
| Maybe he killed Satoshi and extorted the keys, in reverse
| order.
| inanutshellus wrote:
| what you did there, I see.
| jdmoreira wrote:
| The book exists. It's named "The Mastermind". It's wild, really
| wild!
| dibt wrote:
| Also, the author of that book brought up the link to Satoshi.
| It's in his interest for the idea to be out there. Nobody
| would be looking up this book today, otherwise.
| rOOb85 wrote:
| Awesome, thanks for the info!
| khazhoux wrote:
| suggest you read his wikipedia entry. It's sickening.
| jshchnz wrote:
| I'm honestly not sure there could be a more unreliable source for
| this
| blueside wrote:
| Shkreli is live streaming this right now and somebody on his
| voice chat just said to him "No offense Martin, but you're
| probably the last person I would go to if I had
| incontrovertible evidence of Satoshi's identity"
|
| For all the horrendous shit that this Shkreli guy is known for,
| I always think of his Microsoft Excel skills first.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I always wonder why people are so impressed about his excel
| skills.
|
| I have seen many people in BI being much better. He just
| knows his shortcuts and pivot tables, this is standard stuff.
|
| And the mayor discipline, if anything, are customized macros
| which run cross device for a whole department, like opening
| one reports, filtering the data, creating a new file with a
| date stamp etc and sending reports and stats.
| [deleted]
| 323 wrote:
| The cryptography checks out. The source is irrelevant, might as
| well be from Trump.
| [deleted]
| avn2109 wrote:
| Do you rate SBF as a source more or less credible than Shkreli?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:01 UTC)