I don’t think this guy is Satoshi but no Bitcoin wallets known to belong to Satoshi have been active since their initial transactions. I think it’s likely that the keys for those wallets have been lost. So I don’t think the inability to sign these messages proves that he’s not Satoshi, the fraud does though.
If this was the actual explanation, that would be kind of funny (and possibly ironic?)
Just the pure distillation of, “protect the private key with your life.” If it can happen to the person who literally created the thing, it can happen to you.
I think it’s likely that the keys for those wallets have been lost.
I think that’s entirely possible. But I think it’s also quite likely that those wallets are intentionally being left alone. I think there are legitimate fears that revealing the identity of Satoshi would destabilize the Bitcoin economy (as well as make that person a serious target). Personally, if I were Satoshi, I would try to keep my identity secret.
Also, if you were to ask me, i’d say that this guy isn’t Satoshi because in all likelihood, Satoshi is Nick Szabo.
Because there is a huge number of bitcoins in the wallets believed to belong to Satoshi.
A lot of the people in the bitcoin markets just assume that those wallets will remain dormant indefinitely, and if there is any activity on them it might unnerve enough of them to cause a collapse.
When the Bitcoin network first started, only Satoshi was mining coins. He released the white paper, he talked about it publicly and encouraged people to try it, but it took a while for other nodes to join up and start mining. He could hold half the coins mined in the first 6 months. (If it were half the coins in the first 6 months, that would be 1.3 million coins, currently worth $129 billion). That is a potentially destabilizing amount of money.
I pretty much see any person claiming to be nakamoto wether the claim is legitimate or not to be treated exactly as they are treating this guy. Governments In collusion with the military and prison industry profiteers who control all the major financial institutions want to do whatever they want with BTC’s blockchain technology and arent about to let any pesky copyright claims become a hindrance regardless of the validity or lack thereof.
Nobody who understands the technology wants it. Blockchain is an extraordinarily wasteful and buggy solution to the distributed-ledger problem, with some appallingly bad privacy problems (pseudonimity is not anonymity). And the other technical features of the bitcoin implementation are even less novel.
The only banks getting involved with cryptocurrency are doing it to get a piece of the grift. Governments have a legitimate interest in preventing money-laundering, and we’ve seen what happens when unprincipled people with money can pay off whoever they like. So your paranoia is misplaced.
Then it would be trivial to sign a message using his known wallet address that could be cryptographicly verified. But he is lying so he can’t.
I don’t think this guy is Satoshi but no Bitcoin wallets known to belong to Satoshi have been active since their initial transactions. I think it’s likely that the keys for those wallets have been lost. So I don’t think the inability to sign these messages proves that he’s not Satoshi, the fraud does though.
If the keys have been lost then so has Satoshi. Otherwise any random idiot can say they’re satoshi. Sucks to suck.
Look at me guys! I’m satoshi!!!
/s
How can that be? I’m Satoshi!
If this was the actual explanation, that would be kind of funny (and possibly ironic?)
Just the pure distillation of, “protect the private key with your life.” If it can happen to the person who literally created the thing, it can happen to you.
I think that’s entirely possible. But I think it’s also quite likely that those wallets are intentionally being left alone. I think there are legitimate fears that revealing the identity of Satoshi would destabilize the Bitcoin economy (as well as make that person a serious target). Personally, if I were Satoshi, I would try to keep my identity secret.
Also, if you were to ask me, i’d say that this guy isn’t Satoshi because in all likelihood, Satoshi is Nick Szabo.
I’ve often heard about these legitimate fears, though why would revealing Satoshi’s real identity destabilise the bitcoin economy/make him a target?
Genuinely unsure.
Because there is a huge number of bitcoins in the wallets believed to belong to Satoshi.
A lot of the people in the bitcoin markets just assume that those wallets will remain dormant indefinitely, and if there is any activity on them it might unnerve enough of them to cause a collapse.
When the Bitcoin network first started, only Satoshi was mining coins. He released the white paper, he talked about it publicly and encouraged people to try it, but it took a while for other nodes to join up and start mining. He could hold half the coins mined in the first 6 months. (If it were half the coins in the first 6 months, that would be 1.3 million coins, currently worth $129 billion). That is a potentially destabilizing amount of money.
I pretty much see any person claiming to be nakamoto wether the claim is legitimate or not to be treated exactly as they are treating this guy. Governments In collusion with the military and prison industry profiteers who control all the major financial institutions want to do whatever they want with BTC’s blockchain technology and arent about to let any pesky copyright claims become a hindrance regardless of the validity or lack thereof.
Nobody who understands the technology wants it. Blockchain is an extraordinarily wasteful and buggy solution to the distributed-ledger problem, with some appallingly bad privacy problems (pseudonimity is not anonymity). And the other technical features of the bitcoin implementation are even less novel.
The only banks getting involved with cryptocurrency are doing it to get a piece of the grift. Governments have a legitimate interest in preventing money-laundering, and we’ve seen what happens when unprincipled people with money can pay off whoever they like. So your paranoia is misplaced.