until now there is still a lot of debate surrounding the name "satoshi nakamoto" some say that it was an individual or a group. but whatever it is, the most important thing is how bitcoin has developed to where it is today and introduced us to a sophisticated and decentralized transaction system. whoever the creator is and whatever he does is something that is no longer too important to discuss, because satoshi nakamoto has decided to be anonymous and leave the bitcoin space and we have to respect that.

A while back I wrote a topic [1] on why identifying SN would not be in our best interest. I recommend giving it a read.

Identifying this individual would provide governments worldwide with a tangible target for scrutiny, beyond mere anonymity. The potential repercussions include a surge in negative publicity and unfounded allegations against the newly revealed persona. Despite the speculative nature of any accusations, the community could face an unprecedented wave of FUD.

[1] https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5349129.msg57454873#msg57454873

If you read what Wikipedia says about him then you’ll see that he has denied being satoshi on several occasions. Btw, I also saw another article about the Op and I think that’s where this so called TheInternetGuy got the idea from that Nick Szabo is satoshi Nakamoto and then he decides to go online and just write as if he and Nick discussed about it where it got confirmation. I don’t think this is something worth debating on.

If not for this thread I don’t think I would have even know that someone called Nick Szabo exists.

It's possible that Satoshi would have just created Bitcoin and publicly released his identity, but he didn't, and I think his reason was to keep Bitcoin decentralized. If at all Satoshi Nakamoto were two individuals who wanted to keep a trace of their identity, long before now, they would have been discovered because the government itself is looking for every possible lead to uncover Satoshi's identity. 

Sometimes I used to ask myself: if Satoshi was really alive and had those millions of bitcoins in his wallet, would he not have felt tempted to look for means to access his fortune? I just concluded that Satoshi is dead. 

This story seems quite convincing, but it would have been uncovered right after Bitcoin price reached $1k or when
 began to become popular in the spaces

No disrespect to your thoughts but I feel Satoshi Nakamoto is a mystery and very much anonymous and that's the reason he created Bitcoin which follows the similar protocols about hiding one's identity and I don't think we will be able to figure out who he really is, and this name Satoshi Nakamoto itself night be a pseudonym used by the person whom we are referring as Satoshi Nakamoto. We may see such news about mail exchanges and similar ones even in the future like how we have seen in the past but I don't think anyone can find about much about Satoshi Nakamoto but will be always remembered for the revolutionary idea and invention of Bitcoin.

You are wrong  when you say, ''I don't think we will be able to figure out
who he really is, and this name Satoshi Nakamoto''

your word ''we'' is excluding me. Satoshi Nakamoto has read this thread, and he knows
who is speculating for secret motives and who is just really have no clues. yes you all know his
Japanese pseudonym but there are 70 people in the Bitcoin community know his real identity
but won't like to admit because they are working for governments' secret service.  

Bitcoin inventor chose a Japanese pseudonym does not mean he is Japanese, he cited Adam Back's
HashCash and Wei Dai's name in the Reference no.  1.  in the Bitcoin White Paper does not make
Adam Back or Wei Dai the writer of Bitcoin White Paper.

Satoshi met Hal Finney when he travelled with Wei Dai in London on 26 October 2008. Satoshi met
Nick Zsabo and Bitalik Butterin in 2015 in London for the first time in DevCon. and Craig Wright in
2018 in London.

Satoshi has been cornered by the governments agents
those who have hijacked his Bitcoin project from him.

They are running this forum and Bitcoin Blockchain.

They say ''we are all Satoshi.''

Satoshi is visible but unseen
to the blind media reporters.

you  need to understand
the phrase -

I am, 'Satoshi Nakamoto'

I am not alone.

A Samurai is a Samurai.
No matter where
he was born ?

Satoshi is an Immortal,
He is not one of you
in the Bitcoin Forum.

He is just a pseudonym
to you you all.

but to me -
I am, Satoshi Nakamoto.

I am myself.

Search and
you will find
Satoshi.  



  




 






 

 

The information shared by that guy on reddit is very informative to say the least, but then, I am wondering why he is no longer posting on this forum if he was once here, he could have been a good asset to this forum, as most of us would have loved to learn more from his experience as a true bitcoin OG who must have had some private connection with satoshi, because, I personally do not believe that the guy would know much as he knows without some internal private connections with those guys he mentioned on his reddit post.

Anyways, that is if all he said is true though, because for me, the mystery around who Satoshi Nakamoto is; is still yet unsolved, and I doubt it will ever be solved.

That doesn't make sense, in my opinion. Adam Back recently leaked his conversation with Satoshi, in which Satoshi presented him the whitepaper. If Adam was into Satoshi group, why would this conversation even exist? Faking a private conversation like that seems far-fetched.

Sounds more plausible that Nick used a British word or two to cover himself up. He had to switch to another writing style anyway.

---

Can somebody answer me these questions of mine? So, in this blog post Nick Szabo demonstrates bit gold, the direct precursor to Bitcoin. I think I made somewhat of a discovery, but it's probably me having insomnia, so forgive me if they're already presented before.

• Why does the blog post's date say "December 27, 2008", whereas in the URL, it is apparent that the post was published on 2005? If you use wayback machine, you can check yourself that in 2006, it said "December 29, 2005". Date doesn't change if you edit your blog post IIRC. It's as if he deliberately modified it a few days after the Bitcoin whitepaper was published in Meltzdowd mailing list. What doesn't stick to this story is that Nick wasn't aware of Bitcoin until 2011, when he published his first ever comment on Bitcoin. It just doesn't sound right that he hadn't figured it out prior 2011, given that it was practically his life work.
• In wayback machine again, 2006, why is there a link to a "Bitcoin" post from the future? How can such a thing have happened? It exists in archive.is as well.

Yes having seen the answer by BHC I believe that perhaps he is right. Adam Back couldn't have been Satoshi.

Btw this conversation between all of us proves that we just speculate. I thought that Adam Back was Satoshi, but apparently he couldn't have been and I just changed my mind in a few minutes after reading the posts above.

Nick Szabo is a good candidate indeed!


I think it works the other way around. I mean if you look at the article that was written in 2010 (it's in Russian), it references BitGold, so I believe "Links to this post" links to articles that refer to BitGold.