There are two groups that are on the suspects list for having engendered bitcoin, one group centers around Trinity College, another is a bunch of loosely affiliated international collaborators. Both groups are on the record with precursors to bitcoin (papers, software), neither has admitted openly that they were the ones.
Investigations into the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto have been attempted by The New Yorker and Fast Company. Fast Company's investigation brought up circumstantial evidence that indicated a link between an encryption patent application filed by Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry on 15 August 2008, and the bitcoin.org domain name which was registered 72 hours later. The patent application (#20100042841) contained networking and encryption technologies similar to bitcoin's. After textual analysis, the phrase "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto.
Anyone care to speculate whether it's more likely the creators were based in Trinity College rather than being international collaborators?
It's interesting that the controller of the Satoshi persona managed to stay anonymous for so long. I wonder if they were careful to only write forum posts via Tor? Otherwise their IP address might've been logged. An IP address would be enough for an ISP to unmask them (or at least narrow down the suspect list quite a lot). Satoshi also made a lot of source code commits, which seems like another way their IP address could leak.
> "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper.
That's the first time I have heard that one. If there are no other textbooks / papers / patents were this phrase is used, this seems like a pretty strong indicator to me. A search on Google Scholar for that exact phrase gives (at the time) the two expected results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally...
Alternative hypothesis: (a) Nakamoto paid close attention to research, read the patent and liked the phrase. (b) The phrase is common lingo, but Google Scholar doesn't index it. For example, it could be used in a private mailing list. Both (a) and (b) seems like they could quite easily be investigated by someone with domain knowledge together with some knowledge of how patents are distributed.
This seems like too simplistic a reasoning. Anyone care to explain what I am missing?
EDIT: The exact phrase "computationally impractical" seems to be very common, with thousands of citations before 2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impra... It seems to me that reversibility might simple have been a "theme" in crypto circles around that time, which could explain the coincidence that two different groups independently glued the phrases together.
I guess when there are some more established exchange services they could slowly pull some of that money out in relatively good anonymity. (Assuming that a more established service would not sell their name to the press.)
Since some people would prefer not to lie, the fact that they didn't have to removes the "AND they were lying" clause from the hypothesis and thereby raises the chances that they're involved. It's not an assumption that they replied truthfully, but a removal of the requirement that they lied when asked.
He wants to remain anonymous almost certainly because he is estimated to own ~1 million BTC ($200 million!); and a lot of thieves would track/kidnap/torture/murder someone for the chance to steal that amount.
It's possible that some kind of secondary liability theory could be invented to make Satoshi an accessory to money laundering on a massive scale. But I've also noticed that communities and movements must become stronger when they outgrow their original leader. When you meet the Buddha on the road you're supposed to kill him, but most people won't. So he disappears instead.
This comment seems to offer many clues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547590
There are two groups that are on the suspects list for having engendered bitcoin, one group centers around Trinity College, another is a bunch of loosely affiliated international collaborators. Both groups are on the record with precursors to bitcoin (papers, software), neither has admitted openly that they were the ones.
Along with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548093
Investigations into the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto have been attempted by The New Yorker and Fast Company. Fast Company's investigation brought up circumstantial evidence that indicated a link between an encryption patent application filed by Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry on 15 August 2008, and the bitcoin.org domain name which was registered 72 hours later. The patent application (#20100042841) contained networking and encryption technologies similar to bitcoin's. After textual analysis, the phrase "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto.
Anyone care to speculate whether it's more likely the creators were based in Trinity College rather than being international collaborators?
It's interesting that the controller of the Satoshi persona managed to stay anonymous for so long. I wonder if they were careful to only write forum posts via Tor? Otherwise their IP address might've been logged. An IP address would be enough for an ISP to unmask them (or at least narrow down the suspect list quite a lot). Satoshi also made a lot of source code commits, which seems like another way their IP address could leak.