5 ms·

> The only time Satoshi spoke out was to help the poor bloke who was mistaken to be Satoshi no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by S

by user24 10y ago

> The only time Satoshi spoke out was to help the poor bloke who was mistaken to be Satoshi no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi.

gtrubetskoy 10y ago
> no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi. Are you sure, I wasn't aware of that? Edit: the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" was on March 7 2014, the account hack on Sept 8 of same year. It doesn't prove it conclusively. In fact the hack may well have been done deliberately, for a (kind of) plausible deniability (i.e. now you can't tell whether it was the real "Satoshi" and thus there was no provable breach of secrecy).
- celticninja 10y ago
  The only sort of confirmation that I could find on that claim was that the original address was unused for over a year so was then available for registration by a new user, this was then used to allow a password reset on another account. I believe this was the gmx and vistomail accounts.
- geofft 10y ago
  And the forum account hadn't posted for five years before that. There's certainly no conclusive evidence that it wasn't Satoshi, but there's also no conclusive evidence that it was, and strong reason to believe the account could have gotten hacked because it did indeed get hacked a few months later.
dempseye 10y ago
Source for this?
- user24 10y ago
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0 Discussion at the time: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zrshb/real_satoshi_nakamoto_denies_being_dorian_nakamoto/cfwefwo https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zrshb/real_satosh... The consensus is that it was not from the real Satoshi. In fact the reaction to that forum post are the same as the reaction to CSW's claims: Sign it or it's worthless.
  - gtrubetskoy 10y ago
    > Sign it or it's worthless. Good point. But on a second thought - signing it might have been in violation of whatever secrecy requirement, possibly a crime, under this theory we will never ever see anything signed from Satoshi.

by user24 10y ago

> The only time Satoshi spoke out was to help the poor bloke who was mistaken to be Satoshi no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi.

gtrubetskoy 10y ago

> no, the forum account was hacked to make that claim. It wasn't by Satoshi. Are you sure, I wasn't aware of that? Edit: the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" was on March 7 2014, the account hack on Sept 8 of same year. It doesn't prove it conclusively. In fact the hack may well have been done deliberately, for a (kind of) plausible deniability (i.e. now you can't tell whether it was the real "Satoshi" and thus there was no provable breach of secrecy).

celticninja 10y ago
The only sort of confirmation that I could find on that claim was that the original address was unused for over a year so was then available for registration by a new user, this was then used to allow a password reset on another account. I believe this was the gmx and vistomail accounts.
geofft 10y ago
And the forum account hadn't posted for five years before that. There's certainly no conclusive evidence that it wasn't Satoshi, but there's also no conclusive evidence that it was, and strong reason to believe the account could have gotten hacked because it did indeed get hacked a few months later.

dempseye 10y ago

Source for this?

user24 10y ago
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0 Discussion at the time: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zrshb/real_satoshi_nakamoto_denies_being_dorian_nakamoto/cfwefwo https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zrshb/real_satosh... The consensus is that it was not from the real Satoshi. In fact the reaction to that forum post are the same as the reaction to CSW's claims: Sign it or it's worthless.
- gtrubetskoy 10y ago
  > Sign it or it's worthless. Good point. But on a second thought - signing it might have been in violation of whatever secrecy requirement, possibly a crime, under this theory we will never ever see anything signed from Satoshi.