Wired Thinks It Knows Who Satoshi Nakamoto Is (wired.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In a lengthy exposé, Wired lays out its case that Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto is actually Australian businessman Craig Wright. As evidence, Wired cites leaked communications and posts on Wright's blog from 2008 and 2009 establishing a connection between him and the launch of Bitcoin. Wright is also known to have amassed a significant Bitcoin fortune early on. Wired tried to contact Wright and got some perplexing responses, and they admit that it could all be a (long and extremely elaborate) hoax. But hours after publishing, Gizmodo followed up with the results of their own investigation, which came to the conclusion that Satoshi is a pseudonym for two men: Wright and Dave Kleiman, a computer forensics expert who died in 2013. After questioning (read: harassment) from both publications, Wright seems to have withdrawn from public comment. Regardless, both articles are quite detailed, and it will be interesting to see if the leaked documents turn out to be accurate.

Comments

who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

really... what does it matter who "invented" bitcoin?

Re:who gives a shit?

[dreamchaser]

I came here to say this same thing, only I would have phrased it as 'Who cares?' or 'Who gives a fuck?'.

Re:who gives a shit?

[dreamchaser]

Fair enough. You care. The vast majority does not. Bitcoin and other 'virtual' currencies are a fad and will vanish in due time.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Flytrap]

It matters because 100 years from now, people will want to know in much the same way we want to know the people who gave birth to much of our present day civilisation... the Newtons, Marconis, Teslas, Edissons, Berners-Lees, Da Vincis, Graham Bells, Franklins, Einsteins, Pasteur, Curies, Wright Brothers and lots more.

Bitcoin may not still be around in 100 years, but the distributed ledger and crypto currency genies are never going back into their bottles and they will transform the world as we know it in more ways than the internet and world wide web has. The concept of centralised control over the generation, storage and transmission of tokens of value is unravelling faster than the centralised control and distribution of information and knowledge has.

It matters because 100 years from now people will want to know more than a pseudo name... they will want to know to who Nakamoto really was, where he lived, what inspired him, what he ate for breakfast, and all the other stuff that make our modern day legends more than myths.

It matters because if we do not solve this mystery in our lifetime, the genius of Nakamoto will remain a myth forever.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Dynedain]

Well, the creator owns a huge chunk of coins that are worth some serious money today and will only increase substantially if the network continues to have growth.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[DiSKiLLeR]

No, no we don't.

A debit card is NOT currency. Nor is it universally accepted. And it is tied to a single currency.

I've lived and worked in multiple countries, have bank accounts in multiple countries, and have savings and investments in multiple currencies.

When travelling currency conversion fees are annoying. Even when using a debit card or credit card.

It's all a huge pain in the ass. A real pain in the ass. I can't wait for a single universal internet currency you can use everywhere and we can rid of bank fees, foreign exchange transaction fees, and other bullcrap. It's getting better but very far from ideal.

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[Marginal Coward]

FWIW, if you're sitting on a big pile of bitcoins, the best thing to do would be to sell them slowly. If I were the inventor, I would:

- Remain steadfastly anonymous (unlike anyone else who creates a major new technology.) Using a pseudonym doesn't hurt. (Hey, it works for me here.)
- Mint myself a big pile at first
- Sell them slowly so as not to devalue them or draw too much attention to myself.

IIRC, Spain once had a problem where they had acquired a big pile of gold from the New World and they thought they were rich. Then, they learned that they weren't as rich as they thought because a sudden increase in the supply of any currency inevitably devalues it.

The primary selling point of gold as a currency is that it can't be created, it can only be mined at ever-increasing cost - much like Bitcoin. The sudden increase of supply from the New World was an anomalous exception to that rule. I'm sure the Bitcoin folks won't make the same mistake.