All the claims of who it might potentially be have been debunked one way or another. Someone was sure it was a Canadian guy not too long ago and he started getting harassed…
There’s tons of circumstantial evidence for a bunch of people, but Adam Back keeps talking about the value of Bitcoin (Satoshi would be one of the richest person on earth right now, he wouldn’t care about its value anymore) and was against the changes necessary to make Bitcoin useful as a digital currency (leading to the 2017 fork).
Why did Satoshi create Bitcoin? Because he felt there was a need for a digital currency, not because he wanted to get rich. It’s in the whitepaper.
That’s the weakest sauce “debunking” I’ve ever seen.
It’s been a while, but as I remember the arguments they give are:
Back basically disappeared activity-wise from the relevant mailing list at the same time that Satoshi appeared, and everyone immediately trusted Satoshi and treated him as someone of value
Similarities in writing style
Back has given some odd answers in interviews when asked about Satoshi, that basically only make sense if he at least knows who it is
Is that ironclad? Certainly not. It is however a lot more convincing than “why would someone with a lot of money care whether the value of their money went UP or DOWN if they already had a lot? Checkmate”.
Why would he work against his goal of creating a digital currency then? Bitcoin is useless for that with transactions that can be left pending for hours because of the block size limit, which Back supported keeping as is.
Why would Adam Back work against the goal of creating a digital currency? Presumably, he had some sort of reason why he thought it would be better to do it the one way instead of the other way. Maybe in hindsight his logic was just wrong.
I have no idea of the technical details involved, maybe what you’re saying does make sense. But your argument makes equal sense, to me, when applied to say that Adam Back couldn’t possibly have taken that stance, as it does applied to say that Satoshi couldn’t have taken that stance. I’m not convinced. I have no idea if the thing is true or not, but it seems pretty plausible to me, and the “debunking” does not at all.
All the claims of who it might potentially be have been debunked one way or another. Someone was sure it was a Canadian guy not too long ago and he started getting harassed…
How did they debunk the claim that it might be Adam Back? Have a link?
There’s tons of circumstantial evidence for a bunch of people, but Adam Back keeps talking about the value of Bitcoin (Satoshi would be one of the richest person on earth right now, he wouldn’t care about its value anymore) and was against the changes necessary to make Bitcoin useful as a digital currency (leading to the 2017 fork).
Why did Satoshi create Bitcoin? Because he felt there was a need for a digital currency, not because he wanted to get rich. It’s in the whitepaper.
That’s the weakest sauce “debunking” I’ve ever seen.
It’s been a while, but as I remember the arguments they give are:
Is that ironclad? Certainly not. It is however a lot more convincing than “why would someone with a lot of money care whether the value of their money went UP or DOWN if they already had a lot? Checkmate”.
Why would he work against his goal of creating a digital currency then? Bitcoin is useless for that with transactions that can be left pending for hours because of the block size limit, which Back supported keeping as is.
Why would Adam Back work against the goal of creating a digital currency? Presumably, he had some sort of reason why he thought it would be better to do it the one way instead of the other way. Maybe in hindsight his logic was just wrong.
I have no idea of the technical details involved, maybe what you’re saying does make sense. But your argument makes equal sense, to me, when applied to say that Adam Back couldn’t possibly have taken that stance, as it does applied to say that Satoshi couldn’t have taken that stance. I’m not convinced. I have no idea if the thing is true or not, but it seems pretty plausible to me, and the “debunking” does not at all.
Does it have to be one person?
It’s one of the theories, that it was done by a collective with one person writing on the forum