from the ooops...we-got-the-wrong-guy dept.
Cornell computer science professor Emin Gün Sirer has posted a blog on MIT Technology Review reacting to the recent news 'outing' the Australian Craig Steven Wright as the person most likely to be 'Satoshi Nakamoto', the creator of Bitcoin. The WIRED story presents evidence both for and against the Wright-as-Satoshi hypothesis; for starters, Wright is supposedly a polymath with two Ph.Ds who has dabbled in finance, has spent considerable time in the cyber-underground, and has a huge stash of coin. Most tellingly, there are a series of blog posts and emails referencing Bitcoin made by Wright in 2008 and 2009, coinciding almost to the day with posts made by Satoshi to the cryptography mailing list. But the WIRED story points out that there is evidence that the blog posts were edited by Wright in 2013 to include the Bitcoin references, raising the possibility of a hoax. And Wright's awesome Linkedin profile seems to have been recently deleted.
More doubts about Wright (warning: possible paywall) here.
Sirer thinks the press, and the Internet, are looking for Satoshi in the wrong place. Rather than look for a polymath and uber geek with an amazingly broad range of knowledge and interests, we should look at the limited community of individuals who have expertise in consensus algorithms and protocols; in other words, a specialist. Furthermore, the person would almost certainly be one who makes mental models and presents arguments in the same manner as Satoshi; Sirer calls this a "mental signature". Sirer says that Wright doesn't satisfy either of these criteria, based on his personal dealings with the man.
But who could be a match? Sirer:
Interestingly, I have come across one person who was a perfect fit. That person had precisely the same intellectual signature as Satoshi, and could have written, word for word, some of Satoshi's forum posts.
Sirer then goes on to say why he won't disclose his suspect - not that he's 100 percent sure he's got the man (or woman).
Related Stories
Wired and Gizmodo have named Craig Steven Wright (along with deceased American computer forensics expert Dave Kleiman) as the inventor of Bitcoin, known by the apparent pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Hours after their stories were published, the man's home was raided by the Australian Federal Police:
The latest attempt came this week from Wired magazine. Except this time, the story based its findings on numerous recorded links between the man and the identity of Nakamoto, through leaked emails, old blog posts and public documents. And then, just hours later, a twin story from tech website Gizmodo: more emails and documents, independent research, similar findings.
Their shared conclusion: It's probably a man named Craig Steven Wright, an Australian entrepreneur and academic, working with American computer forensics expert David Kleiman until his death in 2013.
And then, another few hours later: reports from Reuters and The Guardian that Australian police have raided Wright's home and office in Sydney. The authorities told The Guardian that the execution of search warrants was "to assist the Australian Taxation Office" but the "matter is unrelated to recent media reporting regarding the digital currency bitcoin."
The Register has some more details about Wright:
[More after the break.]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:34PM
Other than a mystery, what's the big deal with finding this person (or people)? I can imagine some in government, especially organizations such as the NSA really wanting to find whoever was behind the cryptocurrency to make sure he doesn't give any further contributions to society but, what's in it for people, even in the tech community? The person wants to remain anonymous and hasn't hurt anybody so, I say let them remain anonymous.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:51PM
It's mostly to figure out who to hit up for some cash, as he supposedly has a whole bunch of bitcoins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:29PM
There's that, and control over that many bitcoins could be used to manipulate the price of bitcoins, yielding even more money.
(Score: 1) by TheReaperD on Tuesday December 15 2015, @01:06AM
If I invented bitcoin and wanted to remain anonymous, I would't own a single one as that would be one of the easiest ways to track me.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:01PM
For one thing the govmu'nt want their Bittaxes. For another, most govmu'nts like here in the U.S. of A say that only they have the right to mint and print money.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @04:24AM
To know that it was actually individual(s) acting alone instead of an entity. For example, there's possibly an organization that designed a catastrophic weakness in the block chain. It doesn't mean there wouldn't be if it was an individual, but the other would guarantee something is amiss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:42PM
I restate: ENCRYPT EVERYTHING.
Your mannerisms, let you not become predictable.
Your interests, let them shift and range over any subject.
Click some random advertisements.
Use your neighbors' phone number instead of your grocery shopper's card -- Indeed foodstuffs have been datamined to try and discover people.
Hide in the crowd as best you can.
It is not enough to try and remain anonymous. While doing so you must also encrypt your personality, your typing, your sentence structure and method of indentation. All can reveal a pattern, and have been extensively studied to do just that and thwart your anonymous efforts.
Your digital DNA is just as strong as your physical DNA when it comes to leaving your fingerprints.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:13PM
I restate: ENCRYPT EVERYTHING.
38 3f 42 ad 10 0f 1c 2c 56 b0 f3 00 ee 4a cf 79
a5 38 37 31 d9 3e fa 1f e0 7c 02 d6 3c 3e 59 6f
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:32PM
42
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:37PM
It scares me that people will go to such lengths to expose someone and ruin their life, for the sake of additional ad hits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:15PM
You didn't mention the double thickness tinfoil.
Encrypt your brain.
Talk in gibberish to confuse their listening devices.
Roll your eyes in your head so they don't know where you're looking.
Go up to random strangers in the street to create false leads.
Stockpile assault rifles - but you're doing that already, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:36PM
Totally ineffective at this point with the newer technologies being able to penetrate triple thickness already. We've moved on towards Faraday Burkas.
Hah! Already using deniable encryption in my brain. Upon inspection, nobody can prove it holds anything useful.
I'm a programmer and sysadmin. I already confuse every single person I talk to.
I'm a programmer and sysadmin. I already roll my eyes back in my head about 4 dozen times each day. Twice as much if I'm dealing with CSS.
Had to stop. I only speak gibberish.
Can't. Too expensive. Faraday Burkas don't grow on trees.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VanessaE on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:50PM
I swear, this site needs a "-1,Excessive Paranoia" mod option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @12:01AM
Encryption does not mean hidden forever.
There is one type of encryption if done properly that is unbreakable. Everything else is based upon 'given the computer tech of today you can not break it'. Almost all of the broken ones were state of the art neato 20 years ago. Given computers of that time they were for practical purposes unbreakable.
3d computing and quantum computing is going to radically change how we make computers. It is also going to radically change what we can do. Right now we pretty much make 2d computers. But it become we make layers that do one thing. That one thing will do it very well. We will then stack them up. Think along the lines of the current circuit count for an intel core cpu. But only made of ALUs or branch predictors or cache or memory or so on. The capabilities are going to skyrocket. With quantum communications you can basically do a '4d' sort of computer which minimizes some of the nastier bits of Amdahl's law. It really kicks into gear what moores law was all about. Make the installing of modules cheaper of which currently power and data lines are making it difficult.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:46PM
That person had precisely the same intellectual signature as Satoshi
That is stated like a fact, but it is really just one person's opinion.
There is no rigorous and repeatable way to measure "intellectual signature."
(Score: 1) by TheReaperD on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:44PM
Well, to be fair, the person has refused to identify the person in question because they're not sure. This indicated that they're not 100% confident in this method of identification, even if they didn't state it.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:28PM
Bitcoin designer's seem to have underestimated a couple of key aspects, and that is popularity and demand.
That being said, there is simply too much built in elegance for one person IMHO.
Somewhere there was a room with a couple large white boards, a bunch of second hand re-purposed computers and a small group of folks, almost certainly no more than three, with lots of time on their hands, lots of knowledge in different fields, and a clear understanding of just how badly this would piss off governments.
The predictable reaction of various governments only stiffen's their resolve to take it to their graves.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @10:52PM
Maybe it was a government who devised Bitcoin. Which governments, if any, were having financial troubles in late 2008 and might have wanted an alternative currency? Greece? Zimbabwe?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @05:20AM
North Korea. Bitcoin is the new supernote. [wikipedia.org]
But seriously the whole "too elegant for just one guy" thing is the intellectual equivalent of intelligent design.
If anything elegance comes most easily from a singular genius that is immersed in the topic rather than a design by committee.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Sunday December 13 2015, @10:51PM
C'mon, Wired et al. You want to know who Satoshi Nakamoto is? I'll tell you: None of your fucking business, that's who. When he wants the world to know, he'll tell us. Until then leave him alone, you creepy fucking stalker paparazzi. You assholes should have learned that lesson from Newsweak's embarrassing fuckup, but maybe you're just too fucking dumb. Give it up already.