Talk:Satoshi Nakamoto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Satoshi Nakamoto

The problems with this page relate to the authenticity of the citations(?) - most of which cite the bitcoins discussion boards - but will it be authentic if the references are increased to include the reports from reputed newspaper agencies? Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maanush (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The page should be kept because it provides useful information on the person, and it is extracted from within limited information. Simonkuong (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My vote is that this article should not be deleted. Thank you! --Huckelberry

Delete Page Debate

This page was proposed for deletion. A debate ensued, and was then hastily and falsely concluded to merge with the Bitcoin page. The results on the debate to delete this page are:

• Keep: 13
• Redirect: 5
• Merge: 5
• Delete: 3
• total 26

The conclusion to merge as been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misbach (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreated

Reliable sources are now available and it's a topic all on its own.--Another John S (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it? Is this all there is to it, or is this just the start of a larger article? If all there is to write about Satoshi Nakamoto is the one sentence that is going to appear in Bitcoin anyway, then it simply makes more sense to leave it as a redirect. Not even every notable topic needs an article if the content fits snugly into an existing one. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I added some more material that would be out of place in Bitcoin.--Bitcoin (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anything that was added is critical enough that the article needs to be recreated in order to provide the information. Most of the person-specific information is from a mailing list, not a reliable source. The sources that were introduced into the recreated article do not give any notability for the subject that would warrant un-merging the content from the Bitcoin article, since the sources in the article are as much about Bitcoin as the individual, if not more. - SudoGhost 12:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

Satoshi deserves a short Wikipedia page; there's not enough info to make a long biography, but there are enough links to make a stub article. The vote above was very much in favor of keeping the article; there is hardly any information in the Bitcoin article that is specific to Satoshi, and it seems completely obvious to me that a short article should be created. I created just such a stub. Sanpitch (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The vote above was done by sockpuppets of a blocked user. The latest version of the article did not address the issues of the AfD, and the sources are as much (or more) about Bitcoin as it is about Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym, not an actual person. The name does not exist outside of association with Bitcoin. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you want the AfD concerns to be addressed, but you consider the vote shown on the AfD page to be invalid because the votes were done by sockpuppets? A quick check does not show that *any* of the 'keep' votes to be from blocked users or obvious sockpuppets. The vote count given above is roughly accurate, with about half voting to keep, and half to delete/redirect/merge. In what way is that a consensus to redirect and merge?

You say that "Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym, not an actual person. The name does not exist outside of association with Bitcoin." I agree; the same could be said about Nicolas Bourbaki; the name is a pseudonym, and does not exist outside of it's association with their mathematical publications. There are many pseudonyms listed in Wikipedia; I really don't see the problem with having a page for a pseudonymous person. Sanpitch (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

the major problem with your analogy is that there are TONS of third party reliable sources about Nicolas Bourbaki. if Nakamoto had the same amount of coverage, the discussion would likely have gone differently. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that by "vote", you were referring to the discussion at the top of this section. I didn't know you were referring to the "Delete Page Debate" section above this one. As for that one, AfDs are not determined by a "vote", but by consensus. An uninvolved administrator will assess the discussion and determine if a consensus was reached. There are certain rationales that do not hold much (or any) weight in deletion discussions, and the keep votes in the AfD appear to be these types of rationales. - SudoGhost 06:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus, but I did not see anything like a consensus on deleting the page. Using this page as an example, could you explain just how consensus worked? Sanpitch (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

when you eliminate the !votes of the meat and sock puppets, and apply the weight of the policy of the remaining commentors, the consensus is quite clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you point out an example of a meat or sock puppet in the vote? Also a specific example of how the policy of the remaining "keep" votes should not be weighted? Sanpitch (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplified

I think that it is great to have a page about Satoshi Nakamoto, and am very glad that the page was recreated. Even so, I thought the previous page had several problems. First, the 'Motives' section felt very much like original work to me; it had no citations. I deleted it.

Second, the 'Influence', 'See Also', and 'External Links' sections were so trivial as to be almost useless. I merged them with previous sections; they could be recreated in future versions with more encyclopedic content. I hope you like the changes! Sanpitch (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again I cleaned up the page to make it more crisp and clean. I made the sub-heading "Claimed identities of SN" into simple bold text, and moved the 'work' content into the article lead. I believe the article is cleaner now. Sanpitch (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think the "claimed identities" do not deserve to be a section, but should rather be a paragraph, and made it so. I also removed the quotation of Josh Zerlan, which was out of place and was phrased as promotion of Butterfly labs; even without the promotion of Butterfly labs the citation did not identify a specific person. Sanpitch (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Quality

The quality of this Article is not fit for an Encyclopedia Article.

The article is a collect of hearsay, and personal sources, Source that would be deleted in other Articles.

I'm asking that this page be deleted, of cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats not how it works here. An article should have no unsourced facts, and articles on living persons can have those facts removed immediately without discussion, but we do not delete articles for poor quality, if the subject is obviously notable. this name, and all the public commentary associated with it, is definitely notable, regardless of whether any or all of the commentary is true. WP is based on verifiability, not truth. we dont get to decide if anything, including the Newsweek article, is in fact true. we can only report what is notably said about this name/person. now, deciding which sourced info is notable, and which is trivial-thats tricky.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors, please try to compensate for the utter fail of Talk page history RCS

Recent edits to this talk page have mangled the history of the discussion. I would urge all editors to please be careful when changing their edits and those that potentially affect the context of other editor's replies. Please follow the advice at the top of this talk page, and in particular: "please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)." I tried, but failed, to fix the recent mangling. -84user (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, but the fact that Wikipedia uses wikipage-history-style revision control (instead of reddit-style threaded) for talk pages makes this sort of unintentional mangling inevitable. Trying to apply unified-document histories to a multiauthor-individually-attributable threaded discussion is doomed from the outset. Don't blame the editors, blame the broken software and the organization that has failed to fix it. Honestly, the most you can hope for is that authors edit only their own paragraphs in the talk page and make sure the signature date is within 10 minutes of the last edit to that paragraph. Anything more than that is the job of the site software. 173.228.119.107 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Identity uncovered?

By now, I'm sure just about everyone editing this article is aware of the Newsweek article, "The Face Behind Bitcoin", that makes (in my opinion) a pretty compelling case for the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. In fact, if you believe the author is telling the truth, Dorian Nakamoto confirmed it himself, during his and the author's brief in-person "interview". I don't know if it's too early, though, for this article to state that definitively.

I do want to point to this deletion of information I added, from the Newsweek article. It may be overboard to add this much biographical information so early, but on the other hand the justification for removing it was poor: Obiwankenobi referred to the Newsweek article as doxxing, which is simply not true: the vast majority of its information came not from the internet or public records, but from interviews with Nakamoto's family. It's standard journalistic research. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been widely called a doxxing, the particulars aren't important; this was a man who obviously wanted to remain in the shadows, and if he is the founder could be sitting on lots of money, so I think we should be circumspect and not republish too many biographical details. It's quite possible newsweek itself will edit their article, I would not be surprised, so let's not jump the gun. I don't think that one article is sufficient proof in any case - truth is stranger than fiction, but the real truth may be more complex than this one piece purports.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The wait-and-see approach does make sense, given the just one source. But it's still not a doxxing, no matter how many people call it that. Perhaps the term people are looking for is something like "tabloid journalism". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of thing we avoid here - see WP:RS. In any case, I'm not sure what your point is - why exactly isn't this doxing? social engineering (e.g getting email address from train company), pretending to be a train enthusiast,interviewing family and friends, is all part of doxing. She also did plenty of internet/public records research. I think this is the very definition of doxxing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: the picture of his house and car has been taken down, so Newsweek is reacting. They may redact even more, depending on the blowback. I personally think the article was incredibly irresponsible.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" guideline doesn't seem to have any relevance here - Newsweek is considered a reliable news outlet by any standard. As to whether it's doxxing - you're right that there was subterfuge involved, but doxxing implies that it's being done for non-journalistic reasons, like harassment. In this case, the journalistic value of the information is clear, especially given the list of other journalists who have attempted to get the same information. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually not true - we sometimes discount certain reports, even if they come from "reliable" sources, because we have to analyze the claims and balance them per WP:DUE. Anyway, it's not worth having a terminology dispute, I call it doxxing, it fits the definition, and articles like this use it in the same way; you prefer a different term. It doesn't really matter - we should agree to disagree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I should note that the article you linked to is about the revelation of information that no one had ever speculated about - and whose speculation certainly wasn't the subject of an article on Wikipedia. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Dorian did not confirm it himself. After telling the reporter that he had worked on classified government projects for over a decade before being laid off, he said "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it." The journalist then published this quote in an article about bitcoin.

I think that's an obvious misreading of the article - the reporter states specifically that Dorian was responding "to my questions about Bitcoin". He could have just been pulling the reporter's leg, of course. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, read the article again. The reply to her questions about bitcoin came from the cop: "I would like to ask him about Bitcoin. This man is Satoshi Nakamoto."What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life." I think you've been duped by some crafty editing. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what the odds of a randomly selected beat cop recognizing the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" as the creator of bitcoin are...

She states, "Nakamoto's responses to my questions about Bitcoin were careful but revealing." She never asked him about anything else. I don't see how the cop stuff is relevant. If you think she's lying, of course, that's a totally separate issue. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

She states, "having done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military." She states, "it was classified and I can't really talk about it". She mentions classified work three separate times in the article. The cop's reply was the very next piece of dialogue after her only question about Bitcoin in Dorian's presence, which is why I included it, with no intervening text removed. You have raised the question of whether or not she's lying, but unless you think she's lying her writing clearly indicates that the cop answered her question, not Dorian. By claiming she never asked about classified work you're accusing her of journalistic fraud, but I can't understand why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.119.107 (talk) 2014-03-06T18:29:08 (UTC)

She didn't ask him about his classified work; she asked others about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

AP has confirmed this: "He also said a key portion of the piece - where he is quoted telling the reporter on his doorstep before two police officers, "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it" - was misunderstood." and then a few sentences later ""I'm saying I'm no longer in engineering. That's it," he said of the exchange. "And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that's what I implied."" [1] The source has unequivocally confirmed that the quote about "no longer involved with it" refers to his paid engineering work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.119.107 (talk) 2014-03-07T02:55:49 (UTC)

Why so quiet, Kornie? Hard to talk with that foot stuck in your mouth? 173.228.119.107 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope - I stand by everything I wrote. I stated throughout that the article could have been in error. But I was reading the article's intent correctly. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

see [2]. Interesting. I'm not convinced. We're going to have to wait for more RS to confirm or validate some of this journlists findings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The real Satoshi Nakamoto just denied (http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto) the story via his account at P2PFoundation. "I am not Dorian Nakamoto." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratha K (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Or some website admin for p2pfoundation denied it. The comment was not cryptographically signed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.119.107 (talk) 2014-03-07T02:55:49 (UTC)

Dorian Nakamoto Claims Misquote by Newsweek

"He also said a key portion of the piece - where he is quoted telling the reporter on his doorstep before two police officers, "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it" - was misunderstood." and then a few sentences later ""I'm saying I'm no longer in engineering. That's it," he said of the exchange. "And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that's what I implied."" [3] The source has unequivocally confirmed that the quote about "no longer involved with it" refers to his paid engineering work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.119.107 (talk) 2014-03-07T02:55:49 (UTC)

Dorian Nakamoto shouldn't have his own section

It makes him seem somehow more plausible than the other candidates. He is not. The only real evidence is that he shares the same name, and a quote taken out of context. He should be moved back into the "Notable suggested identities" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.128.226 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have a separate section, regardless of the plausibility of the claim, because the speculation about Dorian Nakamoto took on a life of its own, including widespread media coverage, a car chase of sorts, and a comment from the "real" Nakamoto's account. As a side note, his quote wasn't taken out of context; rather, if you believe his interview, he had answered what he thought was a different question. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree w/ @Korny O'Near:. Regardless of whether you think the news article was accurate or not, the amount of discussion and notoriety around the Newsweek piece fingering Dorian S. Nakamoto is much higher than anyone else mentioned in the section. It merits a longer treatment. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed identity speculation

Per the standard set by the Belle Knox article, "Do not post any personal information about who Knox might be in real life. Until she confirms her identity, any names or information is considered to be speculation and theory and violates our WP:BLP policy. Violations will be removed and repeated violations will run the risk of the editor getting blocked." I removed the speculation about the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.182.230 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the standard set by WP:POINT, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Lagrange613 21:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed content about Samsung/Motorola/more and username 'dorian'

I removed the suggestion that somehow Samsung, Motorola, and others created Bitcoin, and also the note about user 'dorian'. These are not notable possible identities. Sanpitch (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing for such claims is certainly inadequate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"The compromised e-mail incident"

I removed this section as it is non-encyclopedic and non-notable, and is borderline original research with the analysis. Please only re-add with references (especially secondary sources) - I personally don't think it's noteworthy enough to be mentioned in it's own section. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Cult of Satoshi

I removed the following recent contribution because of improper style, and because it seemed to be basically original research, based on the editor's analysis of internet forum posts, with no reference to mainstream sources. However, the cult-like veneration of Satoshi seems to be real, so perhaps such sources (serious articles analyzing the "cult" aspect of bitcoin) can be found, and some of this material can be retuned to the article.

Satoshi Mythology

[ ... ] Bitcoin enthusiasts have attributed an otherworldly, god-like persona to the Bitcoin creator. Followers of Satoshi [ ... ] look to Nakamoto's "White Paper" as the divine word and final authority on truth, justice, and fundamentals. According [ these believers ], Satoshi created Bitcoin as a way to provide salvation and unending riches to [ them, ] when the price of a single Bitcoin reaches an astronomically high price. [ Satoshi's "believers" believe ] that they, the chosen few, are enlightened by their own intelligence and are thus deserving of endless reward. Those foolish enough to not worship Satoshi [ ... ] are doomed to a meager existence, proper punishment for worshipping the false fiat prophets. [ Believers ] frequently evangelize the word of Satoshi in an effort to save the unenlightened from their own ignorance.

--179.159.150.134 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wei Dai/Finney/Szabo

A lot has been written about how these three worked together closely and how they may together have been Satoshi. Or how it's highly likely one of them is. A section may be added on this. Here is one source. Unfortunately the best stuff on this is on blogs, forums and the like and probably not usable. Handpolk (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Contrary to my own last contrib, this article should be using far more secondary sources that discuss the credibility of the identity reports (rather than citing the source reports themselves, which would be primary sources about themselves) czar 22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Should also mention Gizmodo's report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.129 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto Revealed As Australian Craig Stephen Wright

Satoshi Nakamoto Revealed As Australian Craig Stephen Wright

Police and tax investigators have raided the Sydney home of a man that members of the Australian bitcoin community say might be the mastermind behind the controversial cryptocurrency, just hours after reports emerged in the United States suggesting that he may be its secretive creator.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html#ixzz3tu7XOK3M Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.241.237 (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Humanization of the creator of bitcoin

I think we should use entity and not person or people for who created bitcoin. For all we know it could be an alien species or artificial intelligence creation. Assuming it was made by humans is pretty egotistical and bigoted. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree While your defense of the rights of non-humans is interesting, I want to refer you to the WP:NOR policy, and to the fact that all the sources we know mention a person or a group of people. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin Founder Unmasked to be Polish

Bounty Hunter made a blog post on 2016-01-28 concluding that Satoshi Nakamoto may be a Polish person of Paweł Pszona based on correlation between an e-mail from Satoshi Nakamoto on 2008-11-17 and related paper of Unlinkable Divisible Digital Cash without Trusted Third Party from International Association for Cryptologic Research. P4z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) 22:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Update article?

This article may need updating to further talk about Craig Steven Wright, as he is the inventor of bitcoin. The introduction makes it seem like the person is still unknown.

Draftmission (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A hoax anyway?

The reddit post outs him as a fake. This article is still ongoing but this is a very interesting turn of events. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hf4xj/creator_of_bitcoin_reveals_identity/d2pf70v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.153.212.42 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hacker news comes to the same conclusion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611

Craig Steven Wright as founder Satoshi Nakamoto

News continues to break relating to Craig Steven Wright's claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I suggest we keep this page as Wright claiming to be Nakamoto, until at least the dust settles. I changed the wiki entry to reflect his claim.

The Economist "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?". Economist. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

BBC "Craig Wright revealed as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". BBC. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

This might develop later into a whole section entitled controversy, so until that happens suggest keeping it as "claims to be the creator" rather than "is the founder."

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The alleged "proof" has either not been made public, or if it was the data in Wright's blog post, is not proof of anything at all.[4] At this stage all we should do is indicate who is and is not convinced of Wright's identity, without making a statement one way or the other. – Smyth\^talk 11:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The detail that he is the creator was removed for some reason, as I understand, there is no dispute and the detail should not be removed. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Any editor familiar with Bitcoin or cryptography can verify my point for themselves. Wikipedia should err on the side of caution when making significant pronouncements like this. Just because there's not yet a reliable source saying Wright's claim is untrue, doesn't make it true. – Smyth\^talk 12:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Jon Matonis, bitcoin Foundation director and economist said he was convinced Dr Wright was the founder of bitcoin. "The proof is conclusive and I have no doubt that Craig Steven Wright is the person behind the Bitcoin technology, Nakamoto consensus, and the Satoshi Nakamoto name," he wrote.

"During the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social, and technical. Based on what I witnessed, it is my firm belief that Craig Steven Wright satisfies all three categories

Read more: http://www.afr.com/technology/bitcoin-founder-revealed-as-australian-craig-wright-20160502-gokama#ixzz47VqcpIK2 Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

Read more: http://www.afr.com/technology/bitcoin-founder-revealed-as-australian-craig-wright-20160502-gokama#ixzz47VqSOEdY Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

seems like every media outlet is saying he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.116.63 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source now added. – Smyth\^talk 12:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment "Jon Matonis, bitcoin Foundation director" - I think that Jon Matonis is a former Bitcoin Foundation director. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

An interesting read on the London Review of Books by Andrew O'Hagan... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slack---line (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Known for in infobox

I want to add a fourth great achievement; the solving of the double spending problem for digital currency. Can anyone see why not? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, should be added.

24.22.76.12 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: do you have a RS for that? I googled it and couldn't find it. Certainly should add it if we have a RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this Coindesk article adequate? It was also mentioned in the original white paper. It is mentioned on page 15 of Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion: Cryptocurrency, FinTech, InsurTech, Regulation, ChinaTech, Mobile Security, and Distributed Ledger. Shiftchange (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Date correction required

As of August 7 2017, the last para of section 'Development of bitcoin' stats, "As of August 8 2017, it is worth to equivalent of over $3,157,950,000 in original bitcoins." This "future prediction" needs correction. I am not changing it my self because I am not sure what rates to apply today. Should there be a time stamp too? SO leaving it to those with more experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHuda (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Speculation about wealth

Claims of how much bitcoin Nakamoto owns is speculation, something an encyclopedia should not engage in. We don't know if they have passed possession to someone else, if they own much more coin or even if they are still alive. We can't verify any specific statement. I don't see the point in alluding to an unknown person's estimated bitcoin ownership. The figure is going to be constantly fluctuating and be probably be out-of-date quickly anyway. Why do editors want this information included? - Shiftchange (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential identity found and confirmed

According to https://medium.com/cryptomuse/how-the-nsa-caught-satoshi-nakamoto-868affcef595, the NSA has successfully found the inventor, and or the group behind bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusgenius (talk • contribs)

@Icarusgenius: Doesn't look like a WP:RS. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Tatsuaki Okamoto mentioned anywhere in this wiki?

In 2013 there have been multiple discussions debating whether or not it was him. Like on the Bitcointalk forum (which somehow I cannot linked to since Wikipedia lists it as spam? Anyways, topicnr = 235289.0) or this bitcoin newsitem. Furthermore, despite his name looking an awful lot like Satoshi Nakamoto, it is very clear the guy had intensive knowledge on electronic cash systems before Bitcoin was launched as is shown (among many other papers he wrote) by this academic paper that is still viewable on Springer.

Reading the Bitcointalk thread is interesting, as it is also suggested Satoshi Nakamoto might also be a combination of 'Satoshi Obana' and 'Tatsuaki Okamoto', which both have earned their stripes in cryptography. It could also mean of course that Satoshi was just an admirer of the two.

Bottomline: there seems to have been some serious debates about Tatsuaki Okamoto maybe being Satoshi Nakamoto which, as far as I've found, were never fully revealed untrue. So: why isn't he listed within the possible identities on the wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.29.24 (talk)

If these debates were as serious as you suggest, there would be no shortage of reputable secondary sources. Your only reference is an archived page from some obscure news site, which no longer exists. Retimuko (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times Investigation

The New York Times is rumored to publish their investigation about Satoshi Nakamoto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8223:7080:9199:94BF:344B:10D0 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

"They" is not a substitute for "he" or "she". "They" is always plural. Correct would be either "he" (the default neuter pronoun in English) or "he/she" (which is ugly and not recommended).

e.g., "As part of the implementation, they also devised the first blockchain database." should be "he also devised the first blockchain database" or "he/she devised the first blockchain database". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.214.179 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to have to completely disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they --163.47.68.18 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is they being used on this article? There is no evidence that I have read that Satoshi is multiple people, only some speculation. I think this article subject is one person (whether that person represents multiple people). @Ladislav Mecir: do you have an opinion on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sleeping pattern speculation

"If Nakamoto is a single individual with conventional sleeping habits, it suggests he resided in a region using the UTC−05:00 or UTC−06:00 time offset. This includes the parts of North America that fall within the Eastern Time Zone and Central Time Zone, as well as parts of Central America, the Caribbean and South America."

This seems like complete speculation: while it would fit for a person working a regular 9-5 job, it doesn't account for the millions of others who work freelance, unconventional (yet common) hours, or are not employed at all. It holds no more encyclopedic relevance than if I were to speculate that this makes him a French student who stayed up late in the evening coding Bitcoin and then slept in, as 20 year olds are wont to do.

194.176.105.161 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Emir, that bit was actually not in the source provided but purely original research. The IP is right about it being baseless speculation that doesn't belong there. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible identity

From Satoshi Nakamoto email hack Screenshot (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-satoshi-nakamoto-email-hacker-says-hes-negotiating-with-the-bitcoin-founder ) - Address is Satoshi Nakamoto, 103 Market Street St. Louis, Tel: 240-899-6542. Verified on: http://www.locatefamily.com/Street-Lists/USA/MO/63101/index19.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.255.66.236 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources connecting the two pieces of information? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why does this section not contain anything related to the speculation that it could be a CIA conspiracy? After all, one speculation is as good as another, and this one merits mention because other allegations are listed. If you want a citation, there are plenty including one from a Russian lawmaker making the allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.184.110 (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge from Dave Kleiman

I don't believe Dave Kleiman has stand-alone notability, but maybe some of his article could be merged here? Or perhaps Craig Steven Wright would be better target? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose There is no evidence this person is Satoshi. Plenty of RS for a stand alone article, especially as WP:BLP doesn't apply. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, lack of interest. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is now credible citations to suggest that Kleiman was possibly involved in the creation of Bitcoin. These citations I have added to the Craig Steven Wright section however I don't know enough about Kleiman to write a substantial piece about him, perhaps this section could be added or merged with Wright? Fanta206 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More revealing conclusions

Since the first ever mined block could only originate from Satoshi and it contained the text "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" shouldn't this mean he was living in the UK at the time and reading a British newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.48.74 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

crazy edits

@MER-C: we are seeing name changes and other funny things on this page like [5] and a day later this [6] from different IP ranges. Might be a good idea to lock to autoconfirmed editors. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing service

[SPAM REMOVED MER-C 19:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.70.13 (talk • contribs)

Can you post evidence that it has been? If you're going to make an accusation such as that, you really should be able to tell us how you know that. --Jayron32 18:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: this is likely an SEO activity to put this on various talk pages. This same editor put this on a few articles today [7]. It would be useful to blacklist this destination url. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 19:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

He/She/They

@David Gerard: the lede currently uses the term they, was surprised when I read it today. Should it use he since Satoshi identified himself as male? Or is it they since we have so many sources stating we don't know who the actual identity is? Last, 'they' pushing the Craig Wright (group theory) POV? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Craig Wright stuff is misweighted, I assume "they" as Satoshi is unknown - did Satoshi identify as male? That'd be citable I guess - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this clear from reading his BTC forum posts? prokaryotes (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And Satoshi (さとし, サトシ) is generally a masculine Japanese given name. prokaryotes (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi David, yes we have a source saying he and it is used at the beginning of the history section.

On a P2P Foundation profile, Nakamoto claimed to be a man living in Japan, born on 5 April 1975.

Shall we use he? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Phil Wilson, Dave Kleiman, CSW as Satoshi team

@Jtbobwaysf: @David Gerard: @Fanta206: Have you guys seen this? It explains why CSW used the wrong key trying to prive he is Satoshi. Phil Wilson also published a draft titled bitcoin origins. Worth reading. I am surprised why he did not get more media attention.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Because rumours are cheap. And frankly, a random bitcoin blog going into raptures over a tweet is not anything Wikipedia should pay the slightest bit of notice to. I still know of zero contemporary (rather than post-CSW or unrelated to CSW) evidence that Kleiman had any interest in cryptocurrencies - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding the CSW interest as Satoshi as there seems to be a total lack of RS that point to him. I guess there is a desire to know who crack the cold case of who satoshi is. Dont really have much else to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Guys, this is serious. Phil Wilson seems to be the brain behind blockchain. I hope the truth comes out soon. This is a 7 hour interview.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

At this point I think we need to say WP:NOTFORUM - this is becoming a general discussion about the topic, rather than about the subject of the article. If you have anything within a mile of WP:RS, then we can reopen the discussion. Until then, it's startlingly unlikely there's usable material in a seven-hour primary source - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I already have a secondary reliable source, namely news.bitcoin.com which I will use in the days to come.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

news.bitcoin.com is a highly questionable source as an RS, given to barely-edited factual errors - it's a blog that's marketing for bitcoin.com. Compare the other article subjects, who achieved coverage in unquestionably mainstream RSes. Is there any mainstream coverage of this guy? This seems a real stretch to even try to claim he rates mention - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

this bitcoin.com site is owned by Roger Ver, a noted Bitcoin Cash advocate. Craig Wright is also closely related to Bitcoin Cash. For sure this is not an RS here. In fact the cryptorags have generally been stripped from most of the crypto articles by now as it is so difficult to determine what is paid reporting, what is fanzines, and what is actually notable and real. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand how much you guys hate BCH and CSW. Trust me; I have seen your resistance against anything pro CSW in the article. What you are missing (and I was hoping you realize by now), however, is the fact that this new material posted on bitcoin.com is against CSW's interests. Anyways, it is my feeling that there will be more coverage on this and I won't be asking for your permission to include sourced material in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

We should mention Elon Musk

https://hackernoon.com/elon-musk-probably-invented-bitcoin-9d6c7b7f9c3b https://www.inverse.com/article/39055-this-a-i-analyzed-elon-musk-s-writing-to-see-if-he-invented-bitcoin 178.4.182.33 (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

SourceForge Eruditio Loginquitas (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Craig Wright

@Kazemita1: You reverted my edit to move excess content off this article to Wright's article here [8]. This article has excessive text about would be Satoshi candidate Craig Steven Wright. There is no reason the bulk of this content cant be moved to the Wright's on article. There is so much Wright dribble here that it dominates the Satoshi article, thus a violation of WP:WEIGHT implying that Wright is more likely to be Satoshi (thus an WP:NPOV issue). It appears most of the content is simply duplicated from Wrights page which creates a problem with WP:CONTENTFORKING. @David Gerard: adding you here since I saw you also made an edit on the same content over at CSW's article. I think a paragraph on Wright should be sufficient, and the reader can go to Wright's article to learn more about the guy if they are curious. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah, definitely. Wright-as-Satoshi was all over the news, and it's the thing he's most famous for, but a suitable para or two here with the bio as the main article is almost certainly the right way to do it - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf. So to make it clear, the stuff you tried to move to CSW's article were already there. However, if you like to trim down SN's article, I personally do not have a problem. Just do it in a way to keep things in balance. I mean there are quotes that endorse him, and those who cast doubt on his claims. Try to leave a certain amount of each side.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

that sounds like false balance. He needs coverage here, but the RS coverage is politely sceptical of his claims - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a debate I do not want to get into. I cordially ask for the inclusion of those RS sources, e.g. Forbes.com, London Review of Books and etc, that mention approval of CSW's claims by famous figures, such as Jon Matonis, Ian Grigg, Joseph VaughnPerling and Gavin Andresen. --Kazemita1 (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fanta206: we have been discussing pruning the Wright content on this article. I haven't gotten around to it. Just a heads up on this since you recent edit was somewhat related to the probably undue weight the article gives to Wright. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I sent you a talk message. I added much of this content to balance out the argument that Wright is NOT Nakamoto. This was in an attempt to make the article more objective. The issue I had with the trim was that it completely removed one side of the argument. Surely we can add slightly more than what was there to provide objectivity. Cheers. Fanta206 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fanta206: I pinged you a month before I deleted it and you had no response. If you have certain content you want to include, then include it. The deleted content can be found here Talk:Craig_Steven_Wright#Content_move. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-addition reverted. Please achieve consensus to devote this huge amount of text to the Wright hypothesis. It's stupendously unbalanced - David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I second @Fanta206:'s argument. One needs to add RS backed material to balance out the argument that Wright is NOT Nakamoto. I welcome however trimming the section the way it was done in the last few months. I understand the trimming and have no problem with it. But then again trimming cannot be done in a one-sided manner.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This content I deleted today was mostly sourced by twitter. That just doesn't work. If you want to push this pro-write POV for 'balance' find some RS to do it, not twitter and other dubious blockchain fan sites. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met...These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

The above is part of Wikipedia guideline in identifying reliable sources which allows using people's social media account for citing statements made by those same people. However, I will add secondary sources in a bit.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the changes you want to make. Let's focus on good sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: you have again introduced this pro-Wright content here [9]. I went and created two different paragraphs (one pro, and one against) as it seems simpler. I also deleted the content about this new liberty reserve person (cant find anything speaking to his notability) as well as Ian Griggs (seemingly also not notable as well). I think your introduction of the Gavin Andresen content is quite good, as eventually I think he was kicked out of Bitcoin Core for this incident, correct? Maybe we can find some contente about that as well. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but Ian Grigg's notability is established by the very sources that establish Peter Todd's and Dan Kamnisky's. In other words, reliable sources that discuss CSW's claims found him a notable cryptographer and mentioned his opinion on the matter. I am putting Ian Grigg back to the article and adding a second reliable source.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

For sure Peter Todd is notable, I didn't intentionally delete Todd. I also adjusted your talk page indent FYI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of relevant sources to balance out this article on the content which was moved to Craig Steven Wright. In particular the Secret Life by Andrew O'Hagan, and the follow up article by the BBC which cites this book. Fanta206 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This subject of this article is not Wright. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: no the subject of the article is Satoshi Nakamoto and the references and content that were moved to Wright's page provide plentiful sources that point to Wright being far more likely to be Nakamoto than the current text, in particular "The Secret Life" by Andrew O'Hagan, the BBC article which cites this book, and Rory Cellan-Jones' clarification of the Wright issue after Wright's refusal to sign a message. This provides clarification in relation to the previous citations on Wright earlier in this article. As I said one side of the argument has been completely removed from this page. While I acknowledge that the content I added was on the long side, I object completely to it being removed without these two citations being included. The article is no longer up to date, this new information has been left out. Fanta206 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take a position on who is most likely to be Satoshi. We did add your suggestion to add Griggs, Matonis, and Andresen to the list on this article recently. But the fact remains that the vast majority of WP:RS seem to dismiss Wright's claims. Wright has his own article and all the nuance of his claims to be Satoshi should be discussed there and not promoted here as a theory seeking to give Wright more weight since he is "more likely" to be Satoshi (unless we see some RS to support that). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you seriously think the O'Hagan article supports Wright being Satoshi, I can only assume you didn't read it - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Where to start, firstly I never said anything about Griggs, Matonis nor Andresen. Secondly, @David Gerard: the citation by O'Hagan is a book, not an article which (if you had read the article you're referring to) you would have known. The book clearly explains why there was no proof given from a completely impartial standpoint by a well respected author who was shadowing Wright during this time, the book also states that Wright privately showed O'Hagan and numerous others proof. I'll wait for this talk page to develop more before contributing again Fanta206 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No it didn't. O'Hagan spoke of one other being shown evidence, and that person telling others (including O'Hagan) that he had seen that evidence. So it was second-hand at best, and does not in any way say what you're claiming - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll get the page reference when I get a minute. O'Hagan was in Wright's house and wright showed him the evidence required. Fanta206 (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting video by O'Hagan [10]. O'Hagan says: "He didn't think that he could singly call himself satoshi". Let's stop trying to push some POV here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes definitely an interesting video @Jtbobwaysf: thank you. I watched it a while back while doing research. To clarify, I'm not trying to push any POV I'm trying to make this article more objectively balanced. The two paragraphs which were one pro/one con, are nothing of the sort, they are unduly balanced towards him not being the creator of Bitcoin. I know not who really created Bitcoin I just see that this article is unfairly balanced at the Craig Wright section and think it should be fixed. My comments are with all due respect to both yourself and @David Gerard:. Personally I feel as if I'm not the one pushing a POV I don't think it's unreasonable to request the section be balanced more, I completely agree that the Wright section was too long and some should be moved to Craig Steven Wright but I provided a list of key elements from that page which should be added here and for some reason, you two are completely opposed. It's not pushing a POV, it's pushing accuracy of balance. Fanta206 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore @Jtbobwaysf:, having watched the video again it actually dispels / casts doubt on much of the content in this article and talk page section... In particular (since I was going to provide a reference to the book): "Having shown me privately and having shown two of the leading bitcoin experts in the world privately, that he had access to the Satoshi encryption keys..."[11]. This article needs its balance fixed! Fanta206 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that in this interview (as I have not read the book, maybe I will) is that it seems to me that O'Hagan also doesn't presently believe Wright is Satoshi, nor does he think that Wright even thinks he himself is Satoshi. It is really quite strange and interesting. I can't imagine how we would go over all this nuance without giving excess weight again to Wright. Fortunately, Wright has his own article so that can be moved there to deal with this weight issue. I suggest you just re-write the section on this talk page, we discuss it, and then we put it in. I am all for balance as well. Note we are also looking at weight, as if we give too many inches to wright, by definition we overweight him. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: apologies for not replying earlier. Please do read the book, your statement about O'Hagan not believing that Wright is Satoshi is completely wrong (explained by the fact that you haven't read the book) the whole chapter in the book can be read here before it was removed and published as a book it was on the internet and archived on Archive.org, the contents are identical bar a few editorial changes - a very interesting read. O'Hagan - after shadowing Wright for weeks - was convinced that Wright was Satoshi after his initial doubts. I really feel that this article still requires balancing. Many thanks. Fanta206 (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have read it, both in LRB and book form. O'Hagan wasn't convinced at all, and doesn't say he was convinced at all. If you can produce a cited quote supporting this remarkable claim ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if O'Hagen did argue CSW is Satoshi (which we are still debating here on this talk page months on end without evidence), it would still be a fringe position and not supported by the bulk of the other sources. Thus, either way, the basic amount of weight given to CSW will remain per NPOV reasons. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

In some ways, Satoshi Nakamoto's anonymity is deliberate. His work is open to constant interpretation and there is no way to really tell what Satoshi intended unless he came back, and even if he returned, many wish that he would remain anonymous, because as long as the "author" is missing, the text may go on. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S0885-211120180000019002 Exeb2demon 1 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Craig Wright

See here[12]: "My name is Dr. Craig Wright and under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto I completed a project I started in 1997 that was filed with the Australian government in part under an AusIndustry project registered with the Dept. of Innovation as BlackNet...The amount of misunderstanding and fallacious information that has been propagated concerning bitcoin and any derivative system based on a blockchain (such as and including Ethereum) has resulted in my choice to start to become more public."

There is an attached pdf with more details. Again though no cryptographic proof is apparent. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

Tomoaki Nakatani is, in my wild conspiracy, the true creator of Bitcoin. I wish to say no details as to how this conclusion came to me, but this is possibly the answer to the question many want answered. Thank you and please disregard my statements if you disagree as conflict does not strike me as necessary. Peace Love Earth 24.185.97.225 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an edit request, more of a statement - FlightTime (open channel) 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

Kazuo Sato gives us the name Satoshi & Tomoaki Nakatani gives us the name Nakamoto. 24.185.97.225 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Using Russia Today as a source?!

Are we really using RT as an argument towards Nick Szabo being Nakamoto? It's a notoriously unreliable, politically funded source most interested in geopolitical mischief; reasoned arguments and facts are just not in its playbook. You wouldn't even use them to source the weather data on any day in history, even if you see no reason why they'd alter the record... so here it's puzzling to me86.31.58.117 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

I'd concur that they're not really a good source for many things, and a gratuitous random quote from a TV appearance saying something already said in the previous phrase doesn't add anything useful. Removed - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2019

Requesting the following information to be added either under "Craig Wright" or "Other claimed candidates" section:

On June 3, 2019, author Jeremy Wall suggested Craig Wright may have obtained the encrypted hard drives of Satoshi Nakamoto, and is attempting to legitimize his claims to Satoshi's unmoved Bitcoin while he works to brute force decrypt the wallet. Wall speculates that Paul Le Roux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux), creator of E4M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E4M) and currently in prison, may be Satoshi Nakamoto. (https://www.investinblockchain.com/new-evidence-suggests-satoshi-nakamoto-is-paul-solotshi-the-creator-of-encryption-software-e4m-and-truecrypt/) 24.182.116.165 (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: This speculation doesn't fit into the article, and lacks WP:RS --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

New source

Read this [13] today from TheNextWeb. Probably an RS and an interesting speculation on why Satoshi left the project. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: shall we treat the statement that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym as a fact or as an opinion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shall we treat the statement that the name Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym as a fact or as an opinion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• As an opinion The reasons are:
  • Leah McGrath Goodman wrote in an article for the Newsweek that "Far from leading to a Tokyo-based whiz kid using the name Satoshi Nakamoto as a cipher or pseudonym (a story repeated by everyone from Bitcoin's rabid fans to The New Yorker), the trail followed by Newsweek led to a 64-year-old Japanese-American man whose name really is Satoshi Nakamoto.", i.e. she said that the name Satoshi Nakamoto is not a pseudonym.
  • Kevin Collier cited the information in an article for the Week, writing "According to Newsweek, Satoshi was genuinely named Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto". In the article, Kevin Collier also wrote: "Either way, this was just the biggest of many attempts from the mainstream press to engage in Bitcoin's oldest, most maddening endeavor: guessing at, and refuting, possible Satoshis."
  • Olga Kharif, in an article for Bloomberg also referred to the article as one of the identifications of Satoshi Nakamoto.
  • Michael Hiltzik, in an article for the Los Angeles Times also referred to the article saying that "It's still possible, very marginally, that Newsweek is correct in fingering Dorian S. Nakamoto as the mysterious inventor of bitcoin."
  • Tim Harford for BBC News wrote "In 2008, someone using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a new kind of money: Bitcoin."
  • Per WP:WIKIVOICE, "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Due to the above conflicting assertions, we shall treat the statement that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym as an opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• As a fact. Yes, there was a single 2014 Newsweek article that pointed to a man named Satoshi "Dorian" Nakamoto as the inventor of bitcoin. But no one seems to believe that article any more. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• As a fact that the majority of sources state that Satoshi is a pseudonym. If you believe this is an NPOV issue, then we can do a section to cover that this assumption is disputed. If there such controversy... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• As a fact - The use of Satoshi Nakamoto as a pseudonym is almost universally agreed on by sources, with only that one Newsweek article claiming otherwise. That article is highly disputed by pretty much everybody involved in the debate. The burden of proof is clearly on the "real name" crowd and until such proof comes to surface I think it's fair to treat it as if it is, in fact, a pseudonym. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a fact - the sources treat it as a fact, in fact literally even the sources cited against treating it as a fact turn out to treat it as a fact when you look at them. The sources are so overwhelming on this that it would be inappropriate not to - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a fact - the sources all treat Satoshi Nakamoto as a pseudonym. I cannot find any credible evidence against it. --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a fact - most the sources treat it as a fact. We can follow the large majority of RS. Per WP:WEIGHT To state a fact in WIkipedia's voice doesn't require an absolutely universal consensus, just that it is commonly accepted by RS. Darx9url (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Querulous RFC - this is literally only you claiming there's an ambiguity in words that isn't there, and trying to defend tags that you tried to edit-war in and multiple editors knocked you back on - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with David, the overwhelming majority of sources state that Satoshi is a pseudonym. Cherry picking a few sources and then running an RfC is weird. Note Craig Wright states that he is Satoshi, is this RfC an attempt to push that POV? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf asked: "Craig Wright states that he is Satoshi, is this RfC an attempt to push that POV?" - I do not know how that could be relevant to the present discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point, Craig Wright also supports the pseudonym theory. What you are referring to 'unknown' I dont believe I have ever seen a source that says it is unknown and not a pseudonym. It is either unknown person with a pseudonym or just pseudonym. I think this type of nit picking is what David is referring to as querulous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"Craig Wright also supports the pseudonym theory." - Craig Wright is not considered a WP:IRS, so what he says is not relevant for the present discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. I mean the theory that craig wright is satoshi also is congruent with the the pseudonym position. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Nobody ever interviewed the [presumed] guy, nobody photographed him, nobody saw his id papers, there was no report of his death for nine years, his huge wealth (assuming he isn’t dead) lays inactive ⇒ safe to assume that “Satoshi Nakamoto” physically doesn’t exist. Everyone (and any group) may create as many Internet identities as they are pleased. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Korny O'Near wrote: "But no one seems to believe that article any more." - that is where the sources confirm otherwise as mentioned above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I think the sources you cited pretty much confirm what I wrote. These sources just note that Newsweek came out with this claim, and that there's no further evidence for it. And the last of those three sources is basically devoted to debunking the claim. Of course, until the real identity is determined, any claim has some chance of being correct - since you can't prove a negative - but no one seems to consider it a serious possibility any more, not even Newsweek. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

yep. Nobody takes the Newsweek story seriously as evidence that Dorian Nakamoto is Satoshi. Trying to use it as a reason not to say "pseudonymous" in wiki voice in the article is ludicrous. Ladislav is grossly misreading the sources here, and trying to claim they support the opposite of what they say - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Jtbobwaysf wrote: " the majority of sources state that Satoshi is a pseudonym." - well, no. The majority of sources state that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How many sources say it is an unknown person named Satoshi Nakamoto? Can you find a single one? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This sort of thing is where I start to seriously question your understanding of English nuance. "the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown" is literally a statement that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym. You keep putting forward sources and statements that undermine your claimed position. This lends weight to the position that you don't understand the meanings of the words in the statements you're putting forward. Precisely what do you think "pseudonym" means, if one of those meanings isn't "a name whose identity is unknown"? - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

Rothstein, Adam (April 20, 2017). "The returns and departures of Satoshi Nakamoto". The end of money: the story of bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and the blockchain revolution. London, United Kingdom: John Murray Learning. pp. 139–142. ISBN 9781473629530.

Above is the citation template for the book source. The individual who wrote the book is Adam Rothstein but the alias for the author is a series by New Scientist called "Instant Expert" that describes complicated subjects in a clear and insightful manner. This book provides a few more details about the story regarding Craig Steven Wright. Below is my attempt to paraphrase the information given on pages 139~142.

I propose changing X to Y:

 where X = (nothing in the space between the two following sentences):
   1. "Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence publicly provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky concluded Wright's claim was "intentional scammery.""
   2. "In May 2019 it was reported that Wright was using UK libel law to sue people who denied he was the inventor of bitcoin."
 where Y = (the following 3 paragraphs of text):

For a time period of approximately 6 months (between roughly December of 2015 and May of 2016), a reporter named Andrew O'Hagan had been conversing with and interviewing Wright. Wright was publicly claiming that he was "Satoshi Nakamoto". According to O'Hagan, Wright was panning on coming forward to apply for a multitude of patents related to the blockchain technology, which were currently held by a company called nTrust. Wright said that he could prove that he was, in fact, the creator of Bitcoin, and that him and nTrust would both be rich.

Over the six month time period, O'Hagan had many conversations with Wright, and it seemed very apparent that Wright's life "fit the bill", so to speak. Wright even described a collaboration with a friend named David Kleiman that matched the early history of Bitcoin to a 't'. However, there seemed to be pieces of Wright's story that were missing. E-mails that Wright said could prove his identity were never shown, the private key that Wright said had signed the "genesis-block" was never revealed, and Wright said that he could also demonstrate the move some of the old, stagnant Bitcoins from the early days of the cryptocurrency development, but never did.

After all of this excitement and eventual disappointment regarding the potential unveiling of the true "Satoshi Nakamoto", many followers of the story were left reeling, as they left the scene. However, in a late interview with O'Hagan, Wright claimed that he simply "lost his nerve". Wright said that he was afraid of the possible consequences should he have proven his identity as the inventor of Bitcoin. He imagined being arrested and imprisoned for charges of drug trafficking and/or terrorism, since that's what some individuals used Bitcoin for, soon after its creation. O'Hagan later described Wright's fear as a real risk, but still one that only deepened the unsolved mystery of the true "Satoshi Nakamoto".

}} Lexxeous (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 16:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

Change X, where X is 2.1 Possible Identities, to include Y, where Y is James Balil khalid Caan.

James Balil Khalid Caan sent a global press release out on Aug. 16, 2019 claiming to reveal his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto via his website.

The press release said it would reveal his "real-life identity, country of origin, education, professional background, and why he has yet to move any of his 980,000 bitcoins." in a three-part reveal starting on August 18, the 11th anniversary of his registration of bitcoin.org. Crypto.Michael (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Failed promotional exercise by a PR company, barely any RS coverage and that disparaging - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

pseudonymous

@Ladislav Mecir: please let us know what is going on and why you are reverting this description with David Gerard (talk · contribs). I thought it is well known that Satoshi is pseudonymous. Certainly we are going to discuss this here before we start removing it from the lead or overtagging it. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Certainly we are going to discuss this here before we start removing it" - I see that you started removing the tags before any discussion or correction took place, which is the opposite of what is recommended by the policies. Also note that the WP:STATUSQUO version characterized Satoshi Nakamoto as "unknown", not as "pseudonymous". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, i thought the statusquo was pseudonymous. Sorry. I have seen so much pseudonymous in the press over the years just seemed like common knowledge. Why are we using unknown? Here are two clear RS BBC [14] and [15] Financial Times. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, to demonstrate that the "unknown" characteristic is the WP:STATUSQUO, note this version.

Second, the sources cited in the article do not confirm the "pseudonymous" characteristic (they actually contradict it). The sources mention several theories about the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. Some of the theories suggests that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is not a pseudonym, other theories suggest that it is a pseudonym. The sources also say that none of the theories has been confirmed. Thus, the text claiming that Satoshi Nakamoto is pseudonymous, contradicts the sources. Also note that all sources actually agree that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown at present, which is the common denominator, as opposed to the "pseudonymous" characteristic, which is not common to all theories. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Week clearly supports the claim: "often thought to be the pseudonym of one or several ambitious programmers", "Adam Penenberg ran something of a rebuttal to Davis, who assumed a popular theory: Not only that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym, it's a clue."

Bloomberg: "The background of Nakamoto -- a pseudonym that is thought to refer to a person or group of people", "The New York Times and New Yorker have both tried to find the person or people behind the pseudonym."

Fortune: "who is known by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto." "While the identity of Satoshi doesn’t much matter anymore, the actions of the person behind the pseudonym do."

Literally your cited sources literally support the claim that he's pseudonymous, repeatedly. You are edit-warring tags onto the article in direct contradiction of literally your own cited sources. At this point, I have to start questioning your ability to read sources, and strongly suggest you desist from such strong claims about what any sources say - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

'The Week clearly supports the claim: "often thought to be the pseudonym of one or several ambitious programmers"' - this is a clear misrepresentation of the source. The source states: 'Reporter Leah McGrath Goodman claimed to have figured out the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the elusive founder of Bitcoin and often thought to be the pseudonym of one or several ambitious programmers.', which has a totally different meaning than what you are making of it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I do not think it is serious and correct to interpret "Satoshi Nakamoto is often thought to be the pseudonym..." as "Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonym..." But, as I see, you do not find any difference between these. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Literally your cited sources literally support the claim that he's pseudonymous, repeatedly...you desist from such strong claims about what any sources say" - just a bit of an explanation: the sources are not "my cited sources", these are the sources cited in the article. I did not even put them there. But, nevermind, as you have shown above, you interpret facts differently than I do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You are trying to make querulous distinctions in the meanings of English words that are not there in the sources. You are trying to claim ambiguities in the sources that are not there, to try to claim that they support the exact opposite of what they support. At this point you're just being disruptive. Honestly, I'm getting the idea you just don't understand English well enough to make the distinctions you're making - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt to explain facts you are misrepresenting. Perhaps you find out what is wrong with your interpretation of the source. As mentioned above, Kevin Collier wrote: 'Reporter Leah McGrath Goodman claimed to have figured out the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the elusive founder of Bitcoin and often thought to be the pseudonym of one or several ambitious programmers.' While you use it to make a point that Kevin Collier says that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym, that is extremely far from truth. The fact is that it is a paraphrase of Leah Mc Grath Goodman's "Far from leading to a Tokyo-based whiz kid using the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" as a cipher or pseudonym (a story repeated by everyone from Bitcoin's rabid fans to The New Yorker), the trail followed by Newsweek led to a 64-year-old Japanese-American man whose name really is Satoshi Nakamoto." I do not claim that what Leah Mc Grath Goodman said is a fact, I merely repeat that it is a theory that in no way confirms that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym. Also note how you misrepresent the mere paraphrase of the original. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I literally quoted the text of the sources that you put forward. You're trying to claim ambiguities that don't exist, to make out that the sources say the opposite of what they say. This is nonsensical abuse of sources - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I too dont understand what is going on here. Ladislav, the two sources I provided above unambiguous. All you have to do is a google search and there are dozens (or maybe hundreds, I didn't count) of top-shelf RS that use the pseudonym term with Satoshi. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: you made this edit [16]. @David Gerard: are there any sources you have seen to say Satoshi is presumed to be a pseudonym? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that edit, actually - and The Week supports it, per above: "often thought to be the pseudonym of one or several ambitious programmers" - David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Both as well as mention presumptions, thoughts and assumptions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David and Ladislav. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

short description

@Ladislav Mecir: I tend to support John M Wolfson's version [17]. Seems shorter and better. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I shorten the description as you propose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Satoshi Nakamoto is Adam Back 103.220.16.153 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

N no, and lol no - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

fix the link on reference 73: https://blog.dustintrammell.com/i-am-not-satoshi/ 2605:6000:101A:41F6:F52D:ABFB:8231:409 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Implemented: The citation has been replaced per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Thank you. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible addition to "Other claimed candidates"

Hello. As you may have seen, a new YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcvX0P1b5g ) claimed to have the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, being Adam Beck. I was wondering if this could be added to the Other claimed candidates section, or even potentially to the main Possible Identities if deemed important enough. I understand someone else already just linked the video, but that isn't much for discussion by itself. 2601:204:E780:D3B0:A9F9:C4A:8979:A42 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why this is notable in Wikipedia sense? This is a self-published source. We need a source from a reputable news organization or something like that. Retimuko (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a reputable investigation that deduced who he was from all the clues he left. Every single private conversation, mails, and times of connection between "both" of them are in the video and completely prove they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:109F:13:33A1:3DE2:77C7:D161:ABB3 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS. Retimuko (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, ignore my personal opinion, he made a follow up video, watch it, everything is here and doesn't depend on opinions ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4rsft-7Vx4 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:109F:13:33A1:3DE2:77C7:D161:ABB3 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Case

@Ladislav Mecir: you recently changed Bitcoin to bitcoin on this article. Can you please explain why you did this? I thought Satoshi wrote the whitepaper for Bitcoin. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf. I thought that you were already familiar with the respective consensus. Nevermind, I can repeat it for you.

• Here is a quote that contains citations of the relevant sources explaining why the lowercase bitcoin is preferred:

There is no uniform convention for bitcoin capitalization. Some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network and bitcoin, lowercase, to refer to the unit of account. The Wall Street Journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Oxford English Dictionary advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases

• Here is a reference to the related discussion where the consensus was reached. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Adam Back

A recent set of edits produced a section on Adam Back. A good example is oldid=956395858. These are based on an investigative piece done by YouTuber Barely Sociable, who currently has about 400,000 subscribers. These videos go back several months, but the latest one seems to be the main source for this claim. A journalistic piece about this claim is available here from Decrypt, a blockchain news outlet funded by ConsenSys. The journalistic article is a good source because it mentions the video, its central claims, Adam Back's background and his clear & direct refutations of this claim on Twitter. Decrypt also reached out, received and published Adam Back's comment on the article directly. I think this is fairly well sourced and decent journalism. I think this is comparable or more respectable than the following claims on this page: Elon Musk (Medium blog post), McCaleb (where the only journalistic source publishes a denial from the him). I found this source by simply searching Adam Back on Google News, getting back this link. There are dozens of aggregators covering this story, but they aren't indexed by Google News and clearly fail to follow standard journalistic practice. Adam is also mentioned in certain other (less reliable) sources [18] [19]. Adam is also cited in the BitCoin paper itself, and in Satoshi's first email as being in contact with Satoshi ("Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site.").

I think this section should be added to the article with the Decrypt story as a source, as it covers the claim, the background, and obtained a quote from Adam Back on the topic itself. Adam is notable. ConsenSys (who funds Decrypt) is notable. --sepht (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This youtube video would not constitute an RS, nor would Decrypt as we are not using crypto news sites. I guess that there may be other RS out there that list Back as a candidate. I would suggest to search those and see if you can find an RS. We need something mainstream, like wsj, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The YouTube video is not the source for WP:SOURCES. Decrypt is. Worse sources are used in the current article. Decrypt is indexed by Google News, and the funding source is ConsenSys. Decrypt is currently used as a source on the following articles: Mwale_Medical_and_Technology_City, Defense Distributed, and Akon. Decrypt is not a self published source for this and showed up as a result on a Google News query (WP:GOOGLETEST). Examples of crypto news sites that I'd consider failing WP:SOURCES and WP:GOOGLETEST are [20] [21] [22]. I agree those are unreliable. But Decrypt, IMO, is fine. --sepht (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sepht: I am afraid that Decrypt does not have a reputation of being an independent reliable source (yet?). Perhaps, it is doing decent journalism as you suggest, and eventually people might come to appreciate that, but at the moment we don't even have an article about it in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if this claim is so well-supported as you suggest, why other media with established reputation is not interested? Perhaps, it will take them a while to notice and verify? We can wait for that to happen. And if that does not happen, maybe this is not as encyclopedic as you think. Retimuko (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko: see my comment above re: Decrypt used as a source. I think this is clearly stronger than the Elon Musk claim on the article. Decrypt is not on WP:RSPSOURCES, but neither is FastCompany, The Age. Vice is considered as having no consensus. I think adding Adam Back would keep with the current reliability standard on this page. I agree that maybe this should section should be rewritten to a higher standard, but I think it fits into the article as it is now. --sepht (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I recognize it is frustrating to be a new editor to cryptocurrency articles and find that we are using a different and much stricter policy here than what you might read about on the policy pages, however that is the way it is. Fastcompany would be an RS, can you find someone that supports this argument there? I just did a search for Adam Back in mainstream RS as the Back article had been tagged with poor sourcing. I found a half dozen high quality sources and added them to Adam Back, but none of them that I saw referred to him as a potential candidate to be Satoshi. The blockstream conspiracy is an interesting topic and i enjoyed the youtube video, but it is not high quality enough for wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're conflating the youtube video as a source for the claim and the reporting source on the claim. Multiple claims on this page (Musk, Szabo) started as Medium posts or personal blog posts. But, they gained notability and fit WP:SOURCES once a journalistic source reported on them. I would claim the same has happened here with Adam. I understand if you think more sources are need to include this, but I would disagree. --sepht (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are suggesting to use the decrypt source as an WP:RS relating to a cryptocurrency WP:BLP subject (Back) to promote the theory that Back is Satoshi. The answer to that is clearly no from what you are seeing above. If fortune, nyt, or bloomberg cover it, it is a different story. Decrypt is owned by ConsenSys a large backer of Ethereum, and Back is an active critic of ethereum. We are not going to add ConsenSys' WP:COI sourced content without confirmation from good mainstream source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the original edit. Unfortunately, I'm glad someone reverted my edit: Decrypt isn't a reliable source, at least for now. There is no need to rush. Let's wait a few days and I'm sure a well-known newspaper will talk about the issue (and if they don't, it may mean that the information shouldn't be on Wikipedia either). Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll add another source that's reporting on this claim. [23] Regardless of the credibility of the claim, it is definitely gaining notability. GoodCrossing (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Also not an RS. I would like to include the content as I find it interesting. However, our sourcing policy for crypto articles trumps my desire to include it. Right now we have an Ethereum advocacy organization (Consensys) and a BitcoinSV advocacy organization (coinspice) pushing the news. Both are COI and far far from RS. Maybe one of the mainstream will pick it up soon... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - fair enough, I just want to point out that this is getting coverage - it's not just a YT video. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

John McAfee alludes to Adam Back being Satoshi Nakamoto here in case that's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7AD0:5500:31A5:20EA:9FC:97E2 (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is an WP:RS in bloomberg. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As far back as 2016, the Financial Times referred to Back being Satoshi as a 'popular theory'. In an in-depth Big Page piece sparked by Craig Wright’s claim that he was Satoshi, Izabella Kaminska wrote: "Popular theories include the idea [that] bitcoin was invented by a group of individuals, not a single person; that it was one of a set of early developers and theorists such as the late Hal Finney, Nick Szabo or Adam Back, or even that it was a covert national intelligence project." Kaminska has been editor of FT Alphaville since 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FT_Alphaville Izabella Kaminska, 7 May 2016, Financial Times, p9 https://www.ft.com/content/769cc516-1370-11e6-839f-2922947098f0 IOHKwriter (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IOHKwriter appreciate the content. Are you affiliated with IOHK?

Hello, yes. just seen this. As my user name and talk page make clear, I am a writer working for IOHK. I've been trying to work out why anything to do with IOHK, Ouroboros and Cardano is immediately deleted as 'IOHK blockchain spam'. It was suggested I make comments on the talk page for the deleted Cardano entry, which is being monitored by various Wikpedia people: "Check also the most substantial contributors to Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform), who also write similarly and - this is the big tell - have a similar WP:IDHT going on - David Gerard (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)" IOHKwriter (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: seem to have a WP:COI editor here. Also dont know what happened to the signature formatting above, but not that important. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Also noting that here an editor is repeatedly trying to add Charles Hoskinson wikilink to this article. Hoskinson is IOHK right? @David Gerard: and @MER-C: maybe a WP:COI issue, and probably a WP:GS/Crypto violation by Wickorama (talk · contribs) here (which I also noted on the user's talk page). Is there a Hoskinson/Back feud that I dont know about? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting hint to add to the Nick Szabo section

In one email to Hal Finney (computer scientist), Satoshi Nakamoto writes:

″You can send to my Bitcoin address if you want to, but you won't get to see the full transfer sequence: 1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs3oLPvLiDNGf48cPD″

A little bit further in the same email he wrote: ″Just by chance I have my initials.″

The first two letters of the address being “NS”, this would be a further indication that Nick Szabo could be Satoshi Nakamoto. Spacecharly (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is original research. Not allowed in Wikipedia. We need a reliable secondary source that would make this observation. Retimuko (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Please remove the Craig Wright section

Craig Wright self-proclamed himself to be Satoshi Nakamoto, and nothing else is known about the possibilities/probabilities of him being SN, apart from him providing a fake proof about it. He shouldn't be included as basically as verbally declaring your identity doesn't make you so. Also, there are many ways to show you actually are SN, and none of them was provided by Wright. Ah, and remember that people do lie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.204.5 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Re "Craig Wright self-proclamed himself to be Satoshi Nakamoto, and nothing else is known about the possibilities/probabilities of him being SN" - that is not true, see the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References on why Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir's published connection with Ross Ulbricht was incorrect

As the article is semi-protected, I'm unable to append the following reference. Essentially, their research (Ron and Shamir) which involved generating a giant graph and analyzing(?) it led to them associating a transaction belonging to the subject with a transaction made by Ross. The reason why their claim was retracted was because a Texas individual announced ownership of the wallet creating that transaction and proved it.

An archive of his denial is at: http://web.archive.org/web/20131129102005/https://blog.dustintrammell.com/2013/11/26/i-am-not-satoshi/

And his claim was covered by Wired at: https://www.wired.com/2013/11/trammell/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.189.33 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Source 18 seems to be malformatted though the whole document. ":18" instead of "[18]" 13XxM1CHA3lxX37 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That is not reference 18. It is the uncommon use of the {{rp}} template to refer to page numbers. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

copyright

@Túrelio: what exactly is a copyright violation of the rendering of the genesis block message? Are you referring to the quote from times of london? We allow quotes at wikipedia, and it is not an image of times of london. It is well known that Satoshi had multiple copyright release posts on his various channels (bitcointalk, the website, etc). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Replied on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Others we are having a discussion here Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DR now underway here [24]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bitcoin-Genesis-block.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Replacement link for https://www.scss.tcd.ie/~clearm/bitcoin.html Clear, Michael (4 April 2013)."Clarifications on Bitcoin Article" . Archived from the original on 31 October 2013 to new link https://web.archive.org/web/20131031180459/https://www.scss.tcd.ie/~clearm/bitcoin.html Zyalhambra (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021 (2)

Replace https://washingtonindependent.com/admin/#/collections/default/entries/clarification-on-the-article-of-john-davis-about-the-bitcoin/clarification-on-the-article-of-john-davis-about-the-bitcoin to https://www.scss.tcd.ie/~clearm/bitcoin.html Zyalhambra (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

change persons to people in the first paragraph 77.13.121.113 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it is gramatically correct as it is the plural of "person". — TGHL ↗ (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

I am Satoshi Nakamoto it is an alias. I was a Single Developer with other Cypherpunks helping and collaborating. A few things about me. 1. At age 16 I studied at Harvard Law School and the series "Suits" are a dramatization of my experiences in New York. I did the New York Bar Exam First. I specialized in Intellectual Property, Contract Law and Company Law. Only did 1 year. My alias at that stage was "Harvey Specter" 2. I am a 20 Army Veteran in a Special Force 3. I am partner at "The Firm" 2. My daughter is Taylor Swift. 3. I am involved in Space Projects. Satoshin007 (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) The Source myself the creator of BITCOIN which is a play on the word "Pray Coin". I was in serious trouble going through a divorce after 20 years of marriage and in serious financial difficulty so as part Jew I prayed.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Volteer1 (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Adam Back

can Adam Back be added to the list of possible candidates to be Satoshi? sources - news.bitcoin.com article 28/05/2020 https://news.bitcoin.com/the-many-facts-pointing-to-adam-back-being-satoshi/ and youtube documentary 'Bitcoin - Unmasking Satoshi Nakamoto' by Barely Sociable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcvX0P1b5g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:e815:900:59ab:e654:20f6:e144 (talk • contribs)

He's already discussed in the section on other candidates (including that video), to have his own section I think there'd need to be more sourcing on this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Right to privacy and/or to be forgotten

Please remove links to anonymous and unverified persons such as Satoshi Nakamoto from Wikipedia. Either they have a right to privacy or they simply do not exist. Hence, the complete article should be irrevocably deleted. I also understand that no such person exists to be sued for losses and/or liabilities wrt Bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:c063:1c00:28ad:c882:281b:704d (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Len Sassaman

Could be mentioned as a candidate, since Len Sassaman suggests it. ghouston (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghouston: Unfortunately, the source used at Lee Sassaman is a Medium post, which is considered self-published and hence unreliable. Would you have a couple of more reliable sources? JBchrch talk 03:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything more about it, I'd look more at the credibility of the information than where it's published. However, it's inconsistent that his page describes him as "a strong candidate for the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto" while the Satoshi Nakamoto page doesn't mention him at all. ghouston (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghouston: I have now removed the claim at Len Sassaman for consistency. I was not able to find a reliable source, which is—per consensus—of crucial importance on the topic area of crypto and in biographies of recently deceased persons. JBchrch talk 14:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This theory is a bit older, actually, it was suggested in 2013.[25]. ghouston (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bitcoin-Genesis-block.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021 (Page Deletion Request?)

Articles to this person should be deleted and barred from Wikipedia for the following reasons: - the person does not exist or never existed - the person has exercised their right to remain anonymous - the person rejects any legal or financial responsibility for their actions and their consequences - the person is a criminal subject to current or future legal action - the person has no legal record of birth or death 2A01:C22:C063:1C00:28AD:C882:281B:704D (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's clear this user is proposing for the deletion of this page. To further explain: Submit article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.66.34 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

In 2021, the rumor that Satoshi Nakamoto is working on the FEG project has not been confirmed or denied by its creator, nicknamed Feg Rox. It should be noted that the domain of the site fegex.com, which has already been launched, has been purchased for years, and other evidence has been published in cyberspace to support this claim by FEG currency fans. https://www.whois.com/whois/fegex.com 151.245.95.73 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: lol you sent the message at 00:00 UTC 207.81.187.41 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Change the link from http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o to secure https://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o (despite it not redirecting automatically, the favicon didn't show up on my Safari browser until I used the HTTPS version) 207.81.187.41 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Changed to https, aye. DarthFlappy 21:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Weird font for his name

Is there a reason his name keeps being spelled in a weird font throughout most of the article? --Aabicus (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here looking for feedback on this. It's because all of the incidences of "Satoshi Nakamoto" as well as the mention of "Shinichi Mochizuki" are flagged as Japanese-language text despite being romanized. So they are being rendered in roman characters in the page's default Japanese font, which differs in appearance from the rest of the English text.

Since the name is romanized (not in actual Japanese text), and that standard does not appear with romanized names from any language (including the linked article for Shinichi Mochizuki) that I have ever seen, it seems to be wrong, and at the very least is extremely inconsistent with other articles. I can't edit it either, but it seems like someone who can should do so, unless there's a specific reason for this article to be different. Makosuke (talk) Makosuke (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it Linus Torvalds

Much speculation, but I can't edit the page.

Root cause: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/ac632c504d0b881d7cfb44e3fdde3ec30eb548d9/Makefile#L6

Many articles linking 2 for reference:
https://beincrypto.com/linus-torvalds-confesses-is-the-father-of-linux-also-the-father-of-bitcoin/ https://modernslave.io/is-the-father-of-linux-also-the-father-of-bitcoin/

Although nothing appears very mainstream to me.

---

I think he's worth a mention for sure. The "other candidates" section seems to be a nice spot for it. As was said above, editing the page doesn't seem to be possible. Some help from users with the extended confirmed access would be greatly appreciated. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, we are not using low quality sources on cryptocurrency articles. We need mainstream sources like wsj, nyt, fortune, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Difference between Bitcoin and bitcoin 💸💸💸

It's good to be conscious of this as we write, folks: https://capitalizemytitle.com/ufaqs/is-bitcoin-capitalized ToniTurunen (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed a few times on this talk page in the past and there was a logic to how it was implemented. I forget off-hand, but as an FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Satoshi Nakamoto image.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Others Candidates

Stuart Haber

Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta are the most cited authors in Satoshi's original white paper. Haber has denied that he is Satoshi. [26]

Len Sassaman [27]

Also this research into the early blocks suggests that it was a single person: [28]

The probability that the Patoshi pattern is formed by multiple miners with the same hardware (slope), each starting exactly when the previous one stopped is also astonishingly low (assuming miners can start mining at any random time). Also take into consideration that the pattern slope does not represent its underlying hashrate. Therefore, the Patoshi pattern is “one thing”, not the concatenations of many separate things.

Family Guy Guy (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This article on Len is fascinating. What a great read. It is not a WP:RS for this article. Are there any high quality sources that have covered Len? I found this CNBC, I will proceed to add. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Some think he is european or british, based on his email and forum post timestamps. Family Guy Guy (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

that literally proves nothing 216.164.249.213 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

False

This is not the founder of Bitcoin 72.185.242.23 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base content on the say-so of random posts. Read WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

while not constructive, the IP is right that the introductory section of the article should be rewritten to reflect the massive amount of skepticism levied at Wright's claims from the blockchain community 216.164.249.213 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

the Numbers "One" and "Three"

Yes, do bitcoin always starts its address a Number One and Number Three?? curious?? 122.53.185.85 (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Erroneous alma mater claim

Can someone please remove "California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (claimed, among others)" from the info box as Satoshi's alma mater? He never claimed such, or revealed anything about his educational background. Midnight whisper (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

craig wright

the level of skepticism levied at craig wright's claims should be characterized as being more severe 216.164.249.213 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

you are stating we need to add more WP:WEIGHT to the skepticism claims. I am not sure myself that wright even belongs in the WP:LEDE anymore, he was subject of a lot of press at one time, but not much anymore. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

i agree with you 216.164.249.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree to remove Craig Wright from WP:LEDE. It makes it seem like he's substantially more likely than the other mentioned candidates, which is not supported by reliable sources. AVDLCZ (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Add this sentence to the Possible identities section under the heading Craig Wright. U.K. High Court Judge Martin Chamberlain, in his 2022 written decision in the case of Wright v. McCormack, noted he was the third UK or US judge to question Wright’s credibility in 12 months. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Wright-v-McCormack-Judgment.pdf (Refer to paragraphs 87-89 and 111).

Add this new heading to the Possible identities section under the heading Craig Wright. James Bilal Khalid Caan In 2019, Pakistani native and UK resident James Bilal Khalid Caan claimed he was Satoshi and lost all his bitcoins in a hard-drive incident in 2010. New evidence was presented in 2022.

1. McLemore, Ivy (2022) "Finding Satoshi, The Real Story Behind Mysterious Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto" pp. 1–274 ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 979-8985988611

Truth of Satoshi (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no indication this self published book is reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Walter Heinrich

speculation through blogs indicate this is probably his real identity Sucker for All (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wright in the lede

At this point in time it is widely disputed that Wright is Satoshi. Is it WP:DUE that we have him in the lede? I recognize he has received the most press, but at this point in time (a couple of years on) the press is mostly rejecting the notion. The only novelty is that he actually claims he is Satoshi. Comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree as per my comment above from August. Being the most notable self-proclaimed Satoshi isn't enough to justify such a prominent mention in the lede when his claims are almost universally rejected. AVDLCZ (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed mention from the lede. I think that while the press of him claiming to be Satoshi was widespread for a limited period of time (maybe a year) that time period has long passed and his mention in the lede over the other many candidates on this article is probably undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

change Adam Back to Peter Taylor and computational biologist David Rooklin Em.follettcampbell (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

Can someone please add information about the meaning of the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" in Japanese? The name "Satoshi" is written in Japanese as "聡" and means "wise" or "intelligent". The meaning of "Nakamoto" is not entirely clear, as it is a combination of two kanji characters, "中" which means "middle" or "inside", and "本" which means "root" or "origin". This information will provide readers with additional context about the name and its cultural significance. 75.134.125.225 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the most relevant post I have seen that can begin to unravel the true identity of the psuedonym. The answers are within. Banedroid (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wise, origin inside.

It's a clue, in so far as, the identity, or origin, is inside, wisely.

The numbers need to be read correctly, that's all. And when you see the person truly behind 'Satoshi Nakamoto', their dates will align.

It's cryptographic, funnily enough. DroidBane (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Speculation about the net worth of Satoshi's wallet

The speculation about the net value of Satoshi's wallet ("up to $73 billion") needs to be reviewed, as this is purely calculatory. Anyone involved in crypto knows that without impact on the charts, it wouldn't be possible to throw huge crypto funds into the market, which is limited by its market capitalization. So if even a portion of these wallets were flushed, the market would immediately crash, causing the major part of those wallets to get more or less worthless. These populist essays from the media shouldn't find their way into an online encyclopedia, at least not without comment and clarification. CryptoCrawler (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

We dont speculate on this type of thing, what might WP:CRYSTAL to happen in the event of xyz. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

Please provide clarification in the article regarding the first known appearance of the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Was it in the publication titled 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' or another source? If it is unknown and there are multiple candidate sources, it should be clearly stated in the text. Thank you. — Ilovelisa (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Ilovelisa (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ilovelisa: Can you please suggest 'change x to y' or similar? I dont personally know when the pseudonym was first used. Do you? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have this information. I expected to find it in this article, but it doesn't give an answer, nor does it clearly state that the answer is unknown (so we have to read the full text of the article to find it out). I hoped that someone knows, or could change the text in a proper place to indicate that the information is unknown. — ILL 12:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusion

It seems that there should be two different articles about two different persons called Satoshi Nakamoto, one is on the photo and the second one is the creator of bitcoin. 5.173.117.186 (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Which photo? This article doesnt have a photo of a person at least. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

The last sentence in the first paragraph of the section "Other candidates" says "Clear strongly denied he was Nakamoto, did Lehdonvirta." I suppose it must say "..., so did Lehdonvirta" or "..., likewise did Lehdonvirta" 213.164.76.76 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2023

creator whitepaper genesis block chain Dennis Louis Babcock jr statoshinskomoto 174.213.160.192 (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain, I dont understand this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)