Unfortunately, given the public's limited of understanding of cryptography this is apparently an easy fraud to pull off.
The key trick is that non-technical people are prone to believe things that just sound jargony enough and that technical people tend to think they know a lot more than they actually do-- and so they're easily sent off into the weeds.
No one holds a key that gives them special control of the blockchain.
The closest thing to a "master key" was the alerts system, which allowed signed messages to be sent to every client, for example, to tell users to update their client in response to a security issue. This feature was for alerts only and can in no way affect the blockchain, transactions, ...
I've got an answer on Reddit:
It's likely to have been written in a PM or an email to some developers, and it seems that Mike Hearn (BitcoinJ) was the one who published this statement:
Mike Hearn - February 25, 2013, 12:48:54 PM
He communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving. He
told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other ...
No real way to tell that Satoshi indeed owns wallets (unless he sends a signed message).
You can assume which blocks he mined and therefore his wallets like so.
I'm not sure it was. When the network started operating (and Satoshi was pretty much the only one mining), blocks weren't found every 10 minutes. For example, the first 2016 blocks were found in 24 days rather than 2 weeks. Normally this would cause the target to go up but it can't go above the hardcoded max target, so only in block 32256 in December 30 2009 ...
With a look up table you can avoid calculating the hash of a given input twice. Indeed, the block chain can be considered as a giant look up table, but one with very special forms of inputs: It links blocks and transactions to their hashes.
Though, why should someone choose a transaction or block as her password? Further, why would an attacker even try to ...
Is the safety of bitcoin dependent on the creator of it being a trustworthy person?
No, the safety of Bitcoin is not at all dependent on the identity of its creator.
The source code is public. The paper is public.
Or would it be safe to use even if it turned out the creator's day job was working at the NSA?
Again, the genesis of Bitcoin is unrelated ...
Assuming that Satoshi himself registered the domain with his or her own personal information, and/or used a credit card tied to his or her real name, then it is likely that the registrar maybe have knowledge of the real identity.
It is not known if Satoshi used his or her real name to register.
It is not known if Satoshi used his or her personal ...
Hardly. Whilst you are correct that what people are doing is a massively parallel search for double-SHA256 hash collisions to hash outputs near zero, you can only take advantage of the result if you actually find a collision.
So how often can we get a collision? If it were not for Bitcoin, with 2^256 possible inputs and the hash believed to not have any ...
This is the announcement of Bitcoin:
Total circulation will be 21,000,000 coins. It'll be distributed to
network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half every
first 4 years: 10,500,000 coins
next 4 years: 5,250,000 coins
next 4 years: 2,625,000 ...
A Satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC and currently the smallest transaction unit.
If a Satoshi was equivalent to one penny, a microBTC would be equivalent to one dollar, and one BTC would be equivalent to 1,000,000 dollars.
With one BTC on the order of $1,000 USD, a Satoshi is equivalent to .001 penny
You are making an incorrect assumption here:
While blocks can validate transactions, it is not necessary for transactions to occur in order to create blocks. The only transaction that is required in a block is the Coinbase which is the transaction that creates new bitcoins. This transaction is created by each miner for their block attempts individually (as ...
I admit that I don't know for sure, but I have a guess. Since Satoshi was mining by himself for the first blocks, he probably set the initial target to whatever would take approximately 10 minutes to mine a block on his CPU. Had he set it to the maximum value for a 256 bit number, he would have mined the first 2,016 blocks almost instantly, and then ...
Yes, since blacklisting a set of UTXOs would be done by adding more rules and thus restricting the set of allowed transactions, technically such a change could be introduced as a soft fork by the miners.
However, I would sincerely doubt that censoring Satoshi from spending her coins would find broad community support. I suspect that such an endeavour would ...
This is what I see for a search on pgp.mit.eud, which points to this key:
That is a surprising result. If we download the key purported to be Nakamoto's from Bitcoin.org, we get the following fingerprint:
pub 1024D/5EC948A1 2008-10-30
Key fingerprint = DE4E FCA3 E1AB 9E41 CE96 CECB 18C0 9E86 5EC9 48A1
uid Satoshi Nakamoto <...
According to the mailing list archives, the mailing list received Satoshi's email at Fri Oct 31 14:10:00 EDT 2008. However the mailing list is moderated so perhaps the email was not received by everyone until a day later on November 1st. The first response to the email was sent on November 2nd, so it may be that the email was not forwarded to the list for a ...
He used firstname.lastname@example.org (from original Bitcoin whitepaper) and email@example.com (from email logs). gmx.com is a free email service that may or may not have had location based restrictions on registration at the time. vistomail.com is an email service from anonymousspeech, the domain registrar proxy he used to register bitcoin.org.
Most people have estimated his wealth to be around 1 Million BTC. Don't take my word for it though this post https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/ is often the first referring to this discussion.
I'll list the mentions I've found in reverse chronological order.
It first showed up on StackExchange on August 30, 2011.
However, I often hear the term Satoshi as if it was a monetary unit.
rebuilder discussed the divisibility of Bitcion on March 23, 2011.
I'll use the term "Satoshi", as previously coined by others, to mean the current smallest ...
I have seen this text before while parsing the blockchain (before upgrading to headers first v0.10 of course). It's quite doubtful this is code written by Satoshi, since the git commit reference is not proof. It's like using the hash for the genesis block to sign code: the hash is/was public knowledge.
Ken Shirriff highlighted this Python code found in ...
This could be implemented theoretically, but this idea will certainly never be implemented. It's because:
You don't know which addresses exactly are owned by Satoshi Nakamoto.
This idea is against all Bitcoin-principles. If you have Bitcoin, nobody should be able to steal it unless he has your private key. Bitcoin would become unreliable if you can't be ...
Others have commented on the technical possibility of this, so I'll address the economics:
I don't believe any smart miner would do this. Why? Because it would destroy confidence in the network. If the miners were willing and capable of blacklisting the coins stored at Satoshi's addresses, then who's to say they won't do the same to the coins stored at any ...
Can anyone confirm exactly how the Hash value shown is computed
By taking the raw data for the transaction (as in the bytes that are sent over the wire for the transaction) and passing it through a hash function. For Bitcoin, that is SHA-256 double (SHA-256 done twice).
and whether or not it contains the previous owner's signature?
It depends. For ...
First of all, who made you think that Satoshi registered it? Based on this information there are a lot of speculation regarding this issue.
Secondly, if even he has registered something, why do you think it will be so easy to track back the identity? Sometimes people can use fake identities, proxy servers and anonymisers exist, people can sit in cafes in ...
Satoshi likely has the key corresponding to the address the coinbase of the genesis block was sent to. This is no different then any subsidy (mining income) produced by any later block. It does not grant any special privileges beyond that.
Actually, not even that, as because of either a bug or a conscious choice, the output of the genesis block cannot be ...