[Cryptography] A Thought Experiment: Proof of Satoshi

[bit]

After we published the second part of the study of Satoshi Nakamoto's
language - where we compared his style to that of likely candidates
<https://ungeared.com/authorship-dispute-resolution-method-applied-to-uncove
r-satoshi-nakamoto/> , a crypto journalist David Canellis approached us with
a number of questions.  One of those questions was "Do you think the
evidence you've put forward is definitive enough to say that Hal Finney was
Satoshi
<https://protos.com/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-candidates-analysis-hal
-finney/> ?".

 

This question rekindled my musings on the topic - how would Satoshi prove
that he is Satoshi, what proof would be definitive?  To most the question
may be of rhetorical nature as in their mind, the proof is easy - all
Satoshi would need to do is either sign a message with a private key from
one of the early blocks or just move some of those early coins.

 

I could retort the former proposal by referring them to the infamous Craig
Steve Wright
<https://www.wired.com/2016/05/craig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-cr
eator/?code=9PV56SPf5ERquv_mHrlGPC_n2G2hc6dJXymTgsV6U_p&state=%7B%22redirect
URL%22%3A%22%2F2016%2F05%2Fcraig-wright-privately-proved-hes-bitcoins-creato
r%2F%22%7D> - Gavin Andresen proof session.  However, this is not really the
point I am driving at.  Let's presume that Wright (or let's call him X) had
provided a proper signature or that he even managed to transfer some of the
earliest coins, would this serve as definitive proof?  I believe, it
wouldn't.  Firstly, just because someone has access to a wallet or a private
key at time t, doesn't necessarily imply that have always had.  They might
have come into possession by legitimate or illegitimate means at some point
between t=0 and t=t.  It is also possible that Satoshi hadn't mined early
blocks, though common sense and much research would indicate that he did.
Perhaps, the dominant early miner that Sergio Demian Lerner dubbed as
<https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamot
o/> Patoshi, wasn't the creator of Bitcoin, but someone who had volunteered
to provide their computational resources to the project early on.  Let's
summarize my arguments against:

1.	An individual X gained access to early bitcoins after the fact

a.	Satoshi voluntarily transferred control to X
b.	X hacked Satoshi (after all, Satoshi's GMX email was hacked at some
point)
c.	Someone else hacked Satoshi and then X came into possession of the
hacked keys 

2.	X mined those early coins, but he is not Satoshi

Since I don't believe that a cryptographic signature or a transfer would
constitute definitive proof (let me clarify my position, I do believe that
such actions would present a very strong claim, just not bulletproof), what
would?  Let's have a thought experiment, we are approached by X who claims
to be Satoshi, privately they have presented us with convincing enough
evidence to take them seriously and now, they are asking our advice on how
to reveal themselves to the world without recreating Craig Wright's ensued
bedlam?   

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20210120/b52e1862/attachment.htm>