Comment by ctippett
8 days ago
(part or all of)
Your aside suggests you might already have considered what I'm about propose, but why not Finney and Back both as Satoshi?
The reporting already establishes all three parties (Satoshi being the third) were familiar/friendly with one another. The reporting says that Finney was the recipient of the first ever Bitcoin transaction, which seems like a completely natural thing to do if the two of you are working together.
Finney's name also rises to the top in a few of the author's analysis, while also noting:
> "But his analysis had been hampered by the fact that most of Mr. Back’s papers were coauthored with other cryptographers, which made it difficult to know who really wrote them."
Again, why not both of them as Satoshi?
Hal Finney's passing also helps explain how such a monumental secret of Satoshi's identity has remained a secret for so long. The only other person who's in on the secret is Back himself.
Edit: To add further conjecture, it wouldn't surprise me if Satoshi's wallet is locked away in a trust or tied up with Finney's estate. I can imagine a scenario where the keys to the wallet are legally unobtainable until such time that both Finney and Back have passed, at which point the wallet is liquidated and its proceeds donated (Finney previously raised money for ALS research).
If Finney and Back were working together, why does Finney post a lot as himself through Satoshi's existence while Back does not?
That implies it's just Back who was the Satoshi poster. And if so, you don't have any evidence Finney is a technical co-founder.
No evidence, just imagination. Reading the article was my first time learning about these people, so I'm unlikely to contribute anything new to the discourse that hasn't already been debated and scrutinised ad infinitum. I did find this person's post[1] to be the most compatible with what I had in mind when I made my original comment, in case you're looking for a more substantive viewpoint.
I do think there's something to my idea that the reason we haven't seen any activity from Satoshi's wallet is because it's being held in some sort of trust. An individual might not go to the trouble of setting something like that up, but a collective might be more inclined to do so. I haven't seen anyone else float this line of reasoning before and it seems to make more sense than the prevailing theories.
[1] https://xcancel.com/Brand/status/2041892664954818788