Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto identified

News from Pimlico is that Satoshi Nakamoto has been identified by writer, libertarian and comedian Dominic Frisby, although suspiciously you must buy his book to find out who it is.

The big news item was that Frisby reckons he has cracked the identity of the founding genius of Bitcoin, a mysterious figure who is currently only known by a Japanese alias. Who is he? Read my Bitcoin book, said Frisby. This will be available some time around late spring or early summer, and I will keep Samizdata posted.

Simon Gibbs

Simon is a London based IT contractor and the proprietor of Libertarian Home. Working with logic and cause-and-effect each day he was naturally attracted to nerdy libertarianism and later to harshly logical Objectivism. Find him on Google+ 

Tags:

  3 comments for “Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto identified

  1. Paul Marks
    Mar 5, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    Well at least the book is a physical object (at least one hopes so) so even if its claims are false the book will still have some uses (door stop, weapon to hit people, fuel for the fire…..) , by the way how does this “only those who read my book will know” thing work?

    Is it like the play “The Mouse Trap” where each audience (each night) promises not to reveal the ending of the play?

  2. Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    Once the book gets published, you surely won’t have to buy it to find this titbit out. I suspect it may be more a matter of timing the story to coincide with the launch of the book, and attract attention to it. Few will buy it for this one piece of info. But many may buy the book once this story has alerted them to it, and maybe to learn not just who the guy is, but how Frisby thinks he worked this out and to see if they think he is persuasive.

  3. Mar 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    The principle of something-for-nothing (of money that just appears – that is not some commodity that actually has non monetary uses) is an ancient one.

    The only difference with BC (compared to ideas for previous non commodity “currencies”) is that it is claimed that there is a mathematical limit to it.

    This is actually a GOOD thing.

    It is not enough – but, as far as it goes, a mathematical limit on a non commodity “currency” is a GOOD thing.

Comments are closed.