Imagine the “soul height” a little, as actor Fabrice Luchini would say … The so -called Satoshi Nakamoto, a pseudo behind the invention of Bitcoin in 2008, is holder, on paper, of a fortune of several tens of billions of dollars thanks to a treasure made up of almost a million tokens. The cryptoactive is the jewel of the window of powerful fund managers like Blackrock or Fidelity. Millions of followers worship him and his creation. Even a Donald Trump has made it an asset of his victorious campaign for the Presidency of the United States. But nothing. Not an appearance, a message, a bitcoin spent or transferred. Satoshi remains an anonymous – gloriously silent – for fourteen years now. Is he just dead?
Benjamin Wallace has an opinion. The American author published in mid-March The Mysterious Mr. Nakamotoan investigation into this enigma, the most famous of the Internet. Let’s say it right away: he did not resolve it. The real name of Nakamoto would be the title of the book, “and a news of an international order taken up to the Antarctic”, he laughs with the Express. That being said, “it is likely that Satoshi is deceased, says Wallace. Otherwise, if he is not interested in money, why would he not burn all his bitcoins? The active would be even more deflationary, which would arrange his cause …” And to continue: “that he sees no reason to show himself, that nobody denounces it for a crowd of reasons, the enmity in the collection of drunk confidences, for example, impossible.” Finally, on a condition. “Whether he acted, alone or in a group, on behalf of an intelligence agency,” he asserts. Far from him the desire to wave a thesis with conspiracy. “There is simply no other example of an organization capable of keeping a secret for so long.”
Wallace’s words even have a certain credit. The journalist is one of the first to look at Bitcoin, as part of an article for the magazine Wiredpublished in 2011. He extricates this story and the secret of his inventor from the dark depths of computer forums. Benjamin Wallace, however, keeps a certain distance with his subject – after all, which could predict that Bitcoin would climb so much afterwards? All this will serve him when he launches his intensive research phase, at the time of the Pandemic of COVID-19, when the cryptoactive explodes in the face of the world. “I benefited from the tests of others to identify Nakamoto before me,” he breathes. Hundreds of smoking tracks, like that leading to Elon Musk. Or media “coming out” of Quidams like Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist and entrepreneur who claimed to be the creator of Bitcoin, without ever providing evidence to his declarations. Of the noise that Wallace is sparing. Finally, it happens well prepared. In addition to the traditional field surveys and interviews in a mess, the journalist hires stylographers to analyze the texts left by Nakamoto but also his computer code. He will even offer himself a private detective over the way. Without success therefore. But not without interest. Did he think he will unravel the mystery during the investigation? Yes. Twice, he admits.
Hal Finney and James A. Donald
First, in the Hal Finney track, a computer scientist and the first recipient of a Satoshi transaction in person. A long -standing “suspect” of the Bitcoin community. What Wallace confirms, speaking with various sources very close to Finney, never approached by other bloodhounds. By adding new indirect evidence – a Facebook publication delivering his identity, but quickly deleted at the request of the wife of Finney – a concordance in the writing and coding style according to the experts mobilized by Wallace. Hal Finney died in 2014, after suffering in the last years of his existence from Charcot’s disease. An absence, and even a quasi-physical initiative which coincides with the periods of activity of Satoshi Nakamoto. Benjamin Wallace remains convinced that Finney has at least helped the design of Bitcoin. But he could never confirm it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Another “touch” led him to James A. Donald. A man always alive, and an almost never explored path. The man checks several boxes: ancient coding style, close to the Cypherpunks movement – this community of cryptographer which would have influenced the creator of Bitcoin. Two other details intrigue Benjamin Wallace: the English terms “fencible” (in French “capable of being defended”) and Hosed (“watered”). Words rarely used … except by Satoshi Nakamoto and James A. Donald, noticed the author thanks to his analysis of the writings of “God Bitcoin”. With this discovery, Wallace hires a private detective to locate the coder. This is the moment “thriller” of the story. The author finds himself in Australia, facing the door of a most commonplace pavilion. He would have liked a Hollywood end, where the suspect opens the door and admits, smiling: “You had me.” HAPPY END. The reality is less glamorous. Wallace has a three -minute conversation on the arrangement of the suspect who is remote and Sibyllin. The investigator regrets having managed to obtain any information. The theory James A. Donald, however, has real limits. Because the extreme, radical personality of the character scrutinized by Benjamin Wallace contrasts with the rather calm, posed and kind character of Nakamoto, in his messages.
The James A. Donald case has at least one merit: that of introducing “taboo” questions into the crypto sphere. “What if Nakamoto was actually a dirty type? What if Satoshi was not proved to be a noble computer scientist with libertarian trends, but rather a Chinese intelligence agency to destabilize the dollar as a global reserve currency?” Wallace’s impossible investigation is also worth for these reflections.
From crypto to cryo
“As she launched a very marginal idea, which could not have carried out anywhere-why did this person have taken such extraordinary measures to remain anonymous?” wonders the author of the work. Nothing was left to chance. No way to identify Nakamoto with his emails, his domain name. “He was expressed with worked opacity. He answered technical questions but ignored attempts to attract him to personal questions,” notes Benjamin Wallace in the good leaves of his work published in the New York Magazine.
A “bad” Satoshi Nakamoto would be a sudden turnover for Bitcoin. “Fidelity would surely not offer you to buy it through funds negotiated on the stock market …”, underlines Wallace. Its unit price would collapse, and many people interested in its financial characteristics would turn away from it – which constitutes most of the new converts to Bitcoin, estimates Wallace. Thus, “Bitcoin maximalists do not consider the possibility that there is a version of Satoshi which would not be good for Bitcoin”, continues the author. The most fervent supporters would actually prefer not to know anything, even if a personality like Hal Finney is seen positively. Having no real creator complies with the ideal of Bitcoin decentralization. It will therefore not be able to influence it. What, perhaps, allow him to survive Trumpism, which currently plays with the crypto-active like a cat with his ball of wool. And why not further. The last Bitcoin should be undermined by 2140.
Meanwhile, survey methods and those used by Wallace may become inoperative. Memory plays tricks, disturbs memories. The sources die. This will create doubt about the veracity of future discoveries. So who will want to embark on such a business? There are, moreover, a certain number of elements which make it possible to replace Nakamoto in a universe, a context. Its origin -Anglo -Saxon -, an idea of its age (or at least of its generation), its libertarian influences, partly linked to the informal group of cypherpunks. Is there need to go further, except to love treasure hunts? Discovering the pot with roses may no longer interest, if Bitcoin becomes cheesy and falls back to zero.
Benjamin Wallace, he will no longer relaunch in an investigation so advanced on the subject. But he does not despair of one day attending the break -up of the truth. AI and quantum IT will undoubtedly make giant leaps in digital analysis. And, in the event of the involvement of an intelligence agency, a declassification could lead to its questions before his death (Wallace is only 56 years old). The most extravagant possibility would be a reappearance of Hal Finney. The computer scientist mysteriously chose, on his death, to be kept in a cryogenization box. For, if science allows it one day, to be able to preach the good word bitcoin?
.