Quote from: SkyscraperFarms on October 24, 2017, 05:19:48 AM

Quote from: Raju Ahammed on October 21, 2017, 04:06:34 PM

I think shatoshi hide his identity for his sefty.because he is the owner of this electric technology and I think he has lot of coins.

Is this for real? Is it just me or are nearly all the responses here just shit posters on signature campaigns or profile padding?

He did not have any reason to fear for his safety. He left when bitcoin was 24 cents. A fast food hamburger cost 20-30 more than a Bitcoin when he went silent here. Bitcoin only had value of any kind for 4 months prior to his departure.
Adam Back, Hal Finney, Wei Dai, and Nick Szabo were not pseudonyms. Did they fear for their safety? No.
Why would he hide his identity if it wasn't for his safety? Because he was employed by a tech giant that would be able to make the project proprietary through intellectual property claims.
This is also why you are wrong by claiming he is not the owner. He has made it so nobody owns it. Not Google. Not Coinbase. Not Gavin. Not Greg Maxwell. And especially not Satoshi.

So what about Google? Do you think they would have kept the blockchain private or open sourced it?
https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/
I am fairly confident they would have kept this thing closed source and proprietary.
Which is why I believe Mike Hearn is the most likely candidate to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2146520.0

+1 excepting your last sentence. I lean heavily toward James Simons of Renaissance being behind SN.

https://math.berkeley.edu/~berlek/pubs/bloomberg.pdf

James could've easily put together an A-team of cypherpunks to create Bitcoin with perhaps Nick Szabo being the public-facing voice of SN.