Great research and article. I also overlooked Bohm with "Kicking the Hornet's Nest" as his emails were simply under the radar. I'll get them in for the next edition for sure.
I hope the name Nicholas Bohm grows in bitcoin familiarity. We need a Bohm Day.
Strangely though, how Satoshi obtained this address from Bohm initially is still a mystery, as it does not appear in the sequence of emails available, before the transfer. Perhaps some of these emails still remain private, or there's a mechanism here unaccounted for, maybe related to the irc room where initial node connections were coordinated.
It's possible that Satoshi saw Bohms public IP address in a join-message on IRC or that he could figure it out from the few nodes on the network + Geo IP. Early versions of the software had "Pay to IP address" functionality (the sending node would ask the receiving node for a bitcoin address). Not sure which span of versions it existed though.
Ya, but the pay to ip addresses were odd, they didn't look like the standard addresses as used by bohm/satoshi in this interaction, but more like: 04376ebbd9581f69375d8135168555dc922fbb4574e499f6add67790b19d9159da0fc7164c1e4ed976aafa7d7a94d6b9f955d0d95eb0d4c2f30edcb24d57c2d3ee
Another reader commented that Satoshi likely got Bohm's address from an attached picture file of his interface, which seem probable. We don't have the contents of those attachments though to verify this. Only that there were attachments on these emails.
Given your involvement in the COPA V Wright trial, I wonder if you had access/were aware of these emails already? Did you read them before this article?
Interestingly, Bohm’s email reply - timestamped 23:04 UTC - was sent at the very same minute of the block in which Satoshi’s sending transaction to Bohm was confirmed. Both of these lads were keeners - watching, sending and receiving transactions, and emails all at once. Live!
Bohm: “The bc19.01 came back pretty swiftly! It hadn’t in fact occurred to me that you could use hundredths, though it’s true that that is fairly conventional for currencies.”
I really don't understand why the author does not include the source of the emails.
I mean this is the exact kinda of thing that requires proof.
At the end of the day what is the official source from where these emails came?
It is confirmed on the UK judiciary website, they were used in court, but how can we be sure these are the emails in question?
Also the fact that its written by AI and has cringe expressions does not help with trustworthiness.
I think people would enjoy a video from you on this topic, have fun exploring.
Why not add them directly in the article? Why add additional steps for verifying the sources?
Why are you not mentioning original sources.
How can anyone be sure you did not temper the emails?
This article on our rules of engagement might be useful
https://satoshitimes.com/rules.html
Dude, the 1st thing in the article should be explaining why you think the emails are authentic.
I asked you a very simple question about your claims in your piece.
Really dont understand why you can't answer directly.
We have a policy of protecting and putting our sources first before our readers. For more private communications see our contact page.
https://satoshitimes.com/contact/
What policy, you share new information, and when I ask you to prove its true you say tell me you have a policy.
Makes no sense to hide the sources.
Do you understand that when you make claims about such events, its your responsibility to prove what you are claiming.
The reason that lawsuit exists in the 1st place is because some guy tried to take advantage of old writings, and convince judges to misinterpret them.
How can we know you did not alter the contents of the emails and then you will use this in court in some years to prove you are satoshi or something.
Very bad journalism, when you refuse to allow others to verify your claims.
See our page here for details https://satoshitimes.com/rules.html
You've been guided to the sources multiple times.
You are free to debunk any of our factual claims on your blog.
deleted by author
Great research and article. I also overlooked Bohm with "Kicking the Hornet's Nest" as his emails were simply under the radar. I'll get them in for the next edition for sure.
I hope the name Nicholas Bohm grows in bitcoin familiarity. We need a Bohm Day.
Jan 18th may be a good one.
It's the date for when he first downloaded the Bitcoin whitepaper.
It's possible that Satoshi saw Bohms public IP address in a join-message on IRC or that he could figure it out from the few nodes on the network + Geo IP. Early versions of the software had "Pay to IP address" functionality (the sending node would ask the receiving node for a bitcoin address). Not sure which span of versions it existed though.
Ya, but the pay to ip addresses were odd, they didn't look like the standard addresses as used by bohm/satoshi in this interaction, but more like:
04376ebbd9581f69375d8135168555dc922fbb4574e499f6add67790b19d9159da0fc7164c1e4ed976aafa7d7a94d6b9f955d0d95eb0d4c2f30edcb24d57c2d3ee
Another reader commented that Satoshi likely got Bohm's address from an attached picture file of his interface, which seem probable. We don't have the contents of those attachments though to verify this. Only that there were attachments on these emails.
Really unfortunate that this reads like AI slop. The content is otherwise interesting.
is there a section that stands out to you as particularly sloppy? We'll try to do better next time.
It all does, consistently. Hard to say why to be honest. But I guess it's just a bit too long winded.
Given your involvement in the COPA V Wright trial, I wonder if you had access/were aware of these emails already? Did you read them before this article?
Any comment on Bohm generally?
deleted by author
I love this story! Excellent work!
His name was Nicholas ₿ohm!