satoshi

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-07-18

Final complete day: 2026-07-18. Attention was 0.4% — this entity appeared in 28 of 6,464 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (30 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-07-18 19:13 UTCComment

   With Quantum Computing, I give it about five years, with or without Satoshi’s keys, maybe 10.

2. 2026-07-18 16:53 UTCComment

   I have an elementary question. What if someone finds Satoshi’s keys?

3. 2026-07-18 16:03 UTCComment

   SHA256 will never be easily bruteforceable. SHA256 isn't the issue anyway. ECDSA is the issue. Upgrading ECDSA to PQC will protect people if they manually migrate to a new PQC wallet, but if they leave their funds in a legacy wallet, they're vulnerable. About 6-7 million coins have exposed public keys and would be vulnerable if a CRQC existed today, but about 1.7 million coins are essentially lost/dormant or Satoshi's. That 1.7 million would need to be manually migrated by their owners to PQC wallets to be protected. The community is going to have to decide: do we freeze those coins forever, or do we let them be plundered?

4. 2026-07-18 15:40 UTCPost

   Satoshi said "I'm losing my mind there are so many things that need to be done..." 16 years ago, as a flood of new users from slashdot overwhelmed Bitcoin websites - >Martii Malmi (AKA Sirius) “COPA trial” email #210 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:23:10 +0100 From: Satoshi Nakamoto satoshin@gmx.com Subject: Re: Fwd: bitcoin hosting To: mmalmi@cc.hut.fi **Please promise me you won't make a switch now. The last thing we need** **is switchover hassle on top of the slashdot flood of work we've got now.** **I'm losing my mind there are so many things that need to be done.** **Also, it would suck to be on a smaller, less reliable host just to save** **a measly $20.** **I will try to think of a polite way to ask the donor if he sent it, but** **right now there are other higher priority things that are going to bump** **even that for a few days.** **Would a donation of bitcoins help in the short term?** mmalmi@cc.hut.fi wrote: \> Rackspace has very good support, good backend, good connections and \> nicely scaling cloud based virtual servers. I got this offer from Thufir: \> \> ----- \> Hi Sirius, \> \> Check out www.citrusdesignstudio.com. You will see through the portfolio \> that \> I am a real business with many clients. \> \> That is my business that I provide managed hosting through. \> I also do unmanaged VPSes. \> \> Normally I would charge $15/mo for 512MB. \> I will do it for $10/mo for you. \> \> To see my pricing, go to www.linnode.com. I match everything they have \> except \> their great panel -- you have to email or call my people. \> \> I provide VPS services normally for 3/4ths the posted cost on linnode.com. \> (Rackspace is even more expensive.) \> \> I will do it for 1/2 of linnode's price for you. \> \> It scales linerally just like linnodes, so for 2048 MB of memory, I would \> charge $40, etc. \> \> Later! \> ----- \> \> That would be worth considering, if they have good datacenters and \> connections. $10 / month is about $20 less than what Rackspace costs. On \> the other hand, Rackspace prices are no problem if the donation is to \> arrive. *>*

5. 2026-07-18 10:43 UTCComment

   this "Explanation" is a bunch of misleading bs. it assumes that Bitcoin by design was supposed to give everybody loads of space for arbitrary data, whereas the real story is that the very possibility of abusing taproot in this way (inscriptions) was made possible by Core ignoring the proposed fixes for this in the very early stage. The ORIGINAL Bitcoin never gave you chance to upload anything more than ~80 Bytes of storage, so STOP appealing to Satoshi and all this "open block space market", you liars. THEY made this problem (allowed inscriptions) and now they offered solution (open up 100KB) that now undermines the entire network credibility and causes irreversible long term reputational damage!