Degrees of Satoshi

Patoshi: The Nonce Fingerprint Across Bitcoin's First 50,000 Blocks

Patoshi-Pattern Early Mining Set (2009-2010)
0°

this address is where the lineage begins

SATOSHIPATOSHI-PATTERN EARLY M…12c6DS…jrJX0° FROM THE FIRST BITCOIN

Sergio Demian Lerner found that a large share of Bitcoin's earliest blocks share an ExtraNonce slope and a truncated nonce range no other miner used. The pattern is one of the most-cited artefacts in chain analysis — and its size and ownership remain genuinely disputed.

On 17 April 2013 the researcher Sergio Demian Lerner published "The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator, Visionary and Genius" on his Bitslog blog. The method was simple. Bitcoin v0.1 incremented an ExtraNonce counter inside the coinbase script when the 32-bit header nonce overflowed, and did not reset it on finding a block — only on restart, when it went back to 1. Plotted against block height, one miner's ExtraNonce values trace a straight line whose gradient encodes its hash rate. He graphed "block 0 upto block 36288" and found a dominant, remarkably regular slope, restarting "approximately every 100 hours, probably to backup the wallet". His estimate was deliberately loose: "I estimate at eyesight that Satoshi fortune is around 1M Bitcoins." He was explicit about the limits: "I can't assure with 100% certainty that the all the black dots are owned by Satoshi, but almost all are owned by a single entity."

By 2019 Lerner had a sharper distinguisher, published in "The Return of the Deniers and the Revenge of Patoshi" on 16 April. The least significant byte of the header nonce, which ordinarily sweeps 0–255, was in these blocks confined to "[0..9] U [19..58]". Across the first 50,000 blocks — block 50,000 is timestamped 10 April 2010 — he counted "about 22k blocks in total", and wrote that "the Patoshi blocks account for 43% of all the blocks in the first 50k". He argued for a larger total: "I have three new strong arguments that Satoshi mined close to 1.1M coins." A timestamp statistic did the heavy lifting for the single-entity case: "There are no time inversions between Patoshi blocks. Zero," against 224 among non-Patoshi blocks and 398 across the boundary between the two sets. He also reported that 99.9% of Patoshi blocks were unspent at the time of writing, against roughly 10% of non-Patoshi blocks.

The size of the set has never been settled. BitMEX Research, publishing on 19 August 2018, reconstructed the ExtraNonce slopes independently and concluded the dominant 2009 miner more likely produced "600,000 to 700,000 bitcoin". Their caveat was pointed: "Although there is strong evidence of a dominant miner in 2009, we think the evidence is far less robust than many have assumed." They found the pre-August 2009 slopes consistent — "an increase in the value of the ExtraNonce by 4 per block found" — but that afterwards the gradient "varies considerably (from 1.1 nonces per block to 10 nonces per block)", weakening attribution in the later period. Whale Alert, publishing on 20 July 2020, went the other way, attributing "22,503 out of the first 54,316 blocks" and 1,125,150 BTC, and identifying 18 spent blocks totalling 907 BTC.

The hardware question splits the researchers just as sharply. Whale Alert reasoned that "Patoshi was comprised of at least 48 computers, with one machine for coordination". Lerner reached the opposite conclusion in "The Patoshi Mining Machine" (22 August 2020). Re-mining every Patoshi block in the first 13.2K blocks — 10,025 of them — his simulation turned up 1,075 additional solutions, and the five scanned subranges [0..9], [19..28], [29..38], [39..48], [49..58] mapped onto parallel threads. "Patoshi was simply multi-threading in a high-end CPU," he concluded, of roughly Intel Core i7-965 Extreme class. After the first 18,000 blocks, he found, "Patoshi starts reducing his hashrate by removing parts of the nonce range scanned."

Block 54,316, the endpoint Whale Alert uses, is timestamped 3 May 2010 at 13:17:07 UTC, at difficulty 11.46. Lerner's own closing note remains the honest one: "Because the relation is based on unsigned emails and not math, we'll never be sure."

Timeline
2010-05-03Block 54,316 timestamped 13:17:07 UTC at difficulty 11.46 — the endpoint Whale Alert givesfor the pattern.2013-04-17Lerner publishes the ExtraNonce slope analysis of blocks 0–36,288 on Bitslog.2018-08-19BitMEX Research publishes a lower estimate of 600,000–700,000 BTC and warns the evidence isweaker than assumed.2019-04-16Lerner publishes the nonce-range evidence: [0..9] U [19..58], about 22k blocks, zerotimestamp inversions.2020-06-22Lerner documents a roughly 312-second offset between consecutive Patoshi block timestampsand offers no settled explanation.2020-07-20Whale Alert attributes 22,503 of the first 54,316 blocks and 1,125,150 BTC, and infers atleast 48 machines.2020-08-22Lerner's re-mining simulation concludes the miner was one multi-threaded high-end CPU, not afarm.
Details
The ExtraNonce was an accidental uptime counter
In Bitcoin v0.1 the ExtraNonce did not reset when a block was found — only on node restart — so its slope encodes one miner's continuous session. Lerner observed restarts "approximately every 100 hours, probably to backup the wallet".
A nonce range no one else used
The least significant byte of the header nonce in these blocks is confined to "[0..9] U [19..58]"; other miners swept the full 0–255.
Zero timestamp inversions
Across the first 50,000 blocks Lerner reports: "There are no time inversions between Patoshi blocks. Zero," against 224 among non-Patoshi blocks and 398 across the boundary between the sets.
A five-minute pause after every block
Lerner found that "most block timestamps generally start 312 (about 5 minutes) s seconds after the previous timestamp". He offered hypotheses — the rig switched off, or the timestamp was artificially incremented — then wrote: "I don't have a good explanation for the strange way Patoshi timestamped his blocks."
48 machines, or one
Whale Alert inferred "at least 48 computers, with one machine for coordination"; Lerner's re-mining of the 10,025 Patoshi blocks in the first 13.2K concluded "Patoshi was simply multi-threading in a high-end CPU". Both claims are still in print.
What is and is not established. The identification of the Patoshi set with Satoshi Nakamoto is a contested attribution, not an established fact. Lerner himself writes that "Because the relation is based on unsigned emails and not math, we'll never be sure," and in 2013 said he could not assure with 100% certainty that the pattern's blocks were Satoshi's. The size of the set is disputed: Lerner argues for close to 1.1M coins, Whale Alert for 1,125,150 BTC across 22,503 blocks, BitMEX Research for 600,000–700,000 BTC with the explicit warning that "the evidence is far less robust than many have assumed." All coin figures here are researchers' estimates of block subsidies awarded to blocks matching a statistical pattern; they are not statements about anyone's holdings, control, or present balance, and no claim is made that any specific coins descend to any person. The 99.9%-unspent figure is Lerner's as of his 2019 post and is not a current chain reading. The hardware inference is directly contradicted between sources (a single multi-threaded CPU versus at least 48 machines). Block heights for the pattern's end vary by source; 54,316 is Whale Alert's figure, and its 3 May 2010 date and difficulty come from that block's own header. Clustering by client-version artefacts cannot in principle exclude a second operator running the same build.
Address

12c6DSiU4Rq3P4ZxziKxzrL5LmMBrzjrJX

Era

2009-2010

Sources
Trace your own address →
Other wallets and stories
Genesis Block Coinbase (Block 0)
2009
Hal Finney — Recipient of the First Bitcoin Transaction (Block 170)
2009
The Bitcoin Faucet (2010) — Published Donation Address
2010
Kraken
2011-2026
OKX (formerly OKEx)
2017-2026
QuadrigaCX (defunct)
2013-2019

An experiment by ■ Sentario · watch-only wallet monitoring · how this works · trace an address