Does the creator of BitCoin hold a 'master' private key?

If the creator of BitCoin, whoever he/she is, was the one that started the block-chain and with every cryptographic operation deriving from that initial key, would the network be under the complete control of the creator? The only way I could see this not being the case if the key was disseminated into the network, but I am unsure if that is the case. If the key is control over the block-chain and if the key generator still holds the key, then regardless of the fact that it is decentralized in operation, it is still centralized in control, like a bank.

Any thoughts?

Update:

I guess I'm really asking basically is whether the creator had/has any advantage in the network (i.e reversing transactions, creating new coins). I mean unless he specifically programmed the network not to be under his control, it would be right? I mean he IS the creator of the network and unless we have proof (source code inspection?) that the network has been 'turned over' so to speak to the users, we cannot guarantee safety can we?

satoshi-nakamoto

marscom

Posted 2013-04-09T19:15:47.840

Reputation: 223

2why would there be a special initial key? And what do you mean by "key was disseminated into the network"? The only advantage the creator had was mining early on when the difficulty was really low. – CodesInChaos – 2013-04-09T19:57:14.177

1Unless he added a backdoor in the reference implementation that nobody spotted so far, he can't do anything special. Just because he invented it, doesn't mean he's privileged in any way. – CodesInChaos – 2013-04-09T20:04:11.960

Are you aware that bitcoin is an open source project? You speak as if it's a black box that the users can't see inside. Anyone can see exactly how everything works by looking at the source code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

– Cory J – 2013-04-09T20:05:37.933

There is no master key, and in theory Bitcoin seems to hold up. I looked at the source code and think there are bigger concerns to look at instead of what could be in the source code ... see this link for more

– goodguys_activate – 2013-04-09T20:29:50.540

– Stephen Gornick – 2013-04-10T09:58:40.507

Answers

No one holds a key that gives them special control of the blockchain.

The closest thing to a "master key" was the alerts system, which allowed signed messages to be sent to every client, for example, to tell users to update their client in response to a security issue. This feature was for alerts only and can in no way affect the blockchain, transactions, or user balances. This key was possessed by Satoshi, Gavin Andresen, and theymos.

Update: The alerts system was retired in the summer of 2018, due to risk of DOS attack vectors (full nodes could be DOS attacked by carefully crafted alert messages), and increasingly widespread knowledge of the alert keys.

Dust

Posted 2013-04-09T19:15:47.840

Reputation: 956

1And, in the event that the alerts system was compromised, clients could be told to ignore messages signed with the alert key, anyway. – Adam Ebz – 2013-04-14T01:13:19.767

Satoshi likely has the key corresponding to the address the coinbase of the genesis block was sent to. This is no different then any subsidy (mining income) produced by any later block. It does not grant any special privileges beyond that.

Actually, not even that, as because of either a bug or a conscious choice, the output of the genesis block cannot be spent.

Pieter Wuille

Posted 2013-04-09T19:15:47.840

Reputation: 54 032

So you say that the bitcoin system is not vulnerable to a master key attack? I belive that any system should be unless there is responsibility sharing, does bitcoin guarantee this type of democratic self regulation as a network? – marscom – 2013-04-09T19:45:54.040

7I don't think you understand how Bitcoin works. There is no such thing as a 'master key'. – Pieter Wuille – 2013-04-10T00:15:48.993

Remember, the bitcoin protocol and the code for most clients is open source. You can check it yourself.

If there was a "master key", then we would know. It's very hard to hide such things in code when it will be reviewed by tons of others. (Yes, hiding malicious code can be done, but not at this level).

However, note that Satoshi and a few others have access to update your client. What would happen if they pushed a malicious update? Simple: the community would notice. They would spread the news, and a new blockchain would be branched from the last block created before the malicious update.

Manishearth

Posted 2013-04-09T19:15:47.840

Reputation: 639

AFAIK, the alert system never gave the keyholders the power to update your client without your consent - only to send you a message which might suggest that you update it yourself. – Nate Eldredge – 2019-01-22T02:57:53.263

Similar to how terrible laws get passed during a crisis (e.g., the Federal Reserve's passage on Christmas eve, or after journalists call it a night on Friday), there is the potential risk that developers would release software during a crisis in which proper vetting hasn't occurred.

But most of the major players build the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind from source and can evaluate changes themselves. For instance, Slush pool used an emergency fix shared by a member of the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind core development team to cause the v0.8 client to ignore the offending block following the March 11th, 2013 hard fork emergency. The patch involved a few lines of source code changes that could be shared via any method, including a direct personal message.

If instead that change happened to be quite large, the risk of not recognizing code that is malicious increases. For this reason, if either the complexity or urgency of an informal fix grows, the resistance to implement it until a formal release arrives should increase. Formal releases are signed by the Bitcoin Foundation and are distributed through normal channels (and not passed as patches directly from developers to miners.)

Stephen Gornick

Posted 2013-04-09T19:15:47.840

Reputation: 26 118