Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto(blog.lopp.net)
blog.lopp.net
Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto
https://blog.lopp.net/hal-finney-was-not-satoshi-nakamoto/
178 comments
Bitcoin needed maximum 'memeability' i.e. the idea had to spread as fast and wide as possible. That is why the 4 year halfing cycle and absolute scarcity was chosen. The 21 million cap is easy to understand and tell your friends about. The possibility of getting rich is the strongest meme.
You really need to get someone rich in order for the meme to spread. This is the only way. People have a natural tendency to not be interested in currencies. Thinking about currencies makes their head ache. It needs to be really rewarding. On the other hand, there was no precedent and it was really risky. Most people were throwing away bitcoin at the start, and they just wanted it to spread.
In Bitcoin the security depends on the price of the currency. If the price doesn't pick up, the network won't be secure enough. It has to be rewarding, it has to spread as an idea, it has to be secure. The more secure it is, the more plausible it is to succeed, and so forth.
Most people don't really understand the disinflationary model as you explained, although I agree that in theory it is better and more elegant way to distribute coins. However, I think that if Bitcoin had chosen this model, it wouldn't have taken off. This model has too high inflation for too long, and the meme and security would have died off.
If the inflation is too high for too long, the meme won't spread, and the price will stay very low or nearly zero. Then a single miner will mine all coins and no one buys them, or only a single rich dude buys them. So in the end the coins won't get distributed as widely / fairly and the project will fail.
I think that Bitcoin succeeded in it's distribution as fairly as possible. I don't think that this can be replicated. It's impossible to create a new cryptocurrency where someone won't scoop them all off cheaply in the start, and that's why the creators typically own most of the coins, which will eventually doom the project. The infinite disinflationary model might be the only way to succeed in distributing a completely new currency, because no one wants to invest in it. But it has to have some other properties in order to spread widely.
You really need to get someone rich in order for the meme to spread. This is the only way. People have a natural tendency to not be interested in currencies. Thinking about currencies makes their head ache. It needs to be really rewarding. On the other hand, there was no precedent and it was really risky. Most people were throwing away bitcoin at the start, and they just wanted it to spread.
In Bitcoin the security depends on the price of the currency. If the price doesn't pick up, the network won't be secure enough. It has to be rewarding, it has to spread as an idea, it has to be secure. The more secure it is, the more plausible it is to succeed, and so forth.
Most people don't really understand the disinflationary model as you explained, although I agree that in theory it is better and more elegant way to distribute coins. However, I think that if Bitcoin had chosen this model, it wouldn't have taken off. This model has too high inflation for too long, and the meme and security would have died off.
If the inflation is too high for too long, the meme won't spread, and the price will stay very low or nearly zero. Then a single miner will mine all coins and no one buys them, or only a single rich dude buys them. So in the end the coins won't get distributed as widely / fairly and the project will fail.
I think that Bitcoin succeeded in it's distribution as fairly as possible. I don't think that this can be replicated. It's impossible to create a new cryptocurrency where someone won't scoop them all off cheaply in the start, and that's why the creators typically own most of the coins, which will eventually doom the project. The infinite disinflationary model might be the only way to succeed in distributing a completely new currency, because no one wants to invest in it. But it has to have some other properties in order to spread widely.
> Who, we ask, is so altruistic as to create a new monetary system but not use it to enrich themselves?
And take the fame. He also, as I mentioned before, may have been a candidate for the Noble prize in economics. https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/bitcoin-creator-satoshi....
I take it as a given, he is dead. He would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kleiman
And take the fame. He also, as I mentioned before, may have been a candidate for the Noble prize in economics. https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/bitcoin-creator-satoshi....
I take it as a given, he is dead. He would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kleiman
> A truly altruistic system would not confer such a huge advantage on early miners
Bitcoin never claimed to be and is not altruistic. And the same can be said about almost all investments, you need information early, you need to judge the information correctly, and you need to move in. Same with bitcoin.
Bitcoin never claimed to be and is not altruistic. And the same can be said about almost all investments, you need information early, you need to judge the information correctly, and you need to move in. Same with bitcoin.
GP said nothing about bitcoin claiming to be anything. They're directly quoting the article
Plus rewarding early miners creative the incentive structure more likely to drive adoption.
Just the reverse, you discourage adoption by turning a currency into an investment.
If bitcoins had constant or decreasing value through time then people would be more willing to trade them. This is why deflation is so economically dangerous.
It did encourage mining, but that doesn’t driving long term adoption and has nearly purely negative consequences.
The ideal long term strategy for adoption would have mining to provide a consistent reward in real terms over a long timeframe, low costs and high transaction volumes, and for unused accounts to be charged a small fee. Bitcoin failed all of those which is why it’s never had significant adoption as a currency.
If bitcoins had constant or decreasing value through time then people would be more willing to trade them. This is why deflation is so economically dangerous.
It did encourage mining, but that doesn’t driving long term adoption and has nearly purely negative consequences.
The ideal long term strategy for adoption would have mining to provide a consistent reward in real terms over a long timeframe, low costs and high transaction volumes, and for unused accounts to be charged a small fee. Bitcoin failed all of those which is why it’s never had significant adoption as a currency.
> Bitcoin failed all of those which is why it’s never had significant adoption as a currency.
Yet there is no more successful digital currency on the planet. If you think you can make one with "better" rules please go ahead!
> This is why deflation is so economically dangerous.
The idea that inflation and constant spending are the only thing that makes an economy work is faith-based, and bitcoin was intentionally not started that way. So far I'd say it has worked quite well.
Yet there is no more successful digital currency on the planet. If you think you can make one with "better" rules please go ahead!
> This is why deflation is so economically dangerous.
The idea that inflation and constant spending are the only thing that makes an economy work is faith-based, and bitcoin was intentionally not started that way. So far I'd say it has worked quite well.
> is faith based
Back when people used precious metals for currency many different economies would all be tied to the same shifts in value. I don’t know all the details but there’s real world support for significant deflation being detrimental not just theory.
That said trivial levels of deflation aren’t harmful, but bitcoin had very extreme deflation.
Back when people used precious metals for currency many different economies would all be tied to the same shifts in value. I don’t know all the details but there’s real world support for significant deflation being detrimental not just theory.
That said trivial levels of deflation aren’t harmful, but bitcoin had very extreme deflation.
Bitcoin has inflation at the moment.
> I don’t know all the details but there’s real world support for significant deflation being detrimental not just theory.
The problem is that the "real world support" is usually taken from fiat money economies that are entirely built on inflation, and for historical examples there usually was an economic crisis at the same time that was accompanied by deflation. It's hardly conclusive.
> I don’t know all the details but there’s real world support for significant deflation being detrimental not just theory.
The problem is that the "real world support" is usually taken from fiat money economies that are entirely built on inflation, and for historical examples there usually was an economic crisis at the same time that was accompanied by deflation. It's hardly conclusive.
High levels of inflation are also harmful. +/- ~0.3% per month is fine, outside of that range and you’re hurting adoption.
> an economic crisis at the time
In non fiat currencies you also get deflation from economic growth. Where you can study the effect is when the growth occurs outside of a given economy. Again, outside of my expertise it’s just something I have read.
> an economic crisis at the time
In non fiat currencies you also get deflation from economic growth. Where you can study the effect is when the growth occurs outside of a given economy. Again, outside of my expertise it’s just something I have read.
It's a very good store of value/gold analog and a not so great currency.
That's fine though - if you have something that holds value you can move it into whatever currency exists when you need to do that.
That's fine though - if you have something that holds value you can move it into whatever currency exists when you need to do that.
Is bitcoin a currency or investment? I would say neither but interesting to see it getting lumped in with investments.
Bitcoin is Schrödinger’s asset, in the sense that it is whatever it needs to be to counter the latest criticisms from non-believers.
For example, if you say that bitcoin has 7 tps and even with lightning will take decades to onboard everyone, it will become a store of value that you are supposed to buy and hold for long term. But if you point out how bitcoin has crazy volatility, it may become a currency that you don’t hold, just use to transact.
For example, if you say that bitcoin has 7 tps and even with lightning will take decades to onboard everyone, it will become a store of value that you are supposed to buy and hold for long term. But if you point out how bitcoin has crazy volatility, it may become a currency that you don’t hold, just use to transact.
I am happy that you understood where I was going with this.
People whip up whatever they need it to be to make an argument. Sometimes we call it a currency because we can use it to buy things, other times its an investment. To reliably fit in either of those buckets is exclusive. To be a currency you need to be a store of value that is not fluctuation a lot, this means its a terrible investment vehicle.
People whip up whatever they need it to be to make an argument. Sometimes we call it a currency because we can use it to buy things, other times its an investment. To reliably fit in either of those buckets is exclusive. To be a currency you need to be a store of value that is not fluctuation a lot, this means its a terrible investment vehicle.
Bitcoin is a commoditized idea of sovereign value.
It can be seen as an investment by those who bet on a rise in demand for sovereign value, and can be seen as a currency by those who doubt the ability of fiat value to continue indefinitely.
It can be seen as an investment by those who bet on a rise in demand for sovereign value, and can be seen as a currency by those who doubt the ability of fiat value to continue indefinitely.
I don't understand the importance of this distinction. People invest in currencies all the time.
I think its important because to be a good investment vehicle means it probably should not be considered a currency, to be a reliable currency means it should be a terrible investment vehicle. Sure, its possible to say it can be both but I think to be be reliable in either is exclusive.
And while there are indeed large currency markets, it is not very common on a population basis due to it being very much a speculators game requiring massive amounts of leverage for the average net worth.
And while there are indeed large currency markets, it is not very common on a population basis due to it being very much a speculators game requiring massive amounts of leverage for the average net worth.
When it goes from being worth less than a dollar to sixty thousand dollars in a few years, its an investment not much different than a limited baseball card.
You're right, bitcoin is something entirely new, and we don't know the future, so we don't know what it will end up being.
Entirely new is a stretch. And haven't we reached the end? It's not broadly useful nor sustainable nor trustworthy.
I’d argue it’s useful for many people who live in countries that suffer from hyperinflation.
I feel like an asset that doesn't rise or fall by a factor of 10 a year would be a lot more useful for that purpose. Even bartering levis blue jeans would offer more price stability than btc.
Blue jeans aren’t very salable in the sense that you have to find a blue jeans buyer in order to exchange them for something else.
Likewise for bitcoin. In either case the levis conversion rate is pretty stable unlike bitcoin. You can go on marketplaces like poshmark and others and readily buy and sell these jeans at prices that are both stable and widely agreed upon.
[deleted]
You're not one of the "it's not useful to me, so it's not useful to anybody" people, are you?
Bitcoin is almost 15 years old.
This is like calling the web “new” in 2005-2008 (depending on chosen start date).
The “new” excuses ran out a decade ago.
This is like calling the web “new” in 2005-2008 (depending on chosen start date).
The “new” excuses ran out a decade ago.
Entirely new? At this point it's getting a little long in the tooth, if anything
What about kids who weren’t able or had any capital to invest at the time Bitcoin was doing high returns ? They will just be born poor and die poor I suppose ?
Not sure why you expect bitcoin to do "high returns" for everybody, that was never a promise and never a goal. Are you going to argue that stocks are not fair because you personally didn't buy the stocks with the best returns?
Bitcoin only makes one relevant promise: There will only be 21 million. And that means that the people who are born poor get a chance at building wealth by not having the government constantly reduce the value of their money. Bitcoin is an escape from the system that keeps people poor.
Bitcoin only makes one relevant promise: There will only be 21 million. And that means that the people who are born poor get a chance at building wealth by not having the government constantly reduce the value of their money. Bitcoin is an escape from the system that keeps people poor.
You could say as much for beanie babies too. They will be limited so therefore valuable. Forget a hundred years from now that people might not see any value at all in a plush doll, or some runescape gp, or bitcoin. Meanwhile, something like iron or gold has held value for all of human history.
Scarcity alone does not make something valuable, things that are useful have value. Happy to clear that up.
@tromp created Grincoin, which was mined and dumped from the start, eventually going to zero.
https://www.reddit.com/r/grincoin/comments/kgsetd/grin_monet...
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/grin/
https://www.reddit.com/r/grincoin/comments/kgsetd/grin_monet...
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/grin/
I know it sounds bad to shill a coin but someone has made a small modification to the Bitcoin monetary policy to make the block reward proportional to difficulty and created a balanced system where the supply matches the demand to avoid deflation. Maybe you'd like to come chat with us about it on telegram! The website is https://ergon.moe
Hopefully it's not as bad since there's no early adopter advantage and I don't expect to profit at all. I just want peer to peer electronic cash!
Hopefully it's not as bad since there's no early adopter advantage and I don't expect to profit at all. I just want peer to peer electronic cash!
Have state actors playing a longer honeypot sort of game been ruled out?
Because btc is only pseudoanonymous, letting you observe and maybe link transaction sources and recipients, it gives SOME insight into the global movements of funds which were previously totally opaque and untraceable, such as cash, gold, and offshore instruments where there might be NONE.
So for a small investment of a few cryptographic experts' time, a state actor has new insights into political opponents, tax dodges, arms and contraband sales. The amount of insights scales with crypto's adoption and is always greater than the opaque instruments.
Because btc is only pseudoanonymous, letting you observe and maybe link transaction sources and recipients, it gives SOME insight into the global movements of funds which were previously totally opaque and untraceable, such as cash, gold, and offshore instruments where there might be NONE.
So for a small investment of a few cryptographic experts' time, a state actor has new insights into political opponents, tax dodges, arms and contraband sales. The amount of insights scales with crypto's adoption and is always greater than the opaque instruments.
Bitcoin is more damaging to surveillance than helpful. Cash is being phased every year.
The $10,000 limit in the USA was established in 1970, I guarantee it won’t be adjusted for inflation.
The $10,000 limit in the USA was established in 1970, I guarantee it won’t be adjusted for inflation.
Nah. The blockchain is forever and there are all these breadcrumb producing onramps.
Its probably a lot easier to do a better job of covering your tracks with cash than with bitcoin.
Absolutely but the point I’m making is that I don’t see cash existing in the near future.
The cash economy is huge though. Probably not as visible as if you are more wealthy perhaps and frequent more upscale businesses, but at least in socal there are many many businesses that work on a cash only basis for a variety of reasons.
I like this NSA paper
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/mone...
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/mone...
Bitcoin is one of those technologies that I have been skeptical of for over a decade but within the past year it’s finally starting to click for me.
I don’t own any yet but I don’t think it’s ever going away.
I don’t own any yet but I don’t think it’s ever going away.
What changed?
It’s been resilient to boom and bust cycles, it’s stable and safe for those who live in third world countries with hyperinflation, it’s extremely hard to eliminate or control since it’s decentralized.
Maybe it’s price resilience after zero interest rates went away was just too impressive
Price resilience? It’s lost 50% of its value in the last 2 years. Its as volatile as $AMC or $GME and is talked about in the same circles. Its a meme investment like many others.
commodities trading (in most markets) never involved permabull expectations like stocks. instead they are cyclical or “seasonal”, and bitcoin has performed the exact same way in many other cycles over the last decade, before “meme stocks” were a thing.
bitcoin spot declined from all time highs.
but to point out your stocks, $AMC and $GME and many other pandemic era stocks have declined way more than 50% from all time highs.
there were questions of whether bitcoin would be of interest or attract capital outside of a zero interest rate environment, and its surpassed all expectations on that front.
bitcoin spot declined from all time highs.
but to point out your stocks, $AMC and $GME and many other pandemic era stocks have declined way more than 50% from all time highs.
there were questions of whether bitcoin would be of interest or attract capital outside of a zero interest rate environment, and its surpassed all expectations on that front.
Remind me why we dropped Paul Le Roux as Satoshi. I thought it fit rather well: he had the motivation, the knowledge and the disappearance of Satoshi also fit.
Well, if any of Satoshi's wallets move after Paul Le Roux is released in 2045 or so, we'll have a smoking gun ;)
He was arrested in 2012 and sentenced in 2020. If time spent in jail counts, he'll get out much earlier than 2045.
Time spent in pre-trial detention almost always counts in the USA.
I asked this question about a year ago. Paul Le Roux had the motivation, the knowledge, the multitude of projects, the ability/drive to take on different persona. Plus Le Roux coded crypto projects in C++ on Windows unlike most of his peers.
The timelines also fit with Le Roux going into custody when Satoshi dissappeared.
Also with 100Ms in USD sitting in laundry baskets around his apartment, Le Roux would not have needed to worry about BTC until it was too late.
I had someone reply that Satoshi and Le Roux coding styles were too different: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33127079
The timelines also fit with Le Roux going into custody when Satoshi dissappeared.
Also with 100Ms in USD sitting in laundry baskets around his apartment, Le Roux would not have needed to worry about BTC until it was too late.
I had someone reply that Satoshi and Le Roux coding styles were too different: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33127079
If you are anonymously building on something like this, then I think you for sure would obfuscate both your code style and your writing style. Code style I’d guess takes less work to obfuscate. E.g. if you typically use tabs instead of spaces, thats a single line of sed to remove that identifier from the entire codebase.
We didn't drop him, we just will not know for a some more decades
It’s obviously someone or a small group in this circle. Continuing to keep a low profile makes a lot of sense given all the negativity surrounding Bitcoin and the criminal figures that might come looking for Satoshi’s keys.
What if Len forgot, when he took his own life, that he was the only one with the private key to the Satoshi wallet? Even if he wasn’t the only or even primary author that could explain that wallet being dead.
What if Len forgot, when he took his own life, that he was the only one with the private key to the Satoshi wallet? Even if he wasn’t the only or even primary author that could explain that wallet being dead.
What a fascinating and in-depth article, thank you for linking to it.
To me, Len Sassaman is the best Satoshi Nakamoto that we know of.
> Hal preferred his debug statements not to be indented while Satoshi’s maintained indentation with surrounding code
Silly takeaway from a serious article but...after seeing the code snippets in TFA, this is something I will begin doing. It looks like it makes it much easier to differentiate debug code from "the real thing".
Silly takeaway from a serious article but...after seeing the code snippets in TFA, this is something I will begin doing. It looks like it makes it much easier to differentiate debug code from "the real thing".
> Bitcoin is better off with Satoshi's identity remaining unknown. A human can be criticized and politically attacked. A myth will withstand the test of time.
There's another reason. Because there's no entity controlling bitcoin, the SEC doesn't consider it a security, unlike all other cryptocurrencies.
> “Everything other than bitcoin,” Gensler told me, “you can find a website, you can find a group of entrepreneurs, they might set up their legal entities in a tax haven offshore, they might have a foundation, they might lawyer it up to try to arbitrage and make it hard jurisdictionally or so forth.” In other words, there are people behind these cryptocurrencies using a variety of complex and legally opaque mechanisms, but at the most basic level, they are trying to promote their tokens and entice investors. (Bitcoin, because of its unique history and creation story, is fundamentally different from other crypto projects in this respect.)
> “They might drop their tokens overseas at first and contend or pretend that it’s going to take six months before they come back to the U.S.,” he continued. “But at the core,” he argued, “these tokens are securities because there’s a group in the middle and the public is anticipating profits based on that group.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/gary-gensler-on-meet... (https://archive.ph/EzNmO)
There's another reason. Because there's no entity controlling bitcoin, the SEC doesn't consider it a security, unlike all other cryptocurrencies.
> “Everything other than bitcoin,” Gensler told me, “you can find a website, you can find a group of entrepreneurs, they might set up their legal entities in a tax haven offshore, they might have a foundation, they might lawyer it up to try to arbitrage and make it hard jurisdictionally or so forth.” In other words, there are people behind these cryptocurrencies using a variety of complex and legally opaque mechanisms, but at the most basic level, they are trying to promote their tokens and entice investors. (Bitcoin, because of its unique history and creation story, is fundamentally different from other crypto projects in this respect.)
> “They might drop their tokens overseas at first and contend or pretend that it’s going to take six months before they come back to the U.S.,” he continued. “But at the core,” he argued, “these tokens are securities because there’s a group in the middle and the public is anticipating profits based on that group.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/gary-gensler-on-meet... (https://archive.ph/EzNmO)
Train an LLM on all of Satoshi’s known correspondences, then have it grade the correspondences of each suspected Satoshi candidate to determine who actually writes like him.
Thats if the brilliant ephemeral ghost like Satoshi was dumb enough to write and code in a publicly identifiable style though.
similar things have been done; but we're far beyond the point where evidence will change minds on this question.
So... NOT Craig Wright, then.
Got it.
Got it.
I really wonder how nobody has looked into this deep enough: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/89532/how-did-na...
Or maybe law enforcement already did, and Satoshi is either quite more secretive, them, or dead.
Or maybe law enforcement already did, and Satoshi is either quite more secretive, them, or dead.
Assuming Satoshi paid for the domain via cash there might not be much to look into.
> The actual identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is irrelevant to the security, evolution, and future operation of the Bitcoin network.
I was surprised how hard that was for people to understand, last decade.
We should just have a compilation of ignorant things that important people said about Bitcoin 10 years ago.
Even nocoiners are alot more enlightened in their conversations now. Enlightened as in the goal post moved, but at least it moved.
I was surprised how hard that was for people to understand, last decade.
We should just have a compilation of ignorant things that important people said about Bitcoin 10 years ago.
Even nocoiners are alot more enlightened in their conversations now. Enlightened as in the goal post moved, but at least it moved.
Good document:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361456322_Satoshi_N...
Maybe Paul Le Roux is Satoshi.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361456322_Satoshi_N...
Maybe Paul Le Roux is Satoshi.
An analysis about the first version of source code of Bitcoin https://serhack.me/articles/story-behind-alternative-genesis...
The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it?
I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.
I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.
If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.
This gets thrown around alot but I disagree.
Mark Zuckerberg sells Meta shares, Bezoes sells Amazon shares, Gates sold a large portion of Microsoft.
The BTC market is big enough to support satoshi selling his coins.
Hell the ETF market alone could absorb all his coins.
I have yet to see anyone show how satoshi selling a single coin would crash the market. He has about 2 days worth of liquidity in a relatively mature market. That's not much volume at all.
Mark Zuckerberg sells Meta shares, Bezoes sells Amazon shares, Gates sold a large portion of Microsoft.
The BTC market is big enough to support satoshi selling his coins.
Hell the ETF market alone could absorb all his coins.
I have yet to see anyone show how satoshi selling a single coin would crash the market. He has about 2 days worth of liquidity in a relatively mature market. That's not much volume at all.
Those guys you mention have to announce months/years ahead of time how much they intend to sell and when to avoid moving the market.
This is silly. It is like saying nobody would invest in Amazon if Jeff Bezos sold even one share of his stock. Nonsense.
The prevailing belief is that the coins that Satoshi mined are impossible to transfer because Satoshi either never had the private keys, discarded them, or is dead without disclosing them to anyone. A transfer of any amount would invalidate that belief.
That's quite unlike a large shareholder of a company who could sell shares but chooses not to, and whose assets would be passed to someone else upon death.
That's quite unlike a large shareholder of a company who could sell shares but chooses not to, and whose assets would be passed to someone else upon death.
But the immediate assumption is that he would want to burn the whole thing to the ground if he moved a single mBTC? Where does that come from?
Satoshi has not moved any BTC is one of the reasons it is considered as commodity. There is no owner of this thing. If he/she moves the BTC it means the creator has every intent to spend it and thus owns a large portion of it.
Plausible, but I would have thought if it's gradual, there would be a recovery.
But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?
But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?
Wouldn't every known early address be monitored quite heavily? The amount wouldn't matter as much as the fact that _something_ moved and being proof that someone still has access to the keys.
Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin.
Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties.
Satoshi owns 5% of bitcoin. Other crypto coins are more concentrated and more problematic. This isn't like a large institutional investor in a public stock, this is a large percentage of all currency.
The rug pull was set from the beginning.
Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties.
Satoshi owns 5% of bitcoin. Other crypto coins are more concentrated and more problematic. This isn't like a large institutional investor in a public stock, this is a large percentage of all currency.
The rug pull was set from the beginning.
Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin.
Based on what? The search space is large enough that if you used the smallest amount of energy possible to check keys, all the energy in the known universe would still give you an astronomically small chance of success.
Based on what? The search space is large enough that if you used the smallest amount of energy possible to check keys, all the energy in the known universe would still give you an astronomically small chance of success.
Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system. Easiest way is finding/stealing the keys but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure". There may even be ways to target earlier keys easier than later. It could take decades but it will happen.
Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? 40-bit SSL certificates, Triple-DES encryption and MD5 + SHA-1 hashing would like a word. AES-256 could outlast the universe but that is based on our current knowledge, and sometimes encryption systems have doors, not only in the algorithm but the tooling that does the encrypting... the creators of bitcoin tools they used for keys may also be a weak link or even had doors they put in themselves as a failsafe, humans tend to do that due to game theory.
Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.
Even if that holds, the chance that someone finds the keys or tracks them down, might be faster and most likely will happen as time goes on.
The point being mainly that too much concentration in any financial system is a time bomb.
Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? 40-bit SSL certificates, Triple-DES encryption and MD5 + SHA-1 hashing would like a word. AES-256 could outlast the universe but that is based on our current knowledge, and sometimes encryption systems have doors, not only in the algorithm but the tooling that does the encrypting... the creators of bitcoin tools they used for keys may also be a weak link or even had doors they put in themselves as a failsafe, humans tend to do that due to game theory.
Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.
Even if that holds, the chance that someone finds the keys or tracks them down, might be faster and most likely will happen as time goes on.
The point being mainly that too much concentration in any financial system is a time bomb.
Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system
This doesn't make sense. I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key.
but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure".
This is not true. You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.
Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms?
I don't think you understand what it means to need an entire universe of energy with the smallest unit of energy for computation and still have an astronomically small chance or brute forcing the keys.
The fact that some of the first algorithms used for unrelated purposes were weak has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your logic is basically "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."
Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy.
The encryption and decryption speed is not a factor here.
So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.
This is completely wrong. You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever. This is like someone saying 'we moved on from 32 bits of RAM addresses so we will eventually move off of 64 bit and 128 bit to 256 bits'. Orders of magnitude don't work that way. 32 bits gives you 4 gigabytes, 64 bits gives you 18 exabytes and 128 bits is enough to give an address to every bit of data ever created.
Your comment seems more like someone reading headlines and news articles instead of actually understanding what they are claiming.
This doesn't make sense. I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key.
but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure".
This is not true. You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.
Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms?
I don't think you understand what it means to need an entire universe of energy with the smallest unit of energy for computation and still have an astronomically small chance or brute forcing the keys.
The fact that some of the first algorithms used for unrelated purposes were weak has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your logic is basically "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."
Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy.
The encryption and decryption speed is not a factor here.
So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.
This is completely wrong. You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever. This is like someone saying 'we moved on from 32 bits of RAM addresses so we will eventually move off of 64 bit and 128 bit to 256 bits'. Orders of magnitude don't work that way. 32 bits gives you 4 gigabytes, 64 bits gives you 18 exabytes and 128 bits is enough to give an address to every bit of data ever created.
Your comment seems more like someone reading headlines and news articles instead of actually understanding what they are claiming.
> I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key.
If you have some insight to the tool that created the key you could, lots of systems have doors by design, typically by creators or regulation for export.
My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. If they aren't broken then actually found, and that much concentration is too much. It creates a rug pull for an entire currency ecosystem. Other crypto coins are even worse in this aspect.
> You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.
You are basing this on modern tech. Making the same mistakes of people of the past. Right now I said AES-256 would take longer than the universe in existence, I get the orders of magnitude. I just think people base these ideas off of the present, not the future.
> "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."
Do you believe in 40 years we won't have advancements that may make this statement look silly? Right now they are secure, we don't know what is to come.
That is besides the point though, the keys are dangerous as they are concentration of leverage/power of not just a stock, but a currency...
> You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever.
You are making the same mistakes of time, you don't know what is to come and the past has shown previous algorithms actually last LESS time than they expected. It does play into it.
Let's simplify this because you are lost in the weeds and resorting to ad hominems.
Do you think it is a good idea that a currency has keys out there, that can be found either directly or with time, that have heavy concentration?
Is concentrated unknown wealth of a currency, the root of all financial systems and power, a good idea?
If you have some insight to the tool that created the key you could, lots of systems have doors by design, typically by creators or regulation for export.
My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. If they aren't broken then actually found, and that much concentration is too much. It creates a rug pull for an entire currency ecosystem. Other crypto coins are even worse in this aspect.
> You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.
You are basing this on modern tech. Making the same mistakes of people of the past. Right now I said AES-256 would take longer than the universe in existence, I get the orders of magnitude. I just think people base these ideas off of the present, not the future.
> "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."
Do you believe in 40 years we won't have advancements that may make this statement look silly? Right now they are secure, we don't know what is to come.
That is besides the point though, the keys are dangerous as they are concentration of leverage/power of not just a stock, but a currency...
> You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever.
You are making the same mistakes of time, you don't know what is to come and the past has shown previous algorithms actually last LESS time than they expected. It does play into it.
Let's simplify this because you are lost in the weeds and resorting to ad hominems.
Do you think it is a good idea that a currency has keys out there, that can be found either directly or with time, that have heavy concentration?
Is concentrated unknown wealth of a currency, the root of all financial systems and power, a good idea?
My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future.
That's not at all what you said at first. You didn't say the keys would probably be found, you said with quantum computing someone will break the encryption, which is based on nothing. Here it is verbatim:
Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin.
You are basing this on modern tech. Making the same mistakes of people of the past.
You aren't getting this. This isn't a "what if computers are faster in the future" scenario. You aren't going to brute force a search space of this size with all the energy from all the stars in the universe.
You are making the same mistakes of time, you don't know what is to come and the past has shown previous algorithms actually last LESS time than they expected. It does play into it.
No, I actually understand the search space of large key lengths instead of hallucinating a fantasy future. Even when DES was created people debated it being too weak.
You can go back a generation and read articles about cars so big they have their own wood shop, future cities full of flying cars and robot servants. That stuff was all more practical than what you are talking about.
This would not be a conversation if you understood what you are saying.
Let's simplify this because you are lost in the weeds and resorting to ad hominems.
Pointing out that you have huge misunderstandings is not 'ad hominem'.
Do you think it is a good idea that a currency has keys out there, that can be found either directly or with time, that have heavy concentration?
Is concentrated unknown wealth of a currency, the root of all financial systems and power, a good idea?
This has nothing to do with what I'm trying to tell you.
You originally said that "quantum computers will be able to break satoshi's keys" and I'm trying to explain to you why that is naive and uninformed.
That's not at all what you said at first. You didn't say the keys would probably be found, you said with quantum computing someone will break the encryption, which is based on nothing. Here it is verbatim:
Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin.
You are basing this on modern tech. Making the same mistakes of people of the past.
You aren't getting this. This isn't a "what if computers are faster in the future" scenario. You aren't going to brute force a search space of this size with all the energy from all the stars in the universe.
You are making the same mistakes of time, you don't know what is to come and the past has shown previous algorithms actually last LESS time than they expected. It does play into it.
No, I actually understand the search space of large key lengths instead of hallucinating a fantasy future. Even when DES was created people debated it being too weak.
You can go back a generation and read articles about cars so big they have their own wood shop, future cities full of flying cars and robot servants. That stuff was all more practical than what you are talking about.
This would not be a conversation if you understood what you are saying.
Let's simplify this because you are lost in the weeds and resorting to ad hominems.
Pointing out that you have huge misunderstandings is not 'ad hominem'.
Do you think it is a good idea that a currency has keys out there, that can be found either directly or with time, that have heavy concentration?
Is concentrated unknown wealth of a currency, the root of all financial systems and power, a good idea?
This has nothing to do with what I'm trying to tell you.
You originally said that "quantum computers will be able to break satoshi's keys" and I'm trying to explain to you why that is naive and uninformed.
If you assume powerful quantum computers then Bitcoin is dead, that is a straightforward result.
The digital signatures that prevent others from spending your bitcoins are based on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC). The security of elliptic curve cryptography is based on the hardness of the discrete logarithm problem (DLP). A sufficiently powerful quantum computer can use a variant of Shor’s algorithm to solve the DLP in runtime polynomial in the key size (my research indicates O(n^3) in key size more or less), giving you the private key behind a bitcoin wallet in a very tractable amount of time.
Though everything else they are saying about backdoors or design issues are wild speculation, a powerful quantum computer absolutely would allow you to spend anybody’s, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s, bitcoins.
The digital signatures that prevent others from spending your bitcoins are based on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC). The security of elliptic curve cryptography is based on the hardness of the discrete logarithm problem (DLP). A sufficiently powerful quantum computer can use a variant of Shor’s algorithm to solve the DLP in runtime polynomial in the key size (my research indicates O(n^3) in key size more or less), giving you the private key behind a bitcoin wallet in a very tractable amount of time.
Though everything else they are saying about backdoors or design issues are wild speculation, a powerful quantum computer absolutely would allow you to spend anybody’s, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s, bitcoins.
Single-use P2PKH addresses are quantum safe, since the public key is not revealed publicly until spending, just its hash. QC breaks ECDSA but not SHA256.
Even those are at risk if the key can be cracked in a matter of minutes, since it takes 10 mins on average from publishing your spending transaction to it getting mined, and the attacker can doublespend it with a much larger fee.
This is true. Leaving coins at rest is safe, but moving them before the threat is understood might be risky. Widespread opt-in RBF enforcement could mitigate the risk to some degree, if miners cooperate and shun full RBF after a quantum attack. In the worst case, one might need to submit their "exit" transactions directly to a non-evil miner in order to avoid revealing the pubkey before confirmation. Ideally, this will all be figured out ahead of time, and most non-"lost" coins will be moved over to post-quantum UTXOs before the risk is serious.
Having just read up on it, sure. But that is a very restricted use case as you could only use your wallet for a single send transaction and that has already happened for the specific case of Satoshi's wallet.
I believe you could scaffold up a system even with a 1-send limit that transparently functions the same as what currently exists since you can issue transactions to multiple parties within a single send, but that largely kills Bitcoin as normally used. All but the most sophisticated users would be required to hand over control of their wallet to actually manage the massive proliferation of addresses needed to act as if you have more than a 1-send limit. But sure, you are technically correct that there exists a very narrow use case which you can probably hijack aggressively enough to salvage the system if you tried hard enough.
I believe you could scaffold up a system even with a 1-send limit that transparently functions the same as what currently exists since you can issue transactions to multiple parties within a single send, but that largely kills Bitcoin as normally used. All but the most sophisticated users would be required to hand over control of their wallet to actually manage the massive proliferation of addresses needed to act as if you have more than a 1-send limit. But sure, you are technically correct that there exists a very narrow use case which you can probably hijack aggressively enough to salvage the system if you tried hard enough.
You're right that Satoshi's coins are at risk (but because they're using the older P2PK, not due to key reuse), and I agree that this would lead to some amount of chaos and transformative disruption.
> users would be required to hand over control of their wallet to actually manage the massive proliferation of addresses needed
BIP32 solved this in 2012, and is used by basically all self-custodial wallets these days. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawi...
> users would be required to hand over control of their wallet to actually manage the massive proliferation of addresses needed
BIP32 solved this in 2012, and is used by basically all self-custodial wallets these days. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawi...
> You originally said that "quantum computers will be able to break satoshi's keys"
I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin."
As one part of my message. Now read the second, longer part.
Summary: "Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties." Not just for Bitcoin either.
What I was getting as we the concentration part and because of the amount, the desire to find Satoshi's (and other early crypto) keys will be immense whether that comes from technology or physically located.
Those keys are locked in earlier encryption algorithms and will be easier over time, maybe a long time, but still.
The longer the time actually the more concentration it may have depending on many factors but still.
The other concentration problems have also been seen in other areas like hosted wallets and shared mining sites/services. Situations for control of large amounts would be some hosted wallet sites being compromised and collecting keys or even using exploits/holes without the keys then issuing a broad push of many accounts at once, or even slowly.
Concentration in wealth, currently and banking is always a problem. In newer financial markets with less regulation there are always more gaps from many facets to technology to processes and tools.
I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin."
As one part of my message. Now read the second, longer part.
Summary: "Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties." Not just for Bitcoin either.
What I was getting as we the concentration part and because of the amount, the desire to find Satoshi's (and other early crypto) keys will be immense whether that comes from technology or physically located.
Those keys are locked in earlier encryption algorithms and will be easier over time, maybe a long time, but still.
The longer the time actually the more concentration it may have depending on many factors but still.
The other concentration problems have also been seen in other areas like hosted wallets and shared mining sites/services. Situations for control of large amounts would be some hosted wallet sites being compromised and collecting keys or even using exploits/holes without the keys then issuing a broad push of many accounts at once, or even slowly.
Concentration in wealth, currently and banking is always a problem. In newer financial markets with less regulation there are always more gaps from many facets to technology to processes and tools.
I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin."
Then what are those "other advancements"?
Then what are those "other advancements"?
Exactly... we don't know yet.
Most of the time when someone says 'we don't know' they really are talking about themselves.
People do know. There has been 100 years of cryptography and there are billions at stake. Hand waving and saying 'anything can happen in the future' with no plan, no details, no facts and no evidence is basically tech astrology.
Here's a challenge - find a cryptography expert that agrees with you.
People do know. There has been 100 years of cryptography and there are billions at stake. Hand waving and saying 'anything can happen in the future' with no plan, no details, no facts and no evidence is basically tech astrology.
Here's a challenge - find a cryptography expert that agrees with you.
Maybe he has spent some of the money. There are a bunch of bitcoin considered Satoshi's that have never moved but who's to say he didn't mine some more on the side under another account? He seems a smart guy after all and that would be kind of an obvious thing to do.
I'm wondering if as the guy gets old if he'll set up a charitable foundation with the main lot.
I'm wondering if as the guy gets old if he'll set up a charitable foundation with the main lot.
That's why many people he is either dead, in prison, or has lost his private keys.
Lost in a boating accident, such a shame...
The Satoshi-mining entity (from early days) has approximately one million bitcoin, verifiable on blockchain explorers of all kinds.
There are multiple monitors (human and programmed) awaiting even a single Satoshi transaction from these addresses [1 "satoshi" == 1E-8 BTC]
There are multiple monitors (human and programmed) awaiting even a single Satoshi transaction from these addresses [1 "satoshi" == 1E-8 BTC]
>Sure, but Occam’s Razor applies. Why go to such lengths to sow disinformation in a private communication? It would have been far simpler for Hal to have just responded at a different time rather than leaving this proverbial needle in the haystack that would have never been revealed had Hearn not published the emails.
Occam's Razor, as the author enjoyed using, would suggest that someone knowingly creating a rival to a hegemonic currency system would need plausible deniability as to who they are and what they are doing. Having a partner in crime would not be inconceivable and they wouldn't need to be Satoshi.
"Hal used tabs while Satoshi used spaces (this is a massive never-ending debate between developers)
Hal preferred his debug statements not to be indented while Satoshi’s maintained indentation with surrounding code
Hal made comments with block style multi-line markers while Satoshi preferred to create many single-line comments with double slashes
Hal used snake_case for his function names while Satoshi used camelCase
There are probably far more differences that are more subtle, but these jumped out from just a few minutes of eyeballing the codebases."
These are irrelevant. Someone of Hal's intelligence and skill who was a decades long cypherpunk would understand the importance of obfuscating ones own styles. Lastly, I find it interesting that the Silicon Valley elite did the ice bucket challenge 2 weeks before Hal died.
Occam's Razor, as the author enjoyed using, would suggest that someone knowingly creating a rival to a hegemonic currency system would need plausible deniability as to who they are and what they are doing. Having a partner in crime would not be inconceivable and they wouldn't need to be Satoshi.
"Hal used tabs while Satoshi used spaces (this is a massive never-ending debate between developers)
Hal preferred his debug statements not to be indented while Satoshi’s maintained indentation with surrounding code
Hal made comments with block style multi-line markers while Satoshi preferred to create many single-line comments with double slashes
Hal used snake_case for his function names while Satoshi used camelCase
There are probably far more differences that are more subtle, but these jumped out from just a few minutes of eyeballing the codebases."
These are irrelevant. Someone of Hal's intelligence and skill who was a decades long cypherpunk would understand the importance of obfuscating ones own styles. Lastly, I find it interesting that the Silicon Valley elite did the ice bucket challenge 2 weeks before Hal died.
"Lastly, I find it interesting that the Silicon Valley elite did the ice bucket challenge 2 weeks before Hal died."
Sorry, I don't get this. Please elaborate.
Sorry, I don't get this. Please elaborate.
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did their Ice Bucket Challenges on August 14th 2014 and Hal died August 28th 2014 of ALS.
> Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did their Ice Bucket Challenges on August 14th 2014 and Hal died August 28th 2014 of ALS.
And what is the significance of that? What does it prove, or indicate even?
And what is the significance of that? What does it prove, or indicate even?
Not parent but I still don't understand.
Nor do I and I think its because it really doesn’t make much sense
I think there is some systematic reason why people like Satoshi, Buckethead, Banksy, etc are not uncovered.
In each case, I doubt that it really is hard to figure out who they are.
Maybe it is the way the press and social media work. You get as many clicks for a wild theory as you get for a properly researched opinion.
As for Satoshi Nakamoto: The most obvious candidate seems to be Adam Back. His invention of proof of work, his biography, character, writing style and role as the CEO of the company behind the main wallet software all point to him. Also, his current communication "Bitcoin looks like something that was discovered rather than invented". That's something a creator typically says about a particularly great piece of work they did. Are there any arguments why he might not be the inventor of Bitcoin?
In each case, I doubt that it really is hard to figure out who they are.
Maybe it is the way the press and social media work. You get as many clicks for a wild theory as you get for a properly researched opinion.
As for Satoshi Nakamoto: The most obvious candidate seems to be Adam Back. His invention of proof of work, his biography, character, writing style and role as the CEO of the company behind the main wallet software all point to him. Also, his current communication "Bitcoin looks like something that was discovered rather than invented". That's something a creator typically says about a particularly great piece of work they did. Are there any arguments why he might not be the inventor of Bitcoin?
> As for Satoshi Nakamoto: The most obvious candidate seems to be Adam Back. His invention of proof of work, his biography, character, writing style and role as the CEO of the company behind the main wallet software all point to him.
Adam Back is obviously not Satoshi.
His level of writing or thinking is not even close to the level of Satoshi.
When asked what people should pay with when fees were high and Lightning Network wasn't complete, he seriously suggested people should just use tabs:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc81OL_hk4&feature=youtu.be&t...
This and other brainfarts... No way that he's Satoshi and people need to stop suggesting it.
Adam Back is obviously not Satoshi.
His level of writing or thinking is not even close to the level of Satoshi.
When asked what people should pay with when fees were high and Lightning Network wasn't complete, he seriously suggested people should just use tabs:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc81OL_hk4&feature=youtu.be&t...
This and other brainfarts... No way that he's Satoshi and people need to stop suggesting it.
> he seriously suggested people should just use tabs
Why is this a "brainfart"? It does not seem like a horrible recommendation to me, especially for someone who needed a solution "today" in 2017.
Why is this a "brainfart"? It does not seem like a horrible recommendation to me, especially for someone who needed a solution "today" in 2017.
Because cryptocurrencies were already working.
"Use another cryptocurrency" would be a much better recommendation that would solve the problem much better than tabs.
The reason why Bitcoin stopped working well was because Adam Back and others were actively sabotaging it's ability to cope with demand, and instead pushing people towards other solutions.
Those solutions were nowhere near ready, so the best Adam could come up with (except admitting they were wrong) was Tabs.
So yeah, instead of a brainfart it could just be malicious behavior.
"Use another cryptocurrency" would be a much better recommendation that would solve the problem much better than tabs.
The reason why Bitcoin stopped working well was because Adam Back and others were actively sabotaging it's ability to cope with demand, and instead pushing people towards other solutions.
Those solutions were nowhere near ready, so the best Adam could come up with (except admitting they were wrong) was Tabs.
So yeah, instead of a brainfart it could just be malicious behavior.
The question asked on that video does not mention lightning.
But his answer begins by explaining lightning.
Back early on forsaw that lightning is the way forward and not larger blocks. Which is another indication to me, that he is indeed Nakamoto.
It was a great insight very much in line with Nakamoto's thinking. Nakamoto who forsaw so many things early on like the need for a script instead of just transaction data on the chain.
But his answer begins by explaining lightning.
Back early on forsaw that lightning is the way forward and not larger blocks. Which is another indication to me, that he is indeed Nakamoto.
It was a great insight very much in line with Nakamoto's thinking. Nakamoto who forsaw so many things early on like the need for a script instead of just transaction data on the chain.
Meanwhile, in actual 2023, Bitcoin once again has bloated mempool and high transaction fees while big block Bitcoin cash is clearing regularly.
I think we have enough real history at this point to dismiss the notion that "lightning is the way forward" in an absolute, concrete and not theoretical way.
I think we have enough real history at this point to dismiss the notion that "lightning is the way forward" in an absolute, concrete and not theoretical way.
Entries on a blockchain are auctioned of in an auction which allow arbitrarely low bids. So it is to expected that there is a long tail of bids with a low chance to win.
If a mempool clears, that just means there is limited demand to use the chain, even for free.
If a mempool clears, that just means there is limited demand to use the chain, even for free.
Satoshi was for raising the blocksize:
> It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete.
Given that lightning still has shit UX without relying on third parties should be proof enough that it was and still is a terrible idea to rely on for Bitcoins usability.
> It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete.
Given that lightning still has shit UX without relying on third parties should be proof enough that it was and still is a terrible idea to rely on for Bitcoins usability.
Before lightning was a thing, he anticipated the block size would increase over time. And he changed his mind when the idea of level 2 came up. Which was the right thing to do. But hard to understand at that time.
UX is a problem throughout all crypto. No matter which coin, no matter L1 or L2. It's all still like the internet before the 90s.
UX is a problem throughout all crypto. No matter which coin, no matter L1 or L2. It's all still like the internet before the 90s.
He sure changed his mind!
From a revolutionary new form of money, to suggesting people should develop their own app for tabs...
From a revolutionary new form of money, to suggesting people should develop their own app for tabs...
Wouldn't the real Satoshi do everything in their power to throw people off the scent?
I don't know about the others, but Banksy has been uncovered. It's Robin Gunningham. People still like to say it's "unconfirmed" and "a rumour" but if you look at the evidence there is no real doubt.
So I guess part of the reason is that people love the mystery so much, as long as the suspect doesn't come out and say "yes it's me" then they'll just hang on to the mystery. To be honest even if Gunningham said "I am Banksy" I suspect people would still say "but is he really? Nobody knows!"
So I guess part of the reason is that people love the mystery so much, as long as the suspect doesn't come out and say "yes it's me" then they'll just hang on to the mystery. To be honest even if Gunningham said "I am Banksy" I suspect people would still say "but is he really? Nobody knows!"
There’s a court case banksy is fighting with some store owner and thats also confirmed his name.
Isn’t it mean to uncover someone who wishes to remain anonymous and is doing no harm?
Uncovering their identity is just vandalism.
Uncovering their identity is just vandalism.
Is there another Buckethead that I'm not aware of, because the one that I'm thinking of has a pretty well-established identity.
Oh, interesting. So he only keeps his face secret, not his identity?
I remember reading an interview with Ozzy Osbourne who said he refused to work with Buckethead because it spooked him that BH always kept a mask on, even when they talked in private.
I remember reading an interview with Ozzy Osbourne who said he refused to work with Buckethead because it spooked him that BH always kept a mask on, even when they talked in private.
You can also find some pictures of his face on Google if you just search his name. I'd say Buckethead is closer to Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo than he is to Banksy.
it's worth remembering that interviews of a popular artist like ozzy ozbourne are almost entirely about publicity
He did an interview a while ago
>systematic reason why people like Satoshi, Buckethead, Banksy, etc are not uncovered.
With Satoshi and Banksy it's not so hard to figure out but given that they both want anonymity, informed people tend not to say. Meanwhile random idiots post all sorts of stuff, some right, some wrong.
With Satoshi and Banksy it's not so hard to figure out but given that they both want anonymity, informed people tend not to say. Meanwhile random idiots post all sorts of stuff, some right, some wrong.
Is it possible ( novice with respect to blockchain here ) , to crack the wallet , with all the computing power of the bitcoin mining ?
The computing power behind bitcoin mining is just computing gazillions of SHA256 hashes.
Which is useless for recovering Satoshi's private key, as that requires solving the Discrete Logarithm Problem for Elliptic Curves.
But even the amount of energy used in all Bitcoin mining falls short of the energy needed to solve a single instance of DLP using the best-known methods, by a factor greater than a billion billion.
Which is useless for recovering Satoshi's private key, as that requires solving the Discrete Logarithm Problem for Elliptic Curves.
But even the amount of energy used in all Bitcoin mining falls short of the energy needed to solve a single instance of DLP using the best-known methods, by a factor greater than a billion billion.
Although inconceivably impossible, there IS always a chance that two different nodes generate the same private key, which cryptographically precludes identical public/private keypairs... generated in earnest... at two separate locales.
But this is MORE LIKELY than you brute-forcing the private key to a known public key.
----
Also, for technical accuracy... it's not just SHA-256 keys that drive bitcoin network. One of the reasons to "never re-use the same receiving address" is that different algos are used for a new-key-never-sent VS re-used-key . You are technically making the process "easier" by re-using the same private key to push a transaction.
----
<3 from your least favorite infamous bitcoin node operator
But this is MORE LIKELY than you brute-forcing the private key to a known public key.
----
Also, for technical accuracy... it's not just SHA-256 keys that drive bitcoin network. One of the reasons to "never re-use the same receiving address" is that different algos are used for a new-key-never-sent VS re-used-key . You are technically making the process "easier" by re-using the same private key to push a transaction.
----
<3 from your least favorite infamous bitcoin node operator
No, otherwise miners would be cracking wallets instead of mining bitcoins
They are. This is the foundation of the BTC collider project [0]. By the way, wallets do get cracked this way, but less through technical supremacy and more about brute force.
[0] - https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/about
[0] - https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/about
Afaik they haven't found anything except some puzzle coins being hidden behind increasing difficulty wallets. Only way they can crack a wallet is if the softwate generated the wallet uses some poor sources of entropy or has a vulnerability.
Yeah, regardless of whether you think bitcoin mining is a waste of electricity, those guys are definitely wasting electricity. The puzzle coins have faster-than-brute-force attacks available as an option.
The computing power used for bitcoin mining is not general purpose, and cannot be used to crack keys.
[deleted]
what happens if wallet from satoshi is stolen and poured into the market for quick bucks?
what happens if "satoshi" gets desperate for quick cash?
idk this seems to be a major financial risk for bitcoiners, not altruism...
what happens if "satoshi" gets desperate for quick cash?
idk this seems to be a major financial risk for bitcoiners, not altruism...
It's been more than 10 years since there was activity.
The market would crash but eventualy recover.
There's really nothing dramatic about it.
Even if you were right on both of your points it still would be dramatic. Behind every marker crash there's people's lives changing forever.
> Behind every marker crash there's people's lives changing forever.
Absolutely.
My reply was directed towards bitcoin as a technology. The market volatility but more important the constant manipulators and bad actors really have a negative impact in people's lifes.
But most often we see this happening to people that are invested in crypto but not users of it. Because they keep their money on exchanges, they are not taking advantage to the security and self sovereignty that comes with crypto. There is no evidence that bitcoin will die or wouldn't recover from market dumps.
However there's plenty examples of exchanges going under or stealing people's assets forever.
Absolutely.
My reply was directed towards bitcoin as a technology. The market volatility but more important the constant manipulators and bad actors really have a negative impact in people's lifes.
But most often we see this happening to people that are invested in crypto but not users of it. Because they keep their money on exchanges, they are not taking advantage to the security and self sovereignty that comes with crypto. There is no evidence that bitcoin will die or wouldn't recover from market dumps.
However there's plenty examples of exchanges going under or stealing people's assets forever.
Nobody knows how much Satoshi mined. And a rational actor would not "dump" coins on the market for giggles, but for profit, hence avoid a market crash. Besides, bitcoin currently has a trading volume of around 10 billion per day, hard to crash that.
If it's "poured" into the market, the value will crash so whoever's trying to sell them won't make as much money. That said, at this point, any activity in that wallet will cause a huge stir in the community.
That said, there's probably a nontrivial amount of processing power currently being used to crack that wallet / find the secret key.
A theory is that Satoshi themselves lost access to their own wallet, so if there is activity, it may mean someone got the private key.
Anyway yeah, it is a huge risk, and it's proven by the billions scammed from people when new coins were created and the creators themselves held onto a lot of the coins themselves to sell when the hype cycle is trending upwards.
That said, there's probably a nontrivial amount of processing power currently being used to crack that wallet / find the secret key.
A theory is that Satoshi themselves lost access to their own wallet, so if there is activity, it may mean someone got the private key.
Anyway yeah, it is a huge risk, and it's proven by the billions scammed from people when new coins were created and the creators themselves held onto a lot of the coins themselves to sell when the hype cycle is trending upwards.
lots of bitcoin from large old blocks have moved before, it is news within the crypto space and pretty fun drama. bitcoin from blocks from when satoshi was mining have moved before, and people start rumors that this exact thing is occurring and turned out not to be a satoshi block.
price dips have happened over these movements. the rumor mill is pretty cyclical. the price dips have had less and less magnitude over the years, as there are so many computing bullish and bearish forces in bitcoin now. headlines today that move bitcoin up 1% would have crashed bitcoin 35% a decade ago.
bitcoin has a lot more liquidity now, or in some periods of time has a lot more liquidity than now. a large sell can be absorbed. people's confidence in the bitcoin concept doesn't really shake just because someone selling ... runs out of things to sell.
many large bitcoin holders don't want govbucks, or state currency. they can do so much with their bitcoin, mostly earning yield by depositing it into something yield producing in the crypto economy, investing in other projects, supporting causes they believe in. it isn't important to them if a team or merchants gets govbucks somewhere down the line or immediately.
price dips have happened over these movements. the rumor mill is pretty cyclical. the price dips have had less and less magnitude over the years, as there are so many computing bullish and bearish forces in bitcoin now. headlines today that move bitcoin up 1% would have crashed bitcoin 35% a decade ago.
bitcoin has a lot more liquidity now, or in some periods of time has a lot more liquidity than now. a large sell can be absorbed. people's confidence in the bitcoin concept doesn't really shake just because someone selling ... runs out of things to sell.
many large bitcoin holders don't want govbucks, or state currency. they can do so much with their bitcoin, mostly earning yield by depositing it into something yield producing in the crypto economy, investing in other projects, supporting causes they believe in. it isn't important to them if a team or merchants gets govbucks somewhere down the line or immediately.
Yes, all those known wallets should be burned if anyone really cared about the stability of bitcoin. Others aka "shit coins" do not have this massive amount of cash that could all of a sudden be spent causing a huge crash.
Although very unlikely that anyone will ever crack those keys it is possible that the keys are found by someone or Satoshi himself spends it.
The bitcoin core maximalists should focus on fixing their block including moving to PoS instead of pissing on all other coins constantly.
Although very unlikely that anyone will ever crack those keys it is possible that the keys are found by someone or Satoshi himself spends it.
The bitcoin core maximalists should focus on fixing their block including moving to PoS instead of pissing on all other coins constantly.
> fixing their block including moving to PoS
POW fixed a problem POS does not solve, it is an entirely decentralized, trustless system. It is not possible to move to POS, the only coins who can do that are coins that are not decentralized and trustless to begin with.
POW fixed a problem POS does not solve, it is an entirely decentralized, trustless system. It is not possible to move to POS, the only coins who can do that are coins that are not decentralized and trustless to begin with.
[deleted]
The identity probably isn't one person but there are people that stand out.
Nick Szabo has been potentially mentioned as Satoshi for sometime [1] due to him working on decentralized currencies since 1998 with Bit Gold [2]. Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto and currencies. [3]
> "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk, adding, "he claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be the one more responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone else."
> Szabo is best known as the inventor of one of bitcoin’s predecessors, Bit Gold, and digital smart contracts—which eventually evolved to become a key part of the ethereum blockchain. Szabo has previously denied he's Satoshi Nakamoto, telling financial author Dominic Frisby in 2014, "I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it."
Szabo's full name is Nicholas Szabo [4]. Just seems quite a bit like Satoshi Nakamoto. It feels like there is something there potentially.
He uses his initials for his Pseudonyms (N.S)
Nakamoto Satoshi = Bitcoin
Nicholas Saberhagen = Monero
Bit Gold was maybe to test out interest, then when the real one was made it would be more anonymous. If you think about it, bitcoin being anonymous is a feature as it makes it seem less centralized eventhough Satoshi owns a large chunk of it. Today companies or individuals will control a large chunk of other coins/platforms and it feels more centralized or even autocratic. At any time those big fish could wreak havoc. Satoshi seems more hands off. Another potential reason is the money it would generate and the recognition would attract too much attention. The successful decentralized currency like bitcoin might have been foreseen as a threat to the creator after it takes off and gains in value.
From the wiki on Nick Szabo, he is more 'reclusive' and not wanting to be known. On his blog he mentioned his intent on creating a live version of the currency as Bit Gold was more of a prototype/demo and was never launched. Even the name Bit Gold and bitcoin are very similar as is the name Nicholas Szabo (N.S.) and Satoshi Nakamoto (S.N.) in a few ways. Satoshi Nakamoto always seems like a purposeful shroud of a name, looking for someone by that name is probably not going to find them:
> Nathaniel Popper wrote in The New York Times that "the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo." In 2008, prior to the release of bitcoin, Szabo wrote a comment on his blog about the intent of creating a live version of his hypothetical currency. [1]
Hal Finney was the first to receive 10 bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto [5][6]. Hal Finney was the next employee after Phil Zimmermann at PGP. So he knew the potential for being pursued by governments for software creations. Hal, who died in 2014 unfortunately, probably knew Satoshi and would have known he was shrouding/anonymous for good reasons as seen in the PGP history just before that and around the same time bit gold was being created.
The very likely people to be Satoshi Nakamoto are Nick Szabo and Hal Finney due to the early interactions and transactions, and potentially Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, but that seems unlikely they would use their real name [7]. Maybe it was all three or someone else entirely, these guys are just around the early days and some of the first transactions. Either that or someone or some group saw the need for decentralized currency from their efforts and then front ran them and made it seem more like them to help shroud themselves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Bit_gold
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/12/28/elon-...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Possible_iden...
Nick Szabo has been potentially mentioned as Satoshi for sometime [1] due to him working on decentralized currencies since 1998 with Bit Gold [2]. Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto and currencies. [3]
> "Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk, adding, "he claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be the one more responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone else."
> Szabo is best known as the inventor of one of bitcoin’s predecessors, Bit Gold, and digital smart contracts—which eventually evolved to become a key part of the ethereum blockchain. Szabo has previously denied he's Satoshi Nakamoto, telling financial author Dominic Frisby in 2014, "I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it."
Szabo's full name is Nicholas Szabo [4]. Just seems quite a bit like Satoshi Nakamoto. It feels like there is something there potentially.
He uses his initials for his Pseudonyms (N.S)
Nakamoto Satoshi = Bitcoin
Nicholas Saberhagen = Monero
Bit Gold was maybe to test out interest, then when the real one was made it would be more anonymous. If you think about it, bitcoin being anonymous is a feature as it makes it seem less centralized eventhough Satoshi owns a large chunk of it. Today companies or individuals will control a large chunk of other coins/platforms and it feels more centralized or even autocratic. At any time those big fish could wreak havoc. Satoshi seems more hands off. Another potential reason is the money it would generate and the recognition would attract too much attention. The successful decentralized currency like bitcoin might have been foreseen as a threat to the creator after it takes off and gains in value.
From the wiki on Nick Szabo, he is more 'reclusive' and not wanting to be known. On his blog he mentioned his intent on creating a live version of the currency as Bit Gold was more of a prototype/demo and was never launched. Even the name Bit Gold and bitcoin are very similar as is the name Nicholas Szabo (N.S.) and Satoshi Nakamoto (S.N.) in a few ways. Satoshi Nakamoto always seems like a purposeful shroud of a name, looking for someone by that name is probably not going to find them:
> Nathaniel Popper wrote in The New York Times that "the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo." In 2008, prior to the release of bitcoin, Szabo wrote a comment on his blog about the intent of creating a live version of his hypothetical currency. [1]
Hal Finney was the first to receive 10 bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto [5][6]. Hal Finney was the next employee after Phil Zimmermann at PGP. So he knew the potential for being pursued by governments for software creations. Hal, who died in 2014 unfortunately, probably knew Satoshi and would have known he was shrouding/anonymous for good reasons as seen in the PGP history just before that and around the same time bit gold was being created.
The very likely people to be Satoshi Nakamoto are Nick Szabo and Hal Finney due to the early interactions and transactions, and potentially Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, but that seems unlikely they would use their real name [7]. Maybe it was all three or someone else entirely, these guys are just around the early days and some of the first transactions. Either that or someone or some group saw the need for decentralized currency from their efforts and then front ran them and made it seem more like them to help shroud themselves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Bit_gold
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/12/28/elon-...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Possible_iden...
It wasn't just 'digital currencies' Szabo pioneered either. He did the earliest work on smart contracts too. Smart contracts are multi-disciplinary spanning law, cryptography, economics, programming, accounting, and game theory. It's the kind of insight only a polymath would have. People who only know a little about Bitcoin think it's like a currency. But built inside it is a scripting system that lets you program the conditions for moving around coins. This allows for incredibly elaborate extensions to be made to the system without having to change its core rules.
Satoshi was also interested in smart contracts. In fact, there was early work in the Bitcoin code base where satoshi had designed an entire online market system. I've never seen the code for this myself or what features it had. But to me this is so far ahead of everyone else and solidifies much of what would be built on top of blockchain systems that it's scary. So Satoshi builds the groundwork for practically the next 10 years worth of complex, technical discussions. Satoshi even knew that time-locked transactions would be useful so it was part of Bitcoin too.
Satoshi was also interested in smart contracts. In fact, there was early work in the Bitcoin code base where satoshi had designed an entire online market system. I've never seen the code for this myself or what features it had. But to me this is so far ahead of everyone else and solidifies much of what would be built on top of blockchain systems that it's scary. So Satoshi builds the groundwork for practically the next 10 years worth of complex, technical discussions. Satoshi even knew that time-locked transactions would be useful so it was part of Bitcoin too.
[deleted]
Bitcoin's supply schedule, in which half of all Bitcoin is mined in the first four years, guaranteed a Bitcoin wealth concentration on the early miners, especially considering how few there were. At long intervals, Satoshi would be the only one, mining on his laptop.
A truly altruistic system would not confer such a huge advantage on early miners, for example by fixing the block reward. Then each generation would be able to mine the same amount of bitcoin, instead of each next generation getting 32x less than the current one. Such a steady supply would also make Bitcoin much less the vehicle for speculation that it has turned into.
Of course, then the supply wouldn't have a finite cap, it would be limited by time only. Still, that would already make it very different from fiat, with the yearly supply inflation rate going down steadily toward 0 (known as being dis-inflationary). Eventually, the supply rate would more or less balance the inevitable coin loss rate [1].
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...