251–260 of 294 posts
I hope the actual Satoshi is alive somewhere, and just for fun moves a different original coin, as if to say "I am alive, and Wright is not me".
Or just use the privkey from the genesis block to sign a message "In the very unlikely event that I ever decide to reveal myself, it will be through a message similar to this one" -- and then post it anonymously somewhere.
Thought experiment: Suppose Satoshi, whoever it is, is still alive somewhere in the wild. But he doesn't have his original keys (hard-drive failure with no backup, apartment fire with no offsite backup, etc etc). How would Satoshi prove himself then?
He could still have access to his PGP private key, which would be a strong data point. It could be possible that someone stole this key though, so this alone wouldn't completely prove his identity. If he had the foresight to know he might want to prove his identity at some point in the future, he could have embedded the hash of a message into an early block (using the public keys of coinbase transactions). The messag…
If I were Satoshi I totally would've committed it to memory. I have more random characters than that memorized for passwords to various accounts.
Or, even easier, have a smaller simple password, and then be able to reconstruct them using an algorithm that your remember, e.g. SHA256(SHA256(SHA256("correct") + "horse battery") + "staple").
The fact that some people believe it is more a testament to their naivete than anything else. I pity them... :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, if a bitcoin is lost forever the remaining bitcoin just increase in value.
It is? I thought there was a minimum usable denomination, called a "satoshi", that was something like 0.0000001 BTC (I don't know the actual value). Or is this really just a convention enforced by the current clients that can be easily changed in the future?
We're not anywhere close to it mattering yet, though; it's several decades out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite telling that you don't want me to speak for other people but just in your answer before projected your irrational feelings about bitcoin on me and on what I feel or don't feel for bitcoin (so that we get straight, I don't "feel" anything for a technology, that doesn't make sense). When I referred the world at large, I referred the world at large that already knows bitcoin, not the world population. And fro…
The most damning: Seven transaction a second. You cannot have a functioning financial system that is constrained to seven transactions per second.
The real question is, what is the maximum real throughput of the system if we could adjust the tuning parameters to be as high as possible? It's well north of 7 but I bet also well south of, say, 1,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Jobs in his relationships with friends and family, and his own self-destructive (ultimately fatally destructive) streak screams full blown sociopath and always has. Then again, he might just have been a really shitty person without a personality disorder to explain it.
There's a possible simpler explanation: his work was always priority #1 for him, and he completely buried his head in it, to the detriment of everything else. Of course, now I'm also speculating some bullshit about someone I've never met. It's always interesting to watch people try to label others without having known them. And no, "had lunch with him once" or "heard him speak at a conference" does not mean you know…
The thought he knew more than doctors about medicine. That has nothing to do with work being priority #1, it's entirely based on your head being up your own ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I understanding correctly that you are blaming an undiagnosed sociopathy for Jobs' death by pancreatic cancer induced respratory arrest?
He decided not to undergo actual clinical treatment for his cancer until it was too late, instead relying on new-age stuff to heal himself for the longest time. I wouldn't go so far as to call this behavior "full blown sociopath" but it definitely shortened his life. I don't know what the stats are for refusing cancer treatment, but I think they're fairly low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Nick_Szabo
>In December 2013, a blogger named Skye Grey linked Nick Szabo to the bitcoin's whitepaper using a stylometric analysis.
All that, and the NS/NS: Nakamoto Satoshi / Nick Szabo. :)
I assign a low probability to the proposition that Nakamoto is other than Szabo.
Suppose Nakamoto isn't Szabo. Why the various similarities? They could be deliberate: Nakamoto isn't Szabo but another researcher who not only runs with the same ideas, but mimics the elements of writing, duplicates the timezone of activity and so on. Even chooses the letters N and S for his pseudonym to tantalize people with the hypothesis that he is Szabo. The problem under this hypothesized scenario is that Szabo would almost certainly have cried foul: "Hey, world, this Bitcoin Nakamoto dude is ripping off my research without crediting me at all!" Secondly, why would someone who wants to create a digital currency system based on Szabo's ideas go to the trouble of creating all these irrelevant similarities.
On the other hand, there is the why: why wouldn't someone who obviously knows a lot about security an privacy issues not put more effort into building plausible deniability? Maybe Szabo simply doesn't care about having anything near air-tight claim that he isn't Nakamoto, and so just let himself be sloppy. Perhaps he actually wants there to be all that circumstantial evidence, and is biding his time until the right moment to admit that he is Nakamoto, at which time with just some small piece of proof, it will be iron-clad to everyone.
I think he's BSing as well.