Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#61

Post by lawn »

Timja wrote: post #56
lawn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 N…

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…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#62

Post by Timja »

lawn wrote: post #61
Timja wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#63

Post by Stagnant »

csomar wrote: post #45

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.

Assuming Satoshi paid for the domain via cash there might not be much to look into.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#64

Post by gumby »

IshKebab wrote: post #42
Timja wrote: post #30

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 o…

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 Ba…

Isn’t it mean to uncover someone who wishes to remain anonymous and is doing no harm?

Uncovering their identity is just vandalism.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#65

Post by lawn »

Timja wrote: post #62
lawn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

He sure changed his mind!

From a revolutionary new form of money, to suggesting people should develop their own app for tabs...

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#66

Post by Uptrenda »

drawkbox wrote: post #32

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 seem…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#68

Post by Retric »

gonehome wrote: post #17
toenail wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#69

Post by olalonde »

orra wrote: post #23

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.

That's why many people he is either dead, in prison, or has lost his private keys.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#70

Post by elif »

infecto wrote: post #34
toenail wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is bitcoin a currency or investment? I would say neither but interesting to see it getting lumped in with investments.

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.

Post reply on HN