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

111–120 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#111

Post by sireat »

chx wrote: post #16

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.

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

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#112

Post by fsmv »

tromp wrote: post #4

> Who, we ask, is so altruistic as to create a new monetary system but not use it to enrich themselves? 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…

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!

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#113

Post by CyberDildonics »

drawkbox wrote: post #99
CyberDildonics wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#114

Post by replwoacause »

dboreham wrote: post #50
RyanAdamas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did their Ice Bucket Challenges on August 14th 2014 and Hal died August 28th 2014 of ALS.

Not parent but I still don't understand.

Nor do I and I think its because it really doesn’t make much sense

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#115

Post by infecto »

hiatus wrote: post #88
infecto wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#116

Post by infecto »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #46
infecto wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#117

Post by FFP999 »

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…

[dead]

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#118

Post by FFP999 »

gumby wrote: post #64
IshKebab wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#119

Post by FFP999 »

Timja wrote: post #38
Hamuko wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#120

Post by drawkbox »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #113
drawkbox wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.…

> 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?

Post reply on HN