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

121–130 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#121

Post by zaphar »

toenail wrote: post #59
zaphar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am biased because I see a lot of value in the current fiat system that Bitcoin directly impacts. I am also biased because I don't buy the arguments that the current fiat system has enough issues to indicate it needs replacement. As an example, I am against any system that takes us back to a world where governments no longer are able to use the soft power of economics to react to other countries. The alternative bei…

> I don't buy the arguments that the current fiat system has enough issues to indicate it needs replacement. Said like somebody who never had a problem with the financial system and had access to banks for their entire life. It's great that money works for you, for most people on this planet the same can not be said. > where governments no longer are able to use the soft power of economics to react to other countries…

Currency controls are the most effective mechanism we currently have. I don't see this idea as absurd at all.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#122

Post by toenail »

zaphar wrote: post #121
toenail wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't buy the arguments that the current fiat system has enough issues to indicate it needs replacement. Said like somebody who never had a problem with the financial system and had access to banks for their entire life. It's great that money works for you, for most people on this planet the same can not be said. > where governments no longer are able to use the soft power of economics to react to other countries…

Currency controls are the most effective mechanism we currently have. I don't see this idea as absurd at all.

Ok, your previous comment seemed to imply that the only alternative to monetary policy was violence/war, that sounded absurd. Now you seem to confuse currency controls with monetary policy? Anyway, maybe it would be a good idea to read about lists of economic policies to get a better view of the matter?

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#123

Post by toenail »

kranke155 wrote: post #105
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.

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#124

Post by tim333 »

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…

>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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#126

Post by yieldcrv »

> 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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#127

Post by yieldcrv »

noman-land wrote: post #125
almost_usual wrote: post #92

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.

What changed?

Maybe it’s price resilience after zero interest rates went away was just too impressive

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#128

Post by lawn »

olalonde wrote: post #98
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…

Not to mention that he is a bit of a self-promoter. I am sure he would take credit for Bitcoin if he could.

He has already tried to do that in his Twitter bio (that he removed) where he claimed that Bitcoin was just hashcash with inflation control.

And he also dismissed Bitcoin initially.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#129

Post by CyberDildonics »

drawkbox wrote: post #120
CyberDildonics wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#130

Post by zaphar »

toenail wrote: post #122
zaphar wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currency controls are the most effective mechanism we currently have. I don't see this idea as absurd at all.

Ok, your previous comment seemed to imply that the only alternative to monetary policy was violence/war, that sounded absurd. Now you seem to confuse currency controls with monetary policy? Anyway, maybe it would be a good idea to read about lists of economic policies to get a better view of the matter?

Nah, currency controls are a significant method of economic power. My point is unchanged.
Post reply on HN