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

161–170 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#161

Post by Veserv »

greyface- wrote: post #160
Veserv wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 DL…

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.

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#162

Post by greyface- »

Veserv wrote: post #161
greyface- wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 tha…

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...

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#163

Post by latchkey »

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…

@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/

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#164

Post by toenail »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #144
toenail wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#165

Post by Veserv »

greyface- wrote: post #162
Veserv wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

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. h…

Ah, I did not previously know that there were a plural number of Satoshi wallets. I previously read that Hal Finney was the first recipient of a Bitcoin and which came from Satoshi Nakamoto and assumed that there was just a single Satoshi wallet which would mean there is key reuse.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#166

Post by gonehome »

Retric wrote: post #68
gonehome wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#167

Post by tromp »

greyface- wrote: post #160
Veserv wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 DL…

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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#168

Post by drawkbox »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #129
drawkbox wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#169

Post by dagw »

rurban wrote: post #51
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…

All three of them are uncovered, just not officially. But many do know their identities.

Even Staoshi? I know that a lot of people know who Banksy and Buckethead are, but I don't know that people know who Satoshi is.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#170

Post by ssd532 »

lisper wrote: post #24
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.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN