21–30 of 76 posts
This is the first article I've ever read that managed to explain cryptographical stuff in simple terms without making my head spin.
> As a result, most of the decisions that Satoshi Nakamoto made in 2008 we are essentially stuck with. Every single time I read something about what 'Satoshi Nakamoto' did in designing, implementing and securing Bitcoin, I grow more skeptical that one person, or even a small group of people, created Bitcoin. It is very difficult to believe that something this sophisticated was developed by anyone other than a well fi…
"This article suggests that Bitcoin was made difficult or impossible to fork by-design, which implies that the creator doesn't want to allow anyone to seize control of Bitcoin."
Well, source code is easy to change and fork. But because this would create a fork in the block chain, you would end up with a different Bitcoin network that does not recognize transactions of the original Bitcoin network.
"Who would go through all that trouble to create it?"
Version 0.1.0 is only 13k lines of code.
"What can they gain from Bitcoin's existence?"
Someone wanted to experiment with his ideas about a revolutionary peer-to-peer currency/payment network, and maybe hoped to inspire others with his creation? Some people enjoy experimenting with cool ideas just for the heck of it. What was Linus Torvalds thinking he would gain from writing the first version of Linux? Anyway, the success of Bitcoin so far is probably beyond what Satoshi envisioned as probable (although he may have seen it as possible).
> As a result, most of the decisions that Satoshi Nakamoto made in 2008 we are essentially stuck with. Every single time I read something about what 'Satoshi Nakamoto' did in designing, implementing and securing Bitcoin, I grow more skeptical that one person, or even a small group of people, created Bitcoin. It is very difficult to believe that something this sophisticated was developed by anyone other than a well fi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All three inventors explicitly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto Obviously if the inventor was not a single person, but the result of a group effort, one could truthfully reply that they were not the inventor.
Why would you even assume that they replied truthfully?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my thoughts exactly. For those who don't know, never ever use floats for things like money. Try in windows calculator for example sqrt(4) - 2 and see why. Strangely enough he talks about floating point rounding errors in one of the next paragraphs?
It's explained rather well in the article, over several paragraphs, why it's okay to use floating point in this case. The first thing we did in the programming class at university was to learn how the IEEE floating point standard works...
> As a result, most of the decisions that Satoshi Nakamoto made in 2008 we are essentially stuck with. Every single time I read something about what 'Satoshi Nakamoto' did in designing, implementing and securing Bitcoin, I grow more skeptical that one person, or even a small group of people, created Bitcoin. It is very difficult to believe that something this sophisticated was developed by anyone other than a well fi…
I think Bitcoin has been designed by a single person. The source code alone of version 0.1.0 was not very complex, see my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6561079 And most of the crytographic choices are logical and could have been taken by a person reasonably well-educated in computer security and cryptography who pays attention to details. This is my opinion as a pentester / IT security researcher / develo…
Not that nobody else has found him out (definitely possible/plausible, and some people claim to have successfully used web tracking bugs to get an IP).
Satoshi Nakamoto:
1. never publicly claimed any credit for the idea of bitcoin... think about it, he doesn't claim he invented the idea, he just put it forward and kind of said, what if... ?
2. never spent or moved his massive holdings of BTC which are easy to identify because they are some of the oldest blocks in the blockchain
3. never exercised his power to shape bitcoin, especially after the end of 2011 - aside from code contributions and that doesn't count since everyone involved can think about it and decide to accept it or not - each code contribution is a potential fork so don't underestimate the care taken on the official bitcoin client
4. never slipped up and revealed his identity or even his _timezone_ !
That's a preponderance of evidence to me. I'll understand if you're not convinced but this is the kind of PR management that a single person just can't pull off!
What can they gain from Bitcoin's existence? Only all the economic benefits from a _viable_ digital currency. All previous attempts at digital currency are weak in comparison. And currency market manipulation is by far the most profitable game, like that even needed to be said.
Who would go through all that trouble? In a world where a US Agency (NSA) has successfully tapped almost the entire internet, maybe it's time to accept that this kind of advanced planning is within reach.
It helps to point out some common misconceptions about Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not guarantee anonymity, despite the p2p elements of the protocol - far from it. Bitcoin is much more flexible than you think, for example the "1" prefix on all addresses currently. Bitcoin does not have to succeed or last forever, the idea has been planted and isn't going away.
All markets are a mix of manipulation and organic behavior. Factor that into your plans and Bitcoin makes a lot more sense.
- posted anonymously
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's explained rather well in the article, over several paragraphs, why it's okay to use floating point in this case. The first thing we did in the programming class at university was to learn how the IEEE floating point standard works...
That sounds like a very dull programming class...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Bitcoin has been designed by a single person. The source code alone of version 0.1.0 was not very complex, see my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6561079 And most of the crytographic choices are logical and could have been taken by a person reasonably well-educated in computer security and cryptography who pays attention to details. This is my opinion as a pentester / IT security researcher / develo…
If there was one concrete point relevant to Satoshi Nakamoto's identity, especially that it is absolutely _not_ a single person, it's what he has never done... Not that nobody else has found him out (definitely possible/plausible, and some people claim to have successfully used web tracking bugs to get an IP). Satoshi Nakamoto: 1. never publicly claimed any credit for the idea of bitcoin... think about it, he doesn't…
The more persons would be behind the Satoshi identity, the more chances there would be for mistakes or leaks: one of them spending/stealing the BTC, one of them boasting about the secret Bitcoin project, or revealing it while intoxicated at a party, etc.
> As a result, most of the decisions that Satoshi Nakamoto made in 2008 we are essentially stuck with. Every single time I read something about what 'Satoshi Nakamoto' did in designing, implementing and securing Bitcoin, I grow more skeptical that one person, or even a small group of people, created Bitcoin. It is very difficult to believe that something this sophisticated was developed by anyone other than a well fi…
Hilarious. A "well financed, nation-state backed organisation" just gave us the Obamacare website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there was one concrete point relevant to Satoshi Nakamoto's identity, especially that it is absolutely _not_ a single person, it's what he has never done... Not that nobody else has found him out (definitely possible/plausible, and some people claim to have successfully used web tracking bugs to get an IP). Satoshi Nakamoto: 1. never publicly claimed any credit for the idea of bitcoin... think about it, he doesn't…
I'd say points #1 through #4 promote the theory that Satoshi is a single person. The more persons would be behind the Satoshi identity, the more chances there would be for mistakes or leaks: one of them spending/stealing the BTC, one of them boasting about the secret Bitcoin project, or revealing it while intoxicated at a party, etc.
This doesn't have to be some crazy story. There's the means, the motive, and the opportunity to create Bitcoin. Why would a lone actor be so motivated to keep their identity a secret?
We obviously disagree.