Tips welcome @WhoIsSatoshi
I Am Not Satoshi
111–120 of 179 posts
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to [1] and [2] I can sell 100 bitcoins for $88,631 or $96,805 at Bitstamp and Mtgox respectively - or 10,000 bitcoins for $7,155,446 and $8,797,257 As I understand it those are offers to buy that are on the market right now, so you could execute the trades instantly. [1] http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_depth.html [2] http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD_depth.html
Yes, but in doing so you increase supply and therefore decrease the price. When you have a large amount of bitcoins, selling them all means flooding the market and ultimately selling them at a very low price. The best you can do is sell a portion every day.
We are only talking about 1000 in this case. There is enough book depth to sell 1000.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#113I doubt the real identity of Satoshi will ever be revealed. Seriously, if the claims of Satoshi mining the first 20,000 Bitcoins is true (with a value of almost one billion), would he seriously want to be publicly known? I would imagine the FBI amongst other Government organisations and figures would love nothing more than to pick Satoshi's brain (by force if need be) if his or her identity were to ever be truly reve…
It would be interesting if (inplementors of a majority of the client software installed base of) the community declared and anti-hoarders coup, and refused to verify transactions involving the low ID bitcoins.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get that 20,000 Bitcoins are worth (even hypothetically) one billion? Even at $1,000 per BTC that's just $20M.
Some people estimate his net worth to have been not 20,000, but 1.6 million bitcoins. That adds to over a billion dollars. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the...
But $1B in nominal marginal priced BTC is faaar less liquid (less order book depth) than most other assets.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were published in an academic journal, the journal would publish these remarks by Dustin Trammell in the next issue. But this "paper" was published online without peer review, so it's up to Ron and Shamir to do the right thing.
Most of the research Shamir does at this point is basically crap like this, which is why it's on a website instead of in a conference or journal.
Exposing a weakness in the post-journal open access publishing model. Non peer reviewed work getting more attention thannpeer reviewed work. At least on boards like HN, which I guess never respected the academic community as much as bloggers anyway.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a positive thing, because it only grows trust between members of community.
I don't think so; witch hunts didn't exactly grow trust between people in the middle ages. Witch hunts grow mob feelings between people against whoever happens to get crushed by their collective paranoia that day.
I think the parent poster meant that the witch hunts in the 21st century related to bitcoin only grow trust in the bitcoin community that witchhunts are destined to fail.
More people see that having financial privacy is a good thing, and trust in bitcoin grows.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#117This is not even the first paper by Dorit Ron and Shamir on Bitcoin; they did an analysis of the transaction graph earlier: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf And that one too was quite poorly done; from the text, it actually seemed like they thought that "the blockchain" is a file stored on blockchain.info. Disappointing from the inventor of Shamir's Secret Sharing and differential cryptanalysis.
Yes indeed. The first time they actually scraped the blockchain.info website, this time they've finally figured out that the blockchain is public and parsed a local blockchain.dat
The New World is built on the results of that generation of cryptographers, but they can't keep up.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to [1] and [2] I can sell 100 bitcoins for $88,631 or $96,805 at Bitstamp and Mtgox respectively - or 10,000 bitcoins for $7,155,446 and $8,797,257 As I understand it those are offers to buy that are on the market right now, so you could execute the trades instantly. [1] http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_depth.html [2] http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD_depth.html
Yes, that's correct. The market isn't nearly as illiquid as some of the commentors on this forum would like you to think.
According to my calculator, selling 1000 BTC on Bitstamp would yield $867,833 with a slippage/liquidity cost of $28,958, or around 3% of 'face value.'
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a positive thing, because it only grows trust between members of community.
I don't think so; witch hunts didn't exactly grow trust between people in the middle ages. Witch hunts grow mob feelings between people against whoever happens to get crushed by their collective paranoia that day.
I thought the parent was being sarcastic.
Re: I Am Not Satoshi
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a simple white paper, offered up anonymously for only what it was. It made no claims which have been demonstrated to be false, which is more than you can say about the paper being discussed here. The Bitcoin whitepaper does what it says on the tin, you're the one inventing criteria for it that it doesn't meet. The white paper is also remarkably readable, which is something you can't say for most academic works…
"It made no claims which have been demonstrated to be false" That is because no falsifiable claims were made. (Edit: Strictly speaking, this is not true. Falsifiable claims were made; this, for example: An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent. This claim has already been falsified: an attacker who can control the block chain can also selectively deny transac…
> If a paper does not cite the relevant previous work,
This is elevating form above substance. Ron & Shamir's work has the proper form, the proper names, and yet the material it contains is rubbish. It cites "relevant previous work", so long as you think that none of the work in industry is relevant.
The gold standard should not be if a work follows a set of practices, advisable as they may be, it should be if a work advances the understanding of mankind. One of these papers did, the other does not.