Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 287 posts

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#261

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

upofadown wrote: post #228

>Furthermore, Satoshi Nakamoto has a known PGP public key, therefore it is cryptographically possible for someone to verify themselves to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I find cryptographic signatures fascinating in that they didn't exist 50 years ago. They are a completely new discovery. The long term implications are not yet clear. They are fundamentally different from the paper and ink signatures they are named after in tha…

In 1655 an astronomer discovered Saturn's moon Titan. He wasn't sure of his observation but wanted to preserve his priority. So he scrambled text of his discovery in an order only he knew (a private key) and published the resulting gibberish. In this way he made it possible to verify himself later as an author of the discovery. Maybe not a very strong encryption by today's standards, but good enough for the time.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#262

Post by imaginenore »

Thorentis wrote: post #210

He seems like somebody who is very concerned with taking credit for things. And not just in a "hey, I made that!" kind of way, but in a "I will sue people who say I didn't make it. " [0] kind of way. This alone is enough for me dismiss his claims. Satoshi clearly intentionally wanted to remain unknown. It might be a real name, but it likely isn't. There was plenty of opportunity to reveal himself. Now that BTC is sud…

If CSW wanted to prove he is Satoshi, he could easily do it by signing a message with the private keys of one of the early blocks. A simple message "CSW is Satoshi" would be enough for me.

But he absolutely is not Satoshi. And neither is Adam Back.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#263

Post by SilasX »

Vespasian wrote: post #183
SilasX wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more worried about whether a pseudonym can (with legal credibility) place their work under an MIT or other Free license.

I don't see a reason why not. If it's an original copyrightable work one would assume that the author can grant rights to others or the public. IANAL and the legal system is sometimes strange, but there is no obligation to register yourself as a copyright holder.

Right but I was thinking more in terms of there being no legal person to say, should it go to court, “Nah, I totes licensed that for anyone to use.”

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#264

Post by randomopining »

whoisjohnkid wrote: post #252
randomopining wrote: post #220

Bitcoin slow descent to zero? Or buying opportunity before the next moonshot?

no way to tell for sure, but the stock to flow model has been pretty accurate over the years and it projects around $90k+ by year end ... institutions like PayPal are buying directly from miners, others are applying with SEC to buy BTC for their funds ... price looks shaky, but the big players seem confident in the fundamentals ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or are they just getting in to be the ones selling the axes during the gold rush?

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#265

Post by mleonhard »

vmception wrote: post #50
Nursie wrote: post #8

Isn't this guy literally billions in the hole to the estate of someone he claims was his partner in creating BTC, and who is co-owner of the Satoshi hoard of coins which haven't moved (ever)? Did that court case ever finish or is he still using every trick in the book to draw it out? (Kleiman v. Wright, that's what I'm thinking of) (Looks like it got kicked back to June this year due to covid)

Yes, he failed to produce any keys, the courier with the keys never materialized, the judge has not thrown Craig Wright in jail for contempt of court nor has be been charged with perjury. The judge seems to be mildly entertained by this and views Craig Wright as mentally ill, but won't have him committed. It is all sad and strange. There are a lot of guardrails against using the system this way, but they aren't being…

When a mentally-unstable person uses the courts improperly, the court can label them "vexatious litigant" [0]. Then they must receive permission from a judge to file any new lawsuits. Courts don't do such things quickly.

It's not the job of courts to force people into the care of the a mental institution. The government must petition the court for permission to do that and show that the person is a danger to themselves or others [1]. Sometimes a court will recommend mental hospital rather than prison for a convicted criminal. This Craig Wright person doesn't seem to be using violence on himself or others and hasn't been accused of a crime. Therefore the system will not force him into a mental institution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman–Petris–Short_Act

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#266

Post by garmaine »

lawn wrote: post #226
garmaine wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because people don’t use highly volatile speculative assets for everyday transactions. But I know you’re referring to the transaction fees, and it would only be fair to point out that the cost of a lightning transaction is a few cents.

And it is only fair to point out that to use lightning you first need an on-chain transaction to enter it, and then you need to have another one in reserve so you don't lose your money. And then you need another one if you want to top it up with more money. And if the node you connect to goes down or you can't find a route you need to open a new channel... Or you use a functional cryptocurrency that don't have these…

“A few cents” was the amortized cost of those transactions, if the lightning channel is indeed used for everyday activities.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#267

Post by mantap »

b3n wrote: post #221
jandrese wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically you have to crack hard crypto. With key lengths long enough and no mathematical weaknesses discovered in the algorithm it could easily take until the heat death of the universe.

Can't quantum computers theoretically break elliptic curve cryptography? I suspect we'll get there a bit before the heat death of the universe.

Bitcoin is actually somewhat hardened to quantum computers. Quantum computers can break ECC but are much less effective against hash functions. You can't attack the public key offline because it's not usually part of the blockchain, only the fingerprint is.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#268

Post by DonHopkins »

ruined wrote: post #184
DonHopkins wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just goes to show that effective assassination markets need to be centralized and corporate, not distributed and anonymous.

Unfortunately the operating space is monopolized in every jurisdiction with strong barriers against new entrants. Regulatory capture is so thorough at this point it will probably take an unforeseen externality to generate any disruption.

Uber Offs!

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#269

Post by SkyMarshal »

xiphias2 wrote: post #234
SkyMarshal wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and we’re already seeing exactly what happens with bigger blocks from Ethereum. The entire thing is being run on Consensys’s centralized Infura servers on AWS. It’s not even decentralized. This is an unavoidable physical constraint given Bitcoin’s architecture. You can either prioritize decentralization (and with it, censorship resistance), or you can prioritize TPS or in Ethereum’s case heavy-weigh smart contra…

While I agree with you on everything, and I'm all in on BTC as a store of value, I love some of the contracts that are built on top of Ethereum. Uniswap is an example system that should be implemented in Bitcoin as well over time, as it brings transparency to trading and asset ownership. It doesn't need turing completeness (so gas is not required), though as it needs state management, I think it's important to be abl…

Yes Ethereum is useful and interesting as an experimental platform to see what's possible with this new tech, and what better-designed L1 protocols, programming languages, and APIs may be able to support.

But I'm not comfortable with their marketing it as a "world computer" among other things, implying it's more production-ready and robust than it really is.

Post reply on HN