Topic: John Nash created bitcoin - page 13. (Read 22254 times)
Satoshi Nakamoto will be Satoshi Nakamoto. He let his discovery be used by the people and the people are happy to it. I don't really care who Satoshi Nakamoto is, but the thing that he created bitcoin without having any credits to it is really amazing.
You won't be able to transact in BTC on chain. I explained that to you before.
There will be digital currencies and they will be regulated like 666, and you won't be able to transact on chain in Bitcoin which won't be regulated.
Satoshi designed it this way and even @dinofelis admits he did, but somehow @dinofelis can't see that such a design forces the masses off chain into the totalitarianism of 666 regulated currencies.
There will be digital currencies and they will be regulated like 666, and you won't be able to transact on chain in Bitcoin which won't be regulated.
Satoshi designed it this way and even @dinofelis admits he did, but somehow @dinofelis can't see that such a design forces the masses off chain into the totalitarianism of 666 regulated currencies.
You understand that it is not in my interest to accept 100% of what anyone says without due diligence.
Whether you (and I) are right or wrong will be revealed so in the future.
Let us just hope we don't need to wait long for it.
Remember Bitcoin is made by the elite for the elite.
Just an opinion... I believe bitcoin was made by the elite for the digital tracking of the sheeps.
I believe the money of the shadow elites is gold, and they are hoarding over 90% of it in subterranean safes.
The elites are most proficient in persuading us in exchanging fake wealth for real wealth.
It started with paper claim/paper money for gold.
Soon it will be digital money for gold.
You won't be able to transact in BTC on chain. I explained that to you before.
There will be digital currencies and they will be regulated like 666, and you won't be able to transact on chain in Bitcoin which won't be regulated.
Satoshi designed it this way and even @dinofelis admits he did, but somehow @dinofelis can't see that such a design forces the masses off chain into the totalitarianism of 666 regulated currencies.
What she told me that satoshis is a word related to taoist concept of balance of opposite (male/female, yin/yan) etc, and nakamoto mean 'the central source of'.
Nonsense + garbage.
The global elite designed multiple meanings into the choice of "Satoshi Nakamoto". And all of those meanings are intended to point out something important about Bitcoin.
Care to elaborate ? Or just a little hate burp in the morning ? 
But I said it's just a possibility, if you have more element to disprove it, go ahead, otherwise you are the one posting garbage
But from japanese these kanji can also have meaning, and they are not very common name.
But I said it's just a possibility, if you have more element to disprove it, go ahead, otherwise you are the one posting garbage
But from japanese these kanji can also have meaning, and they are not very common name.
I have origin in taoism.
Trying to interpret the meaning of "satoshi" is like looking at the clouds and say the clouds look like a rabbit, without realizing that from another perspective it could look unlike a rabbit at all.
Unless the originator of bitcoin states the true meaning of "satoshi", whatever meaning we put to it is just based on assumption.
And it is quite disrespectful to associate "satoshi" to Taoist teaching without 100% assurance and certainty.
Remember Bitcoin is made by the elite for the elite.
Just an opinion... I believe bitcoin was made by the elite for the digital tracking of the sheeps.
I believe the money of the shadow elites is gold, and they are hoarding over 90% of it in subterranean safes.
The elites are most proficient in persuading us in exchanging fake wealth for real wealth.
It started with paper claim/paper money for gold.
Soon it will be digital money for gold.
What she told me that satoshis is a word related to taoist concept of balance of opposite (male/female, yin/yan) etcel, and nakamoto mean 'the central source of'.
Nonsense + garbage.
Care to elaborate ? Or just a little hate burp in the morning ?
But I said it's just a possibility, if you have more element to disprove it, go ahead, otherwise you are the one posting garbage
But from japanese these kanji can also have meaning, and they are not very common name.
There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.
This is beginners' egregious error.
Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.
Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order
Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.
It's this principle that took me to blockchain originally because they solve lot of pb inherent to distributed / decentralized system.
What she told me that satoshis is a word related to taoist concept of balance of opposite (male/female, yin/yan) etc, and nakamoto mean 'the central source of'.
Nonsense + garbage.
I'm not invested in this stuff at all. I find it interesting because it teaches us how a non-governed trustless system behaves. If anything, it shows us how easily it is to fuck it up with innocently-looking features.
Yes, I consider bitcoin, unfortunately, totally fucked up - which doesn't mean I think it won't rise in price for the next few years or even decades - but as "money that makes free" it failed utterly as of now, 95% or more of its market cap sustained by greater fool theory, and probably less than 5% used as money in one way or another. And the last few months, I realized that this is mostly due to its design.
I'm sorry about that. I used to like bitcoin, and I used to believe that it could have been good money. It turns out it isn't. But it is a great gambler's token, and it is a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user, only for the big sleazy guys). This is why I don't like it. I think Satoshi created a monster, and that, together with a lot of technical clumsiness of the design, makes my have some doubts about him being Nash. But I'm not emotionally invested into this. In other words, when I see the work, I think it cannot be the work of a genius, or at most of a genius in a bad day. Simply because the result doesn't look very well constructed, not because it has something to do with my "world view". Bitcoin turned out to be clunky and quite ugly. If you think that a genius created something clunky and quite ugly, be my guest. I'm just pointing out that for a math genius, things don't add up, and I haven't seen any explanation of why it doesn't add up. Your "you are wrong" are not arguments, but just expressions of your un-argumented opinion.
I can write a letter to Pythagoras, saying "you are wrong, but you are suffering from cognitive dissonance". That doesn't disprove Pythagoras' theorem.
If the elements I bring up WERE truly well-thought over, I'm sure that one could explain them clearly to me, or refer to Satoshi explaining them which would even be better. I haven't looked through all of the documentation, but I have never seen (so maybe I missed it) a convincing analysis countering the indications of clumsy design I mention here *especially on the math and crypto side* which is where we could expect a guy like Nash to be top-level.
The design looks rather like someone having some notions of cryptography, having read some elements of security (like double hashing, which is also used when useful and when not useful), being selectively paranoid (using RIPEM-160 and SHA-256 because of different designs so that back doors in them would not be simultaneously open), adhering to erroneous concepts like "the more the merrier" ("if one thing breaks, another will save it") and not able to count bits or coherently defining security, sometimes doing things to protect against quantum computers, not realizing that the rest of his design is broken under the same assumption.
I can agree with you on certain point, but I would still be more nuanced about it, it's why I said to me there are contradictory aspect to btc.
Cause on one side there are these clumpsyness , can be seen on many points.
But on the other side, still, only the fact it was by far the first working crypto currency, that it's still #1 after 8 years, and it integrate many aspect like distributed database, the sig scripts, and the whole concept still involve good design thinking. Not something pulled out in a sunday afternoon by a student .
But yeah after indexing tx on 256 bits is quite a waste. No data base system would ever do this. The only interest is maybe for separate storing of the tx, where the whole prev tx integrity can be checked by the hash, and another form of index could get wrong tx or block. But in the context of database indexing and transmission over network, clearly huge waste. Nothing use 256 bit hash of the data as index ! lol
It's why for me there are contradictory aspect making me think either it's a guy who was splinter gift in one area, and just average on others, or the concept and design from a guy, and the whole btc project made by a company to exploit it.
Either it's like work of genius where he doesnt need to put much care into things because he know exactly where he want to get at, and make the choice with a specific life time in mind with enough security for the use case in that time frame.
And sometime, the impression of security is more important than actual security, specially when talking to investors or the masses, since I saw the movie equity im not the same lol
It's why to me most of decision seem to have Been taken more in the context of startup thinking from a company, rather than by some nerds math genius.
But still the overall design is still smart, even if it contain lots of things that "look secure and good" for average and investor, but clumpsy and not optimal from expert analysis.
But I cant get out of my mind that there is still a brain behind the concept. Either the btc dev copied the base from something else, or he developped it iteratively, and left some things designed for something else.
But it still contain too much new things and mathematically / economically sound concept, still #1 after 8 years for me to think it's just a student in his basement.
For me the clumsiness can be explained by :
Complex math theories implemented in cheap code
Targeted more to investor traders and gamblers rather than to developpers or expert
Severe time constraint on the development
But again maybe maybe not, it's hard to be sure of anything, neither about the original intention or if it evolved as planned.
There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain. It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO. No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !
Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.
This is beginners' egregious error.
Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.
For countries that honor SEPA and are included in it, it allows them to easily transfer money including bitcoin.
I didn't know that SEPA can transfer BTC. Is it off chain?
Can you refer me to a document about that?
But I consider that as a design error. Visibly he didn't realize the amount of wasted power that would go into his system.
Everything in Bitcoin was calculated for a reason.
Remember Bitcoin is made by the elite for the elite.
And I had already refuted your excessive hashrate cost argument in another thread. You are quite disingenuous because you continue to claim issues that had already been refuted.
You disingenuously continue to pretend they weren't disproved.
So frankly we are reaching the point where we can't continue to have any dialogue because I don't waste my time with people who are disingenuous.
Ask yourself whose world view is hurt most:
- mine if ever it turned out that Nash was Satoshi (making me conclude that Nash's genius was probably having a bad day - can happen, given bitcoin's clunky design)
- yours if ever it turned out that Satoshi was just a guy in his basement
- mine if ever it turned out that Nash was Satoshi (making me conclude that Nash's genius was probably having a bad day - can happen, given bitcoin's clunky design)
- yours if ever it turned out that Satoshi was just a guy in his basement
I am not the one suffering from cognitive dissonance
You continue to repeat that lie (opinion) about Bitcoin having clunky design. Bitcoin has a perfect design for what the elite want.
You will suffer the most because you are not preparing for the fact that Bitcoin is a 666 tool of the elite. And you are not preparing for the fact that the EU totalitarianism where you are will get horrifically worse. You think the crisis is over in Europe. Lol.
For me it doesn't matter who coded Bitcoin, but rather whose design principles Bitcoin was modeled on. And what is the outcome of Bitcoin going to be and its impact on the world.
You think Bitcoin is a silly toy that will fade away. I think Bitcoin will become a key part of the new financial system after the global monetary reset coming in the horrific sovereign debt totalitarianism collapse underway.
I'm sorry about that.
Why are you sorry? I hate Bitcoin too (long-term, its okay for my uses short-term). But I know Bitcoin is unstoppable although I wish it could be stopped.
I can write a letter to Pythagoras, saying "you are wrong, but you are suffering from cognitive dissonance". That doesn't disprove Pythagoras' theorem.
You were disproven. You might be blind or disingenuous and unwilling to figure it out, but that is not my responsibility to fix.
95% or more of its market cap sustained by greater fool theory, and probably less than 5% used as money in one way or another
So is the entire fiat system. Have you not seen the $quadrillion in global derivatives holding up the fiat system.
You don't understand what money is. Finance is primary user of money, not the masses.
Bitcoin is the high powered reserve currency money of decentralized finance for $billionaires. You have no clue as to what is really going on. You are totally lost.
it is a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user, only for the big sleazy guys).
Which is 95% of all business.
You don't seem to grasp that Bitcoin is how the banksters-gangsters will carry forward their wealth from the collapsing nation-state monetary system to the new one coming after 2024.
This is why I don't like it. I think Satoshi created a monster
I don't like it either, but neither of us can stop it. You are highly underestimating the evil rise of Bitcoin.
In other words, when I see the work, I think it cannot be the work of a genius, or at most of a genius in a bad day.
Consider the genius is evil. Then you realize Bitcoin could have been designed by an evil genius. The reason you think it is not designed by genius, because you don't understand the real goal of Bitcoin. Thus you misattribute clumsiness where the truth is it was cleverly designed that way to serve an evil purpose.
In regards to John Nash creating Bitcoin I think I could just as well say someone else created it. I don’t think we will ever know for sure.
It will be available on Litecoin. The masses will be transacting on Litecoin or some other off chain derivative of Bitcoin or even fiat system ecurrency such as SEPA. Bitcoin's protocol will not be modified.
What's this SEPA stands for? First time I come upon it.
Anyway, I hope bitcoin will someday be worth enough for me to buy some Mercedes/BMW suv.
In regards to John Nash creating Bitcoin I think I could just as well say someone else created it. I don’t think we will ever know for sure.
You simply do not understand the role of money in this world, and are a perfect example of why Satoshi never explained what bitcoin truly was.
Agreed. It is actually pointless (and counter-productive) to tell a man something he doesn't want to know.
I'm sorry about that. I used to like bitcoin, and I used to believe that it could have been good money. It turns out it isn't. But it is a great gambler's token, and it is a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user, only for the big sleazy guys). This is why I don't like it. I think Satoshi created a monster, and that, together with a lot of technical clumsiness of the design, makes my have some doubts about him being Nash. But I'm not emotionally invested into this. In other words, when I see the work, I think it cannot be the work of a genius, or at most of a genius in a bad day. Simply because the result doesn't look very well constructed, not because it has something to do with my "world view". Bitcoin turned out to be clunky and quite ugly. If you think that a genius created something clunky and quite ugly, be my guest. I'm just pointing out that for a math genius, things don't add up, and I haven't seen any explanation of why it doesn't add up. Your "you are wrong" are not arguments, but just expressions of your un-argumented opinion.
I can write a letter to Pythagoras, saying "you are wrong, but you are suffering from cognitive dissonance". That doesn't disprove Pythagoras' theorem.
If the elements I bring up WERE truly well-thought over, I'm sure that one could explain them clearly to me, or refer to Satoshi explaining them which would even be better. I haven't looked through all of the documentation, but I have never seen (so maybe I missed it) a convincing analysis countering the indications of clumsy design I mention here *especially on the math and crypto side* which is where we could expect a guy like Nash to be top-level.
Quote
In a large state like one of the "great democracies" it is reasonable to say that the people should be able, in principle, to decide on the form of a money (like a "public utility") that they should be served by, even though most of the actual volume of the use of the money would be out of the hands of the great majority of the people.
Quote
And then the “integration” or “coordination” of those into a global currency would become just a technical problem. (Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)
Quote
Here I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.
Quote
if it were too easy to set up a form of “global money” that the version achieved might have characteristics of inferiority which would make it, compar-atively, more like a relatively inferior national currency
You simply do not understand the role of money in this world, and are a perfect example of why Satoshi never explained what bitcoin truly was.
Well, my main problem is that I haven't seen any rationally built-up argument that breaks down mine.
Now you are disingenuous. I can't help you with that.
Maybe I'm missing them.
You are. And the onus on you is to read my prior text and contemplate/assimilate all the factors. I am not going to enumerate every permutation of the facts I laid out. You are capable of doing that if you put effort into it.
Unfortunately it is a true statement that it is impossible for someone to argue with a person who is incapable of comprehending.
@dinofelis, you should be smart enough to understand what I already wrote. You have repeated your argument, which I already refuted. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an incorrect logic.
@dinofelis, you should be smart enough to understand what I already wrote. You have repeated your argument, which I already refuted. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an incorrect logic.
Well, my main problem is that I haven't seen any rationally built-up argument that breaks down mine. A statement "you are wrong" is not a rational argument, BTW.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good. It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
I already quoted Satoshi saying about the same from one of the first e-mails. So he foresaw the current situation of an oligarchy of a few miners, and all the arguments of decentralization of nodes and so on, which is clear bullshit anyways, is something I've myself tried to hammer into the head of bitcoin maximalists. But I consider that as a design error. Visibly he didn't realize the amount of wasted power that would go into his system.
Quote
Folks, I can see @dinofelis undergoing cognitive dissonance due to the shock of not wanting to admit that Satoshi was really a genius. It changes his whole interpretation of everything
Nope, I'm quite indifferent to whether Satoshi was Nash, another genius, or just a relatively smart guy but designing a prototype that contained quite a lot of "features" which, with hindsight, turned out to be design errors.
Ask yourself whose world view is hurt most:
- mine if ever it turned out that Nash was Satoshi (making me conclude that Nash's genius was probably having a bad day - can happen, given bitcoin's clunky design)
- yours if ever it turned out that Satoshi was just a guy in his basement
I'm not invested in this stuff at all. I find it interesting because it teaches us how a non-governed trustless system behaves. If anything, it shows us how easily it is to fuck it up with innocently-looking features.
Yes, I consider bitcoin, unfortunately, totally fucked up - which doesn't mean I think it won't rise in price for the next few years or even decades - but as "money that makes free" it failed utterly as of now, 95% or more of its market cap sustained by greater fool theory, and probably less than 5% used as money in one way or another. And the last few months, I realized that this is mostly due to its design.
I'm sorry about that. I used to like bitcoin, and I used to believe that it could have been good money. It turns out it isn't. But it is a great gambler's token, and it is a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user, only for the big sleazy guys). This is why I don't like it. I think Satoshi created a monster, and that, together with a lot of technical clumsiness of the design, makes my have some doubts about him being Nash. But I'm not emotionally invested into this. In other words, when I see the work, I think it cannot be the work of a genius, or at most of a genius in a bad day. Simply because the result doesn't look very well constructed, not because it has something to do with my "world view". Bitcoin turned out to be clunky and quite ugly. If you think that a genius created something clunky and quite ugly, be my guest. I'm just pointing out that for a math genius, things don't add up, and I haven't seen any explanation of why it doesn't add up. Your "you are wrong" are not arguments, but just expressions of your un-argumented opinion.
I can write a letter to Pythagoras, saying "you are wrong, but you are suffering from cognitive dissonance". That doesn't disprove Pythagoras' theorem.
If the elements I bring up WERE truly well-thought over, I'm sure that one could explain them clearly to me, or refer to Satoshi explaining them which would even be better. I haven't looked through all of the documentation, but I have never seen (so maybe I missed it) a convincing analysis countering the indications of clumsy design I mention here *especially on the math and crypto side* which is where we could expect a guy like Nash to be top-level.
The design looks rather like someone having some notions of cryptography, having read some elements of security (like double hashing, which is also used when useful and when not useful), being selectively paranoid (using RIPEM-160 and SHA-256 because of different designs so that back doors in them would not be simultaneously open), adhering to erroneous concepts like "the more the merrier" ("if one thing breaks, another will save it") and not able to count bits or coherently defining security, sometimes doing things to protect against quantum computers, not realizing that the rest of his design is broken under the same assumption.
Instead of we discussing it here let Nash come up with some genuine proofs.We all know Satoshi created bitcoin and Satoshi certainly knows how to proov his identity.
No one is going to come up with any proof and from what i understand he was good at math and not a programmer who is capable of coding this complex puzzle,it is a good try to come up with this name. It is not necessary that even Satoshi could provide any proof that he really did code the bitcoin at this juncture as any proof he comes up with could target against him,so he would keep quite rather than providing any proof.
Unfortunately it is a true statement that it is impossible for someone to argue with a person who is incapable of comprehending.
@dinofelis, you should be smart enough to understand what I already wrote. You have repeated your argument, which I already refuted. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an incorrect logic.
I see no benefit of repeating my argument. You are capable of re-reading and thinking until you get it.
I will quote what Satoshi wrote to @bytemaster (Daniel Larimer):
Folks, I can see @dinofelis undergoing cognitive dissonance due to the shock of not wanting to admit that Satoshi was really a genius. It changes his whole interpretation of everything, so it is very impossible for him to accept it immediately. Give it some time for it to sink in and he will slowly realize or become more obstinate and dig in irrational heels as Jorge Stolfi hath done.
Edit: I decided to throw him a couple more hints:
Incorrect. And I already explained why.
Whether your disbelief of the likelihood is correct or not, Satoshi had a fiduciary and marketing obligation to design as if many people do want such prudence.
@dinofelis, you should be smart enough to understand what I already wrote. You have repeated your argument, which I already refuted. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an incorrect logic.
I see no benefit of repeating my argument. You are capable of re-reading and thinking until you get it.
I will quote what Satoshi wrote to @bytemaster (Daniel Larimer):
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
Besides, 10 minutes is too long to verify that payment is good. It needs to be as fast as swiping a credit card is today.
See the snack machine thread, I outline how a payment processor could verify payments well enough, actually really well (much lower fraud rate than credit cards), in something like 10 seconds or less. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
Folks, I can see @dinofelis undergoing cognitive dissonance due to the shock of not wanting to admit that Satoshi was really a genius. It changes his whole interpretation of everything, so it is very impossible for him to accept it immediately. Give it some time for it to sink in and he will slowly realize or become more obstinate and dig in irrational heels as Jorge Stolfi hath done.
Edit: I decided to throw him a couple more hints:
The 160 bit hash security is USELESS if the 128 bit ECC is not secure.
Incorrect. And I already explained why.
I'm perfectly aware that ECC has a higher chance of being broken than a hash function. I'm not believing in quantum computers, though.
Whether your disbelief of the likelihood is correct or not, Satoshi had a fiduciary and marketing obligation to design as if many people do want such prudence.
Jump to: