Topic: New York Times identifies Nick Szabo as Satoshi Nakamoto - page 2. (Read 14257 times)
Nick Szabo is not Satoshi Nakamoto. Nick Szabo met Satoshi Nakamoto once in London in December 2013. Actually Nick Szabo was spying on him. Satoshi Nakamoto spoke to him for a while and offer him the position 'Captain' for Satoshi Nakamoto's CWG Space Ship but Nick Szabo quickly run away from Satoshi Nakamoto with some sort of pride.
Wait....
I am a little bit confused.
I thought Nick Szabo was a pseudonym...
You guys are now saying it's a real name?
I am a little bit confused.
I thought Nick Szabo was a pseudonym...
You guys are now saying it's a real name?
Yes, that's what they're saying. They also have a photo above proving that Greg Maxwell is a former roadie for Crosby, Stills & Nash. It may be Maxwell in the rear left of this image but the face is cut off.
He got the roadie gig because he's the bastard child of Jerry Garcia (humor at the expense of Greg's mother).
You, who choose to lead, must follow
But if you fall you fall alone.
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
But if you fall you fall alone.
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
I'm a bit young to have been a roadie for CSNY in the mid 70s, but heres the oldest picture of me I can find to aid in your diligent sleuthing:
(God knows, one of you will find a picture with me and John Perry Barlow and consider Glebs most crazy theories confirmed... and I can imagine little funnier than that.)
I knew it! Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young and Maxwell.
I was more of a Beach Boys, Dick Dale kid myself.
Wait....
I am a little bit confused.
I thought Nick Szabo was a pseudonym...
You guys are now saying it's a real name?
I am a little bit confused.
I thought Nick Szabo was a pseudonym...
You guys are now saying it's a real name?
Yes, that's what they're saying. They also have a photo above proving that Greg Maxwell is a former roadie for Crosby, Stills & Nash. It may be Maxwell in the rear left of this image but the face is cut off.
He got the roadie gig because he's the bastard child of Jerry Garcia (humor at the expense of Greg's mother).
You, who choose to lead, must follow
But if you fall you fall alone.
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
But if you fall you fall alone.
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
I'm a bit young to have been a roadie for CSNY in the mid 70s, but heres the oldest picture of me I can find to aid in your diligent sleuthing:
(God knows, one of you will find a picture with me and John Perry Barlow and consider Glebs most crazy theories confirmed... and I can imagine little funnier than that.)
I read this article on my lunch today and I have to point out that I wouldn't say that the article actually identifies Szabo as Satoshi. Definitely not the way that Newsweek did with that fellow last year. Instead, this article merely highlights the fact that Szabo is among a small group of (known) people who have the potential to be Satoshi, and it talks about the evidence for that. From my reading of it, I think saying that they "identify" Szabo as Satoshi Nakamoto is going too far.
They actually say "may indeed be". This can be used when they just want to bla bla of something but not exactly say anything. So no one will be able to tell them they were wrong at the end.
That being the case, NYT could've easily penned "there's insurmountable proof that" and still have their asses covered.
Hey Bruno, could you call Rassah (Dmitry) at home and ask him to check the forum BTC100 thread. There are people in the thread that have been trying to contact him for a while. Thanks
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
I read this article on my lunch today and I have to point out that I wouldn't say that the article actually identifies Szabo as Satoshi. Definitely not the way that Newsweek did with that fellow last year. Instead, this article merely highlights the fact that Szabo is among a small group of (known) people who have the potential to be Satoshi, and it talks about the evidence for that. From my reading of it, I think saying that they "identify" Szabo as Satoshi Nakamoto is going too far.
They actually say "may indeed be". This can be used when they just want to bla bla of something but not exactly say anything. So no one will be able to tell them they were wrong at the end.
That being the case, NYT could've easily penned "there's insurmountable proof that" and still have their asses covered.
I read this article on my lunch today and I have to point out that I wouldn't say that the article actually identifies Szabo as Satoshi. Definitely not the way that Newsweek did with that fellow last year. Instead, this article merely highlights the fact that Szabo is among a small group of (known) people who have the potential to be Satoshi, and it talks about the evidence for that. From my reading of it, I think saying that they "identify" Szabo as Satoshi Nakamoto is going too far.
They actually say "may indeed be". This can be used when they just want to bla bla of something but not exactly say anything. So no one will be able to tell them they were wrong at the end.
Well if someone sat on me till I bet 1 BTC on who is or who is not Satoshi...if I was allowed my bet would be (sad to say) that he somehow
has already 'passed away' ...it would explain much
1) how he can remain unknown so well...no activity to trace only past actions/threads
2) why the large addresses have never been touched (hard to do from the after life)
3) and lastly not like most of us mortals who would have been 'tempted' by the fame/money/super models/ etc (did I mention super models would be my krptonite)
ie hard to do if you passed away
just saying ....fits the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) and addresses all we know w/o any secrets to keep (nor temptations to try)
hope I'm wrong ..but my view again if someone sat on me and made me bet 1 BTC on this mystery
1) If you go into dedicating yourself to being anon and you know what you're doing it probably isn't that hard. I guess most people on this forum could remain anon if they really wanted to. Just create a new handle and use tor and be careful with your transactions.
2 &3) This is a big quandary. It's hard to imagine anyone resisting the urge to not dip into the money but some people are not materialistic or he might already be very well off. Maybe he's just bitcoin's biggest hodler as well waiting to cashout later? Who knows but thats part of the intreague and mystery surrounding satoshi.
Well if someone sat on me till I bet 1 BTC on who is or who is not Satoshi...if I was allowed my bet would be (sad to say) that he somehow
has already 'passed away' ...it would explain much
1) how he can remain unknown so well...no activity to trace only past actions/threads
2) why the large addresses have never been touched (hard to do from the after life)
3) and lastly not like most of us mortals who would have been 'tempted' by the fame/money/super models/ etc (did I mention super models would be my krptonite)
ie hard to do if you passed away
just saying ....fits the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) and addresses all we know w/o any secrets to keep (nor temptations to try)
hope I'm wrong ..but my view again if someone sat on me and made me bet 1 BTC on this mystery
The history of Bitcoin goes back to the 1970's!
A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and
Public-Key Cryptosystems
http://ocw.bib.upct.es/pluginfile.php/5337/mod_resource/content/1/rsa_base.pdf
Lots of people have contributed to the creation of Bitcoin. The release itself is an icon, showcasing all the best of what people have made in cryptography past decades.
A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and
Public-Key Cryptosystems
http://ocw.bib.upct.es/pluginfile.php/5337/mod_resource/content/1/rsa_base.pdf
Lots of people have contributed to the creation of Bitcoin. The release itself is an icon, showcasing all the best of what people have made in cryptography past decades.
You're just expanding upon my Tales To And From The Cryp.
The history of Bitcoin goes back to the 1970's!
A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and
Public-Key Cryptosystems
http://ocw.bib.upct.es/pluginfile.php/5337/mod_resource/content/1/rsa_base.pdf
Lots of people have contributed to the creation of Bitcoin. The release itself is an icon, showcasing all the best of what people have made in cryptography past decades.
A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and
Public-Key Cryptosystems
http://ocw.bib.upct.es/pluginfile.php/5337/mod_resource/content/1/rsa_base.pdf
Lots of people have contributed to the creation of Bitcoin. The release itself is an icon, showcasing all the best of what people have made in cryptography past decades.
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicProperty/DigiCashImplementations.html
Quote
For those who want to dive in to current applications,
there are two implementations of software digital cash that
I know of out there:
* The Magic Money (MM) system. This is source code freeware, but
for experimental purposes only, unless you arrange the appropriate
licenses. The client (used by vendors and customers) and server
(token issuer) can be run over e-mail or sockets, and probably with
some modification over http. MM implements a full online digital
cash protocol, but it is written as an experimental system by
and for programmers, so there is no good user interface, and
there is no software connecting the server to financial networks
or real banks. This is the only digital cash software out
there where you can look at the source code, and hack it to your
heart's content.
I don't have the latest ftp information (it keeps changing,
due to crazy U.S. crypto export restrictions access is
restricted to North Americans); query the newsgroup alt.security.pgp
for the latest details. At least two servers were set up
a few months ago for experiments; I don't know if they're
still running: contact Matt Thomlison ([email protected])
and Mike Duvos ([email protected]).
* The commercial ECash software digital cash from David
Chaum's company DigiCash. Chaum is the guru of digital cash,
so I expect this will be a very solid implementation. It
runs over Mosaic, and from what I hear has a good user interface.
It is somewhere near or in beta test. http://digicash.support.nl
for details, and pointers to Chaum's many fine papers,
which are necessary for understanding how the protocols
really work.
* The NetCash system. This isn't digital cash, since
it has no privacy feature, but until ECash is released it
might make a good entry level system for some vendors
and customers.
There are probably over a dozen acedemicians working on new
or refined digital cash protocols, and several commercial smart
card based digital cash systems are likely under development
(including the Mondex trials currently underway in Britain).
Hal Finney often posts good articles on new digital cash
protocols to the cypherpunks list ([email protected]), most
recently Stefan Brand's greatly improved offline protocol.
Cypherpunks also has excellent coverage of legal, political,
and technical issues of cryptography in general, as do the
newsgroups talk.politics.crypto, sci.crypt, and alt.security.pgp.
And it bears repeating, to fully learn the protocols
you'll need to dive in to the original papers in the _Crypto_
and _Eurocrypt_ conference proceedings.
Besides implementations, the most important work that I see
needs to be done right now is (1) the marketing studies, so
that we can replace our speculations about desire
for privacy, customers and vendors outside the credit card
system, etc. with solid facts, (2) implementing the
interface of the digital cash server to current financial
networks (along with designing good legal and business
models: token server, bank, billing company, etc.), (3) modifying
current online services to accept digital cash, with the
verify/provide service sequence, and (4) designing full online
business concepts and transaction protocols around digital cash,
for example "information vending machines" run by part-time
entrepreneurs. I suspect that (3) and (4) are the best
fit to members of this list, and I'd be happy to consult
with folks seriously pursuing these tasks.
It's also good to keep in mind, as I pointed out in my
essay "Smart Contracts", that while the protocols are
dubbed "digital cash", they really implement something
more general, the digital bearer instrument, of which cash
is only one example. The protocol objects could just as
easily be tokens, coupons, bearer bonds, or a wide variety
of other bearer instruments. We might build in additional
features, such as activation dates, expiration dates, and
tear-off coupons for scheduled payments. Perhaps we
could design new instruments that are especially useful
for Internet information vending.
Nick Szabo [email protected]
there are two implementations of software digital cash that
I know of out there:
* The Magic Money (MM) system. This is source code freeware, but
for experimental purposes only, unless you arrange the appropriate
licenses. The client (used by vendors and customers) and server
(token issuer) can be run over e-mail or sockets, and probably with
some modification over http. MM implements a full online digital
cash protocol, but it is written as an experimental system by
and for programmers, so there is no good user interface, and
there is no software connecting the server to financial networks
or real banks. This is the only digital cash software out
there where you can look at the source code, and hack it to your
heart's content.
I don't have the latest ftp information (it keeps changing,
due to crazy U.S. crypto export restrictions access is
restricted to North Americans); query the newsgroup alt.security.pgp
for the latest details. At least two servers were set up
a few months ago for experiments; I don't know if they're
still running: contact Matt Thomlison ([email protected])
and Mike Duvos ([email protected]).
* The commercial ECash software digital cash from David
Chaum's company DigiCash. Chaum is the guru of digital cash,
so I expect this will be a very solid implementation. It
runs over Mosaic, and from what I hear has a good user interface.
It is somewhere near or in beta test. http://digicash.support.nl
for details, and pointers to Chaum's many fine papers,
which are necessary for understanding how the protocols
really work.
* The NetCash system. This isn't digital cash, since
it has no privacy feature, but until ECash is released it
might make a good entry level system for some vendors
and customers.
There are probably over a dozen acedemicians working on new
or refined digital cash protocols, and several commercial smart
card based digital cash systems are likely under development
(including the Mondex trials currently underway in Britain).
Hal Finney often posts good articles on new digital cash
protocols to the cypherpunks list ([email protected]), most
recently Stefan Brand's greatly improved offline protocol.
Cypherpunks also has excellent coverage of legal, political,
and technical issues of cryptography in general, as do the
newsgroups talk.politics.crypto, sci.crypt, and alt.security.pgp.
And it bears repeating, to fully learn the protocols
you'll need to dive in to the original papers in the _Crypto_
and _Eurocrypt_ conference proceedings.
Besides implementations, the most important work that I see
needs to be done right now is (1) the marketing studies, so
that we can replace our speculations about desire
for privacy, customers and vendors outside the credit card
system, etc. with solid facts, (2) implementing the
interface of the digital cash server to current financial
networks (along with designing good legal and business
models: token server, bank, billing company, etc.), (3) modifying
current online services to accept digital cash, with the
verify/provide service sequence, and (4) designing full online
business concepts and transaction protocols around digital cash,
for example "information vending machines" run by part-time
entrepreneurs. I suspect that (3) and (4) are the best
fit to members of this list, and I'd be happy to consult
with folks seriously pursuing these tasks.
It's also good to keep in mind, as I pointed out in my
essay "Smart Contracts", that while the protocols are
dubbed "digital cash", they really implement something
more general, the digital bearer instrument, of which cash
is only one example. The protocol objects could just as
easily be tokens, coupons, bearer bonds, or a wide variety
of other bearer instruments. We might build in additional
features, such as activation dates, expiration dates, and
tear-off coupons for scheduled payments. Perhaps we
could design new instruments that are especially useful
for Internet information vending.
Nick Szabo [email protected]
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/buying-immortality-with-bitcoins
Quote
In February, the SENS Foundation—a life-extension research institute led by anti-ageing crusader Aubrey de Grey—announced on its website that it would start accepting donations in bitcoins.
The decision was made after SENS started receiving a trickle of messages from bitcoiners willing to invest their cryptocurrency reserves in the institute’s quest for eternal youth. Jerri Barrett, SENS’s vice-president of outreach and the person who would read those emails, initially answered that they didn’t take bitcoins. But requests kept coming.
“I ended up making a file with all the messages.” Barrett told me on a Skype call. “I just decided: when I get another mail about giving us bitcoins we’ll have to set up something to accept it.” So it was.
Bitcoin has caught on everywhere, but the story of SENS’s eager Bitcoin donors piqued my interest: It was just the latest in a row of cases linking interest in cryptocurrency with interest in life-extension or other transhumanist projects. It looked like there was an unspoken, long-running connection between the two things.
The link is typified, for instance, by the Lifeboat Foundation, a nonprofit devoted to safely steering humankind to the Singularity by financing ventures such as asteroid shields and brain uploading. In 2013, it published a statement declaring its commitment to cryptocurrency: “We are now working to have the majority of our funding come from 21st century money—money backed not by governments but by algorithms,” the post read. “The 21st century money Lifeboat is currently focused on is bitcoins.”
The organisation subsequently activated 13 wallets to receive Bitcoin contributions; today its “Bitcoin endowment” has grown to $192,301 as of the time of writing (it was worth much more before Bitcoin’s fall earlier this winter.)
Similarly, US cryonics company Alcor has been allowing its patients to pay in bitcoins since late 2012. Alcor’s spokesperson told me in an email that as yet only a couple of people have paid that way: one of them was the cypherpunk thinker Hal Finney, who died and was cryopreserved by Alcor in summer 2014. Finney, an inveterate transhumanist, was also the first person to ever receive a Bitcoin transaction back in 2009.
Alcor CEO Max More with cryogenic chambers. Image: Daniel Oberhaus
"Hal, I got the coffee you requested, now knock three times to let me know if you still want it."
A quick tour around the legion of transhumanist/longevist websites and forums also shows that Bitcoin is an omnipresent topic of discussion, to the point that one of the objectives initially put forward by the UK Transhumanist Party in a preparatory document for its manifesto was “[bringing about a] more sustainable cryptocurrency.
How come people who want to live forever are also likely to pay for it in bitcoins? One common answer is that bitcoiners and transhumanists are cut from the same cloth.
Trace Mayer, a Bitcoin-focused blogger who sits on the economics board of Lifeboat, boils it all down to genius. “The people involved in Bitcoin are some of the smartest in the world. They have very high IQs and are very well read. In the same way, to understand the science of life-extension you have to be very smart, too,” he told me in a Skype call. “It’s not really a common interest, it’s just that they’re smart people.”
A less self-congratulatory take is that both transhumanism and Bitcoin’s creed have a techno-enthusiastic character, and—in the best of hacking tradition—both are about overcoming some sort of constraints. If you are up for screwing biology and living forever, you’ll probably dig the idea of using untraceable digital money to subvert the financial system as we know it, too.
"To many transhumanists, digital currency just naturally sounded like the kind of thing they should be interested in."
This can also be seen in history. In the 90s, a preferred term for one type of transhumanism was “extropianism.”
“Extropianism’s main tenet was that human should always be growing and reaching up for more. Bust your limits and going above and beyond,” transhumanist philosopher Amon Twyman told me in a video call. “It was very popular with libertarians, and for some time it seemed to be the case that all transhumanists were libertarian. And when Bitcoin came up, too, it was seen as a very libertarian technology.”
Getting rid of banks’ and governments’ roles in financial transactions, in effect, was key to the extropian project. The concept of a cryptocurrency—dubbed simply “cryp”—surfaced on the main extropian mailing-list in 1992, and several prominent extropians had a crack at devising encrypted payment systems. One of those who made the most promising attempts was Hal Finney—the developer frozen by Alcor. That would later cause speculation that Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto, the person who invented Bitcoin.
Twyman said that even if today’s transhumanists are not all necessarily Ayn Rand-style libertarians, some sort of extropian legacy lingers on. “To many transhumanists, digital currency just naturally sounded like the kind of thing they should be interested in.” he said.
From a sheerly practical point of view, some think that Bitcoin may help fill the coffers of life-extension research labs much faster. “Bitcoin has the potential to hugely redistribute the wealth of the entire global economy,” Trace Mayer said. “And the new holders of that Bitcoin wealth will probably be smart people very interested in life-extension. They’ll fund these kind of projects.”
Right now, though, there’s still no sign that a funding revolution is underway—at least if you ask SENS’s Jerri Barrett.
“So far we got about 20 Bitcoin donations, for $700 overall. We convert them straight away to dollars, because of Bitcoin’s volatility,” she said. “I’ll let you know when we get something really large.”
The decision was made after SENS started receiving a trickle of messages from bitcoiners willing to invest their cryptocurrency reserves in the institute’s quest for eternal youth. Jerri Barrett, SENS’s vice-president of outreach and the person who would read those emails, initially answered that they didn’t take bitcoins. But requests kept coming.
“I ended up making a file with all the messages.” Barrett told me on a Skype call. “I just decided: when I get another mail about giving us bitcoins we’ll have to set up something to accept it.” So it was.
Bitcoin has caught on everywhere, but the story of SENS’s eager Bitcoin donors piqued my interest: It was just the latest in a row of cases linking interest in cryptocurrency with interest in life-extension or other transhumanist projects. It looked like there was an unspoken, long-running connection between the two things.
Bitcoiners and transhumanists are cut from the same cloth.
The link is typified, for instance, by the Lifeboat Foundation, a nonprofit devoted to safely steering humankind to the Singularity by financing ventures such as asteroid shields and brain uploading. In 2013, it published a statement declaring its commitment to cryptocurrency: “We are now working to have the majority of our funding come from 21st century money—money backed not by governments but by algorithms,” the post read. “The 21st century money Lifeboat is currently focused on is bitcoins.”
The organisation subsequently activated 13 wallets to receive Bitcoin contributions; today its “Bitcoin endowment” has grown to $192,301 as of the time of writing (it was worth much more before Bitcoin’s fall earlier this winter.)
Similarly, US cryonics company Alcor has been allowing its patients to pay in bitcoins since late 2012. Alcor’s spokesperson told me in an email that as yet only a couple of people have paid that way: one of them was the cypherpunk thinker Hal Finney, who died and was cryopreserved by Alcor in summer 2014. Finney, an inveterate transhumanist, was also the first person to ever receive a Bitcoin transaction back in 2009.
Alcor CEO Max More with cryogenic chambers. Image: Daniel Oberhaus
"Hal, I got the coffee you requested, now knock three times to let me know if you still want it."
A quick tour around the legion of transhumanist/longevist websites and forums also shows that Bitcoin is an omnipresent topic of discussion, to the point that one of the objectives initially put forward by the UK Transhumanist Party in a preparatory document for its manifesto was “[bringing about a] more sustainable cryptocurrency.
How come people who want to live forever are also likely to pay for it in bitcoins? One common answer is that bitcoiners and transhumanists are cut from the same cloth.
Trace Mayer, a Bitcoin-focused blogger who sits on the economics board of Lifeboat, boils it all down to genius. “The people involved in Bitcoin are some of the smartest in the world. They have very high IQs and are very well read. In the same way, to understand the science of life-extension you have to be very smart, too,” he told me in a Skype call. “It’s not really a common interest, it’s just that they’re smart people.”
A less self-congratulatory take is that both transhumanism and Bitcoin’s creed have a techno-enthusiastic character, and—in the best of hacking tradition—both are about overcoming some sort of constraints. If you are up for screwing biology and living forever, you’ll probably dig the idea of using untraceable digital money to subvert the financial system as we know it, too.
"To many transhumanists, digital currency just naturally sounded like the kind of thing they should be interested in."
This can also be seen in history. In the 90s, a preferred term for one type of transhumanism was “extropianism.”
“Extropianism’s main tenet was that human should always be growing and reaching up for more. Bust your limits and going above and beyond,” transhumanist philosopher Amon Twyman told me in a video call. “It was very popular with libertarians, and for some time it seemed to be the case that all transhumanists were libertarian. And when Bitcoin came up, too, it was seen as a very libertarian technology.”
Getting rid of banks’ and governments’ roles in financial transactions, in effect, was key to the extropian project. The concept of a cryptocurrency—dubbed simply “cryp”—surfaced on the main extropian mailing-list in 1992, and several prominent extropians had a crack at devising encrypted payment systems. One of those who made the most promising attempts was Hal Finney—the developer frozen by Alcor. That would later cause speculation that Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto, the person who invented Bitcoin.
Twyman said that even if today’s transhumanists are not all necessarily Ayn Rand-style libertarians, some sort of extropian legacy lingers on. “To many transhumanists, digital currency just naturally sounded like the kind of thing they should be interested in.” he said.
From a sheerly practical point of view, some think that Bitcoin may help fill the coffers of life-extension research labs much faster. “Bitcoin has the potential to hugely redistribute the wealth of the entire global economy,” Trace Mayer said. “And the new holders of that Bitcoin wealth will probably be smart people very interested in life-extension. They’ll fund these kind of projects.”
Right now, though, there’s still no sign that a funding revolution is underway—at least if you ask SENS’s Jerri Barrett.
“So far we got about 20 Bitcoin donations, for $700 overall. We convert them straight away to dollars, because of Bitcoin’s volatility,” she said. “I’ll let you know when we get something really large.”
Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai). Only Finney (RPOW) and Nakamoto were motivated enough to actually implement such a scheme.
http://extropians.weidai.com/
Given that Wei Dai maintained the Exptropian website - http://extropians.weidai.com/ - and the meetups were held at Nick Szabo's home and Finney now's a Popsicle® with the latter two awaiting their turns as "Turkey in the Straw" plays endlessly, I say they're a pretty close-knit family.
http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/cypherpunks/bigmacs/apology
http://extropians.weidai.com/
Given that Wei Dai maintained the Exptropian website - http://extropians.weidai.com/ - and the meetups were held at Nick Szabo's home and Finney now's a Popsicle® with the latter two awaiting their turns as "Turkey in the Straw" plays endlessly, I say they're a pretty close-knit family.
http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/cypherpunks/bigmacs/apology
Quote
G.Broiles:
> Although it saddens me to say this, the C-punks list seems to me to
> be the pet project of a clique of a few people who allow others to read/post
> to it as long as we're sufficiently respectful of their infinite wisdom.
> People who write on topics uninteresting or threatening to that clique are
> flamed, and then criticized for responding to the flames. There are two
> different standards for messages - one for those posted by folks "within",
> and another for those "without". I think you get flamed because you've
> failed to kiss enough ass, not because your posts are unreasonable.
>
> There are two sorts of posts consistently considered acceptable:
> posts by "insiders", whatever their topic, length, or content; and
> transcriptions of media interviews with those insiders. Any other post will
> either be flamed or allowed to die a death of quiet neglect. Substantial
> replies to posts by non-insiders are rare indeed.
>
> You are among the few people whose posts to C-punks I read
> consistenly. The list will suffer a substantial loss if you stop posting.
> Although it saddens me to say this, the C-punks list seems to me to
> be the pet project of a clique of a few people who allow others to read/post
> to it as long as we're sufficiently respectful of their infinite wisdom.
> People who write on topics uninteresting or threatening to that clique are
> flamed, and then criticized for responding to the flames. There are two
> different standards for messages - one for those posted by folks "within",
> and another for those "without". I think you get flamed because you've
> failed to kiss enough ass, not because your posts are unreasonable.
>
> There are two sorts of posts consistently considered acceptable:
> posts by "insiders", whatever their topic, length, or content; and
> transcriptions of media interviews with those insiders. Any other post will
> either be flamed or allowed to die a death of quiet neglect. Substantial
> replies to posts by non-insiders are rare indeed.
>
> You are among the few people whose posts to C-punks I read
> consistenly. The list will suffer a substantial loss if you stop posting.
....
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
The problem now is : we should ask gmaxwell or Gavin (or the other people that are in the image) ... who is NickSzabo4. This for me it is the real question, not who is Satoshi Nakamoto (a different question).
....
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
But Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto ... this why I have said "it or he is not related". I know he is the first person that have received a btc through a transaction...
Most the clues point to Satoashi Nakamoto being made up of a group and not just one individual. Among said group was one person anointed to pen under the nym, of which whom is still unknown. I further believe that the John Nash connection was put in place as a red herring.
If your theory is correct, it would be interesting to know their long term goals. They are already sitting on a fortune to buy them some small countries after all and judging them on their look (sorry guys, no offense), I wouldn't trust them my country.
Christina Garman to make that pic complete:
....
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
The problem now is : we should ask gmaxwell or Gavin (or the other people that are in the image) ... who is NickSzabo4. This for me it is the real question, not who is Satoshi Nakamoto (a different question).
....
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
But Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto ... this why I have said "it or he is not related". I know he is the first person that have received a btc through a transaction...
Most the clues point to Satoashi Nakamoto being made up of a group and not just one individual. Among said group was one person anointed to pen under the nym, of which whom is still unknown. I further believe that the John Nash connection was put in place as a red herring.
yeah a group, like the cryptonote team.
Nick Szabo = Nicolas van Saberhagen
you cant unsee.
....
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
The problem now is : we should ask gmaxwell or Gavin (or the other people that are in the image) ... who is NickSzabo4. This for me it is the real question, not who is Satoshi Nakamoto (a different question).
....
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
But Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto ... this why I have said "it or he is not related". I know he is the first person that have received a btc through a transaction...
Most the clues point to Satoashi Nakamoto being made up of a group and not just one individual. Among said group was one person anointed to pen under the nym, of which whom is still unknown. I further believe that the John Nash connection was put in place as a red herring.
This thread turned from a typical where is satoshi thread to some conspiracy sh!t real fast.
I think he is saying, that all the ugly nerds sitting at this table are involved in cryonics together with the guy from Grateful Dead and they are all Satoshi Nakamoto, right Bruno?
Well now, I'm starting to get really confused. One of them could possibly be Satoshi Nakamoto? I don't think so. Again the same question, why is cryonics involved in this kind of discussion on finding who is the person behind Satoshi?
It is not involved, I think they are talking about Hal Finney but this is not related with Nick Szabo (the one in the image) and neither Satoshi Nakamoto ...
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
With this in mind I do not think Hal Finney is/was Satoshi because he would not send coins to himself.
It was only done once to show that the proof of concept works. Besides, somebody had to be first. The true test came when pizza was ordered so that said event could make the wire rounds. In fact, notable thefts were required to prove Bitcoin's worth.
....
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
The problem now is : we should ask gmaxwell or Gavin (or the other people that are in the image) ... who is NickSzabo4. This for me it is the real question, not who is Satoshi Nakamoto (a different question).
....
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
Haha Bruno has always long stretching theories but there's always some links to back it up with, he is a deep-digger.
And ofcourse Hal Finney is related, he was the receiver of the very first Bitcoin transaction. It must have been a way to honor him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(cypherpunk)
But Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto ... this why I have said "it or he is not related". I know he is the first person that have received a btc through a transaction...
I think he is saying, that all the ugly nerds sitting at this table are involved in cryonics together with the guy from Grateful Dead and they are all Satoshi Nakamoto, right Bruno?
Well now, I'm starting to get really confused. One of them could possibly be Satoshi Nakamoto? I don't think so. Again the same question, why is cryonics involved in this kind of discussion on finding who is the person behind Satoshi?
It is not involved, I think they are talking about Hal Finney but this is not related with Nick Szabo (the one in the image) and neither Satoshi Nakamoto ...
I know Hal Finney's body is cryopreserved, and at some point, people thought that Hal Finney is Satoshi himself. Okay I'm getting the picture now.
Don't you find it ironic that those involved in cryonics created a system to try to eliminate hard cold cash?
Jump to: