Topic: [email protected] is compromised - page 9. (Read 152314 times)

In general I consider the general consensus to be boring.

His life is likely to be considered boring by the general consensus. If it wasn't, he was unlikely to stay anonymous for so long?

So what would be the impact of satoshi being revealed?
I understand there could be personal reprocussions for the man himself, and that there is a great human interest story here, but bitcoin will not be affected. The world may be disappointed when we find out satoshi is a programmer and leads a life typical of one (he's boring)

I am not sure how you reach your logic to say that it would take more time for a team of 5 or 6 to complete version 0.1 of QT verses how long it would take with a team of 3 or 4.

Satoshi is probably one person that read the work of the others. Indeed, the only way to keep something secret is to not tell anyone at all.

Something like this  

People involved	Time required to complete idea	Risk of apprehension
1	4 years	30%
2	3 years	60%
3	1 year	85%
4	1 year	90%
5	1.2 years	96%
6	1.5 years	99%

Will love seeing the minds shattered when it's revealed Satoshi was a pseudonym of Luke-Jr. You lot keep pushing your drugs & porn racket, and one day, Luke'll finally have enough and come out to claim Bitcoin in the name of God. You will all shit so hard, it'll create a vacuum which pulls out your organs.

... Suppose the federal reserve said it was going to increase the quantity of money 4% every year week after week month after month... that would be a truly mechanical project. You could program a computer to do that...what you want to do is if possible is to have a mechanical system. If there was any virtue to the gold standard it was that virtue. Maybe you could create the same thing now...I would if I had my choice, freeze the amount of high powered money...and hold it as a constant. And have it as sort of a natural constant like gravity or something.

M. Friedman acquired fame through teaching the linkage between the supply of money and, effectively, its value.
In retrospect it seems as if elementary, but Friedman was as if a teacher who re-taught to American economists the classical concept of the “law of supply and demand”, this in connection with money.

F. Kydland, R. Lucas, E. Phelps, and E. Prescott are notable American economists who have contributed to the better understanding of issues
in relation to the interactions between intelligent categories of the “users” of currencies (or in particular the dollar) and “the central authorities” (of central bank, treasury, state institutions, executive and legislative government)

And also, if we view money as of importance in connection with transfers of utility, we can see that money itself is a sort of "utility", using the word in another sense, comparable to supplies of water, electric energy or telecommunications. And then, if we think about it, we can consider the quality of money as comparable to the quality of some "public utility" like the supply of electric energy or of water.

The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

And we can’t really logically assume that human civilization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a City Manager with the human input to the government passing through the analogue of a City Council.)

Our proposal is that a preferable version of a general system for the transferring of utility, thus a "medium of exchange", would be structured so as to provide a medium with a natural (and reliable!) stability of value. And this stability of value would be particularly of benefit in connection with contracts or exchanges involving long time periods for the complete performance of the contract or exchange.

Exactly how an index should be constituted cannot be specified at this point

But now we want to mention another possibility that arises because of the present day circumstances that are relevant to the international interactions of the various national currencies

 But now we want to mention another possibility that arises because of the present day circumstances that are relevant to the international interactions of the various national currencies. It could be very difficult, and a slow process, to set up such a practical and useful system of conventions as the international metric system of measures (of length, volume, and weight). So it should not be expected that reform and progress, in the area of systems of money, will be very easily achieved.

Nowadays we see some new areas of competition between different major currencies of the world since the euro has come into existence and the psychological climate in which the "central bankers" are operating is recently changed by the theme that is next described.

The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of "inflation targeting" these responsible officials are effectively CONFESSING that, notwithstanding how they formerly were speaking about the difficulties and problems of their functions, that it is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money

 What inflation targeting does is to open up the possibility that somehow the various major currencies may evolve to develop stability of value.

in the near future there may be a smaller number of major currencies used in the world and these may stand in competitive relations among themselves.

And there COULD be introduced, for example, a similar international currency for the Islamic world, or for South Asia, or for South America, or here or there.

what is more significant from an internationally oriented viewpoint, the various currencies would have rates of exchange so that they could be realistically compared in terms of their actual values.

currencies managed with "inflation targeting" would be comparable by users or observers who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies.

"the public" or the users, those for whom a medium of exchange functions as a basic utility, may develop opinions that are critical of currencies of lower "value quality".

 the public may learn to demand better quality...in so many of the various national currencies in the 20th century.

 So we can imagine the evolutionary possibility of “asymptotically ideal money".

The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the Swiss franc, the Swedish krona, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary depreciation in value.

state banks, or whatever issues the money used in a state or in a group of states, are logically comparable to good or bad commercial banks or to good or bad insurance companies.

 A money usable as a "medium of exchange" obviates the comparative complexity of transactions needing to be achieved by barter. And beyond that, a money with a respected stability of value provides a basis for a practical simple means for achieving "storage of wealth"

But when there is the dimension of time also, incorporated into a contract for exchanges (such as for example a mortgage contract, or an annuity contract with an insurance company, or a contract for services to be performed over an extended period of time) then the quality of the money unit in terms of which the contract is written makes a big difference in the level of certainty of the contract terms.

Uncertainty perturbing the issue of the effective meaning of a contract is comparable to and analogous  to a climate of lawlessness that would make contracts, in general, unreliable.

 It is not a new concept in economic theory, that there could be material benefits whenever a number of separate currencies would be replaced by a single money. This caught the eye of John Stuart Mill, in particular.

 My opinion is that 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, comparatively, more like a relatively inferior national currency than like any of the more praiseworthy national or imperial currencies known to historical records.

But there is a good prospect for avoiding the establishment of another, possibly deceptive, currency of infer-or quality. Here I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.

So my personal view is that a practical global money might most favorably evolve through the development first of a few regional currencies of truly good quality. 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”.)

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

Will love seeing the minds shattered when it's revealed Satoshi was a pseudonym of Luke-Jr. You lot keep pushing your drugs & porn racket, and one day, Luke'll finally have enough and come out to claim Bitcoin in the name of God. You will all shit so hard, it'll create a vacuum which pulls out your organs.

Will love seeing the minds shattered when it's revealed Satoshi was a pseudonym of Luke-Jr. You lot keep pushing your drugs & porn racket, and one day, Luke'll finally have enough and come out to claim Bitcoin in the name of God. You will all shit so hard, it'll create a vacuum which pulls out your organs.

ya
http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html

You can almost bet Szabo is not Satoshi looking at the style and contents of his denial being Satoshi:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2011/05/bitcoin-what-took-ye-so-long.html


One can deny being Satoshi in many ways, but I doubt Szabo would lie he is not him in this colorful way. Move on to another candidate.

While the security technology is very far from trivial, the "why" was by far the biggest stumbling block -- nearly everybody who heard the general idea thought it was a very bad idea. 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.

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution

The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.

Wow, really interesting about the 1993 findings.

I've had several years to establish a net.reputation for "Nick Szabo", and it might take a long time for any of my pseudonyms to catch up.