Satoshi Nakamoto is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures.
He is a man who said that he would stop the motor of the world.
And he did.
Topic: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? - page 101. (Read 143064 times)
Whatever the case, a genious.
Well, my picture was not worth a thousand words it seems. I think Satoshi is the Charging Bull of Wall St fame. He mysteriously appeared overnight and changed the market forever... 
(Also mods, thanks, can you also delete the 500 other posts about "zomg satoshi is not one person" etc?
)
(Also mods, thanks, can you also delete the 500 other posts about "zomg satoshi is not one person" etc?
) 
satoshi was a guy from the future who came back in time to prevent a mass exodus from happening in 2140 by taking the power of finance away from the "horribly evil".
then he went back to an alternate future where he is a gazillionaire and has created a new world where anarchy rules and people are happy.
then he went back to an alternate future where he is a gazillionaire and has created a new world where anarchy rules and people are happy.
John we is the standard format for an academic research paper.
Exactly... and what this does tell us is that whoever Satoshi is, he's coming from an academic background. That's for sure.
John we is the standard format for an academic research paper.
For anyone imagining satoshi is one person, here's a hit to point out the obvious.
Read the 2008 paper, the author uses the term 'we' throughout.
This is either a verbal peculiarity inconsistent with the display of intelligent writing on offer in the rest of the paper, or... I think you get the idea.
Anyway, I know the source. It's not very exciting knowledge. My guess is that they drafted this paper with half a mind to use their real names but settled in the end on the mysterious pseudonym- good call on their part. Satoshi will remain in the shadows, because he's the hero that bitcoin deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a Dark Knight...
Read the 2008 paper, the author uses the term 'we' throughout.
This is either a verbal peculiarity inconsistent with the display of intelligent writing on offer in the rest of the paper, or... I think you get the idea.
Anyway, I know the source. It's not very exciting knowledge. My guess is that they drafted this paper with half a mind to use their real names but settled in the end on the mysterious pseudonym- good call on their part. Satoshi will remain in the shadows, because he's the hero that bitcoin deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a Dark Knight...
Satoshi is a made-up name, meant to misdirect. Bitcoin is really an experiment into currency weapons meant to give an alternative to the almighty Dollar and the control of the FED/bankers over the international trade. It can and might be used to retaliate against the US and quantitative easing.
Satoshi is an offshoot from China's secret experimentations, and Bitcoin is being used to destabilize the stranglehold of the US. China is slowly easing Bitcoins into mainstream via regular controlled channels (news / documentary) while making sure it owns most of the economy itself too (ASICMINER...)
And of course, as there is about 1Million BTC associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, this will make them incredibly powerful when the time comes to drop the curtain. There is strategy in not running a parallel race to the US - China took the technology, the manufacturing, and soon will take a hold of the currency system and then will assume the role of new central player in the world, likely buying their way into domination.
All the while laughing at everyone looking for a "japanese" Satoshi Nakamoto (China despises Japan).
Who Is Satoshi?
Satoshi is an offshoot from China's secret experimentations, and Bitcoin is being used to destabilize the stranglehold of the US. China is slowly easing Bitcoins into mainstream via regular controlled channels (news / documentary) while making sure it owns most of the economy itself too (ASICMINER...)
And of course, as there is about 1Million BTC associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, this will make them incredibly powerful when the time comes to drop the curtain. There is strategy in not running a parallel race to the US - China took the technology, the manufacturing, and soon will take a hold of the currency system and then will assume the role of new central player in the world, likely buying their way into domination.
All the while laughing at everyone looking for a "japanese" Satoshi Nakamoto (China despises Japan).
Who Is Satoshi?
There was a good discussion.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ekwn3/i_think_i_know_who_satoshi_is/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ekwn3/i_think_i_know_who_satoshi_is/
http://qz.com/86255/the-mysterious-creator-of-bitcoin-could-be-japanese-mathematician-shinichi-mochizuki-says-the-inventor-of-hypertext/
Quote
Bitcoin’s creator is Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki, says hypertext inventor
Quote
Ted Nelson, the American academic who in 1963 coined the term hypertext, and is therefore viewed as one of the World Wide Web’s founding fathers, just released a 12-minute video with a big reveal at the end: The inventor of bitcoin, says Nelson, is probably Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.
Nelson offers no direct evidence for his conclusion that Shinichi Mochizuki is behind the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, in his eccentric way, he offers plausible circumstantial evidence about his theory, outlined below. Internet surfers and the press are bound to investigate furiously.
1. Mochizuki is the kind of genius who could create bitcoin. Whoever created Bitcoin has the intellectual might of Isaac Newton, says Nelson. Mochizuki’s work as a mathematician has cracked some of the simplest and toughest problems in his field, attracting global media coverage.
2. Mochizuki, like the creator of bitcoin, is fond of dropping brilliant works on the internet and stepping back. Bitcoin was released by a pseudonymous programmer (or programmers) under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, who then disappeared from the internet. Nelson compares this to Mochizuki’s style of delivering his work not through academic journals, but simply by dropping it on the internet and walking away. (Notably, this is one area where Nelson gets his bitcoin history wrong: Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t just drop bitcoin onto the internet and disappear. He, she or they, engaged with the community for some time over chat and email before disappearing.)
3. Mochizuki could easily have written all the correspondence associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite being a Japanese professor at a Japanese university, Mochizuki’s English must be quite good, says Nelson, because he was the salutatorian of his graduating class at Princeton, and he completed his undergraduate education in only three years. (Nelson doesn’t note this, but it’s reasonable to expect that Mochizuki is actually a native English speaker; he moved to the US with his parents when he was only five years old.)
It’s worth noting that at least one expert in the cryptographic aspects of bitcoin doesn’t believe Nelson’s theory. Here’s Ryan Lackey, creator of Sealand, the world’s first data haven, refuting Nelson’s video:
Nelson offers no direct evidence for his conclusion that Shinichi Mochizuki is behind the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Instead, in his eccentric way, he offers plausible circumstantial evidence about his theory, outlined below. Internet surfers and the press are bound to investigate furiously.
1. Mochizuki is the kind of genius who could create bitcoin. Whoever created Bitcoin has the intellectual might of Isaac Newton, says Nelson. Mochizuki’s work as a mathematician has cracked some of the simplest and toughest problems in his field, attracting global media coverage.
2. Mochizuki, like the creator of bitcoin, is fond of dropping brilliant works on the internet and stepping back. Bitcoin was released by a pseudonymous programmer (or programmers) under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, who then disappeared from the internet. Nelson compares this to Mochizuki’s style of delivering his work not through academic journals, but simply by dropping it on the internet and walking away. (Notably, this is one area where Nelson gets his bitcoin history wrong: Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t just drop bitcoin onto the internet and disappear. He, she or they, engaged with the community for some time over chat and email before disappearing.)
3. Mochizuki could easily have written all the correspondence associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite being a Japanese professor at a Japanese university, Mochizuki’s English must be quite good, says Nelson, because he was the salutatorian of his graduating class at Princeton, and he completed his undergraduate education in only three years. (Nelson doesn’t note this, but it’s reasonable to expect that Mochizuki is actually a native English speaker; he moved to the US with his parents when he was only five years old.)
It’s worth noting that at least one expert in the cryptographic aspects of bitcoin doesn’t believe Nelson’s theory. Here’s Ryan Lackey, creator of Sealand, the world’s first data haven, refuting Nelson’s video:
http://qz.com/86255/the-mysterious-creator-of-bitcoin-could-be-japanese-mathematician-shinichi-mochizuki-says-the-inventor-of-hypertext/
Quote
Bitcoin’s creator is Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki, says hypertext inventor
They are some parallels between
Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin and
Vinced, the creator of Namecoin.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/vinced-9552
He could be the same person.
Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin and
Vinced, the creator of Namecoin.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/vinced-9552
He could be the same person.
Dude, even if Mochizuki is not Satoshi, one thing is for sure: this man is a great storyteller...
Read this... incredible
http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
No,but who is Shinichi Mochizuki?
Read this... incredible
http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
That's interesting. And it could fit into how Satoshi has done his work, but I think whoever Satoshi is, it should be left alone. What's the need to know who created Bitcoin, except for satisfying our mortal curosity.
But that just gives control of the spigot over to the operator instead of the contract owner that employs the operator. The station would be more secure with any petroleum dispensing equip.
What? No it doesn't. There need not be an operator at all.
Go back and read # 7 again. Keep doing it until you grok it.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts
Dude, even if Mochizuki is not Satoshi, one thing is for sure: this man is a great storyteller...
Read this... incredible
http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
No,but who is Shinichi Mochizuki?
Read this... incredible
http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
The beginning of that video sounds exactly like an ad... his voice just has that quality to it.
Is this the same guy who posted on his blog the same thing a month ago? If not, this guy is going to be very disappointed that he was not the first to make this connection.
But that just gives control of the spigot over to the operator instead of the contract owner that employs the operator. The station would be more secure with any petroleum dispensing equip. The convenience is beneficial when people can eventually use bona fide credit addresses and be verified to pump in a second, and refunded the remainder into the credit address before you leave the driveway. Your PDA would let you know this was all network-processed and you feel secure you have the money back in your wallet.
With improvements in POS network reliability and redundancy, I could easily feel safer with cc in BTCs or whatever than VISA or MasterCard. So that's more like a cash wallet, and less like a bank issue, which we would also still hold because that's how we access our market books, etc. But as a service, the insured banks and lenders might be looking forward to offering services they can make a profit on in the realm of cryptocurrency, which is not even in the spell-check yet, so we will see how far it has yet to go still.
With improvements in POS network reliability and redundancy, I could easily feel safer with cc in BTCs or whatever than VISA or MasterCard. So that's more like a cash wallet, and less like a bank issue, which we would also still hold because that's how we access our market books, etc. But as a service, the insured banks and lenders might be looking forward to offering services they can make a profit on in the realm of cryptocurrency, which is not even in the spell-check yet, so we will see how far it has yet to go still.
Is this the same guy who posted on his blog the same thing a month ago? If not, this guy is going to be very disappointed that he was not the first to make this connection.
Quote
First off, those are distinctly different professional disciplines; so just knowing what he needed to know from each of those disciplines without screwing it up was no small feat.
Furthermore, there is more to Bitcoin than you seem to be aware. The way the security methods and economic incentives fit together is not simply complex, it's probably perfect. There are subtle, secondary security features in the protocol that; while not making the 51% attack impossible, do contribute to making it generally unprofitable. Most of these secondary interactions are not mentioned in the white paper, but were present from very early on, and were not simply added to the protocol later. Just consider what can be done with blockchain enforcable contracts.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts
I like that idea, that would be like a public ledger for contracts so any changes made would be seen by the network, but can you imagine a contract written as a system? Programmed right into code, tamper proof from both parties and in effect observed at all times?
that would definitely be interesting.Mostly these are implicit contracts, managed by the electronic devices doing the interaction on behalf of users. I'd wager that not one in 10K will really know or care how their cell phone can incrementally pay for petrol in bitcoins without a need for trusting either party. When you drive up to a gas pump and call the attendant for a self service cash fill up, he has to trust that you will come in to pay afterwards, and not drive off. If you walk in and pay cash up front, you have to trust that they will give you any change back. But both of these things require that a human observer oversee the business's side of the transaction. However, people do like the convenence of driving up to a pump and using a credit card at the pump. So does the company. With contracts, this is possible using bitcoins, entirely without a human observer making any such decisions to prevent drive offs.
Jump to: