Topic: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? - page 13. (Read 143064 times)

too much news about Satosi Nakamoto, so that makes people confused and do not know who he really is, in my opinion he is only a pseudonym is not his real name, which I know Sotosi Nakamoto is a maker of bitcoin, that's all I know

It may well be that the Creator of bitcoin is actually a group of enthusiasts who want to create a product that could give people real freedom and independence from the shackles of state pressure. It doesn't really matter if it's one person or a large group, but it's a great happiness for all of us as humanity that this is happening in our time.

Satoshi Nakamoto is a founder of bitcoin. Many people say Satoshi Nakamoto is a group of people whose are created bitcoin. Bitcoin and blockchain technology is the greatest invention of the world.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7pfl75/a_public_appeal_to_michael_marquardt_the_original/

I wonder if James is getting ready to reveal he is Satoshi on this tenth anniversary.  That would be terrific for the world, as the considerable body of his

writings would be immediately a kind of internet Encyclopedia Britannica for the planet, as would anything else he writes or speaks

from here on out.  As well, he could use and enjoy his deserved wealth openly.  It would be a change, an engaging and respected one for him.  That'd be cool.

Maybe he could figure out a way for ASIC miners in China to stop being the #1 reapers of Bitcoin by far, though that may have already been accomplished with the

current bear market.  I noticed he mentioned something in a comment on a Steve Sailer piece about the need to get back to GPU mining-- like mobile

Electroneum, maybe, albeit with somewhat less than 50 Bitcoins every ten minutes?

Wish he could work with the NANO people on their lattice too, and on a GPU mined Monero fork, or something equally as radical.


https://www.facebook.com/jabowery?ref=br_rs

https://i.postimg.cc/MGry450Y/james-bowery-on-satoshi-s-identity.jpg



By the way, I've read, but do not know the veracity, Satoshi began this very forum, bitcointalk.org .  Is it true?  He bought the vbulletin under

the Satoshi Nakamoto name, the server space and installed vbulletin?  It looks, color wise, like a clone of Stormfront, lulz!  Blue is a good choice,

as research proves people linger longest on blue.

Screenshot of Nick Szabo following James Bowery on twitter:
https://i.postimg.cc/kGZMPV1z/nick-szabo-following-james-bowery.jpg

Screenshot of Steve Sailer following James Bowery on twitter:
https://i.postimg.cc/SN6QvKLT/steve-sailer-following-james-bowery.jpg

James Bowery banking meltdown Sept 2008 Bitcoin January 2009 Conicidence? from his Facebook screenshot November 21st, 2018:
https://i.postimg.cc/sXDx7GMG/james-bowery-banking-meltdown-sept-2008-Bitcoin-jan-2009-coincid.jpg

doublespend timestamp: 1D6emeERu2aTBXP1LD9xFQLRZv57K4Gady

Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the unknown person or people who developed bitcoin, authored the bitcoin white paper, and created and deployed bitcoin's original reference implementation. As part of the implementation, they also devised the first block chain database.

Martti Malmi Retweeted

Cøbra
‏
 
@CobraBitcoin
 Aug 31
More
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

90 replies 102 retweets 700 likes
Reply 90   Retweet 102   Like 700
https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1035683067086757889

=======================

 Martti Malmi Retweeted

Nick Szabo
‏
 
@NickSzabo4
 May 15
More Nick Szabo Retweeted ck-SNARKs 🌚 🍿
Centralized digital services, whether in traditional finance or in the crypto biz, are extremely vulnerable to local lawsuits and political pressure. They will be increasingly censored year by year as political activists continue to learn more about these fat tempting targets.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/996436151865982976
=======================

 Martti Malmi Retweeted

Gavin Andresen
‏
 
@gavinandresen
 Feb 14
More
Why many early crypto adopters are probably not as rich as you think:

48 replies 187 retweets 562 likes
Reply 48   Retweet 187   Like 562
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/963865467852075008
=======================

Martti Malmi
‏
 
@marttimalmi
 Jan 23
More
Satoshi keeps changing his email address and style of writing. Security through obscurity?
https://twitter.com/marttimalmi/status/955741358433734656
========================

Martti Malmi
‏
 
@marttimalmi
 Jan 11
More
I believe bitcoin was originally a one-man tinkering project, not a group of people working on it or some government conspiracy.
https://twitter.com/marttimalmi/status/951381049392721920
==========================

Excerpt from an email of mine dated Nov. 21st, 2018:

 I had not

previously known his connection to BTC, but I recognized his name and knew the personal

connection of Martti to my friend, as my friend digitally "introduced" me to him.

... On June 2nd or 3rd 2009, I was in Helsinki in a political asylum program.  I was in touch

on Skype with Martti-- I believe Martti Malmi...then a young, super-private student of perhaps 22 or

23, to the best of my memory.  He had a profound interest in international politics, specifically in my political

case too.  I was then resident in his country, Finland.  We dicussed an event which occurred on June 2nd in the USA.  (I will tell you

what that event was if we converse.  I recall these details extremely clearly! )  Martti was upset, and Martti was very reclusive,

but had, some days earlier, offered to send me money (which I told him I did not need).  


=======================

Excerpt from an email of mine dated approx. Nov. 23rd, 2018:

This man made me one of the firsts (sic) few hundred downloaders of the BTC software and gifted me 10 or 12 coins (I forget the precise number and my 2.1 or 2.2 speed Sony Vaio tower was lost when I was deported from Estonia later in 2009 after seeking political asylum in Helsinki).

=======================

On June 3rd, 2009, I typed Skype with Martti from a Helsinki urban library re the raid on Tom Metzger's home by the ATF.  That raid is mentioned in Ton's Wiki.  You can go read it.  I must go somewhere now, but will link some pics later.  This was at least my second "in-country", in-Helsinki chat with Martti.  Martti was a very young, extremely reclusive univ. student at the time with a big interest in freedom of speech and America libertarian, rightist, free speech issues. 

You mean Craig Wright is not the real Satoshi??. In all honesty though, I believe bitcoin was created by a group of cyberpunks and not just one single person.

At approximately 3pm Central Daylight today, I came upon this post by the late Hal Finney, a man whose reputation and life was totally unknown

to me until a day or two before this Thanksgiving, 2018, when I read the first 32 pages of the NYT's Nathaniel Popper's book, Digital Gold,

about Bitcoin.  (Please see the totality of my posts.  As it turns out, a man cited in those first 32 pages, Martti Malmi, was a new acquaintance

known by me on Skype in May and June of 2009, when I was in his home nation of Finland, as I was then a U.S. citizen applying for-- and

accepted into-- Finland's E.U. Schengen system accord.)


But back to Hal Finney.  He posted this:

"... and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. "
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-me-hal-finney-155054

=================

This is the precise sum (exactly 10 Bitcoins) JAB sent to me (to the best of my memory on January 3rd, 2009, though it might have

been earlier in a beta test), and I've read there may be some evidence or question whether Satoshi may have erased or begun some beta testing

earlier.  I am not a coder and cannot speak to this with authority.  I DO know the comprehensive fluidity with which JAB voice-schooled me in the

structural whys and wherefores of the Bitcoin dynamics.

I offered to pay JAB for the coins and asked how much I owed him.  He said "forget it", they had just cost 2 cents, 3 cents or 4 cents each."  Until

very, very recently I believed this.  From what I understand now, there was no nascent extant exchange in existence at that time.  I had been

particularly keen to purchase $1,000 to $5,000 outright (and possibly up to $30,000 if I could liquidate real estate assets).  JAB explained to me

they would quite possibly-- likely be worth several thousand dollars, $10,000 or even a million dollars each someday, maybe in 7 or 10 years.  He

also totally predicted in great detail todays's crypto exchanges, including other tokens and coins being present and traded! (In my retrospect, I am

gobsmacked at his  prescience.)  JAB said it was not

possible to buy that amount of coins. There weren't enough around for sale.  It must be mined.  

My computer was a Sony Vaio tower 2.2 or 2.1 Intel with 6 or 8 gigs of RAM,

circa 2001 or 2002--still running like a charm-- (approx. $2500 when new).  I had a 13" 2008 Macbook as well.  I was told the Sony Vaio would

mine it quite successfully, competitively.


I was stunned to learn today Hal Finney had received 10 Bitcoins as well.  I

resided in northern Europe at the time.  Hal received his 10 from Satoshi Nakamoto; I received my 10 from my friend, JAB, also as a "test".  Hal

says he was in email communication; I was in voice Skype conversation.

====================

Please see below the  third to last double line at this post, onto which I have appended several quotes and links just today:

Read from "Comment 72":

ttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=912930.msg48362443#msg48362443

====================
https://www.kaggle.com/jabowery/discussion

Why No Kolmogorov Complexity Prizes?
Topic a year ago in Kaggle Forum

A prize award criterion of the minimum size program that generates a target dataset is founded on the first principles of general artificial intelligence. This is exemplified by The Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge. However, searching kaggle.com for keywords like "kolmogorov complexity" "solomonoff" "algorithmic probability" and "algorithmic information", I find no such competitions.

This is particularly puzzling as Kaggle's sibling AI subsidiary, DeepMind included in its founders PhD students of Marcus Hutter, such as Shane Legg. Legg, whose PhD thesis on Machine Super Intelligence rigorously formalized a definition of intelligence based on Kolmogorov Complexity, went on to show its applicability to standard AI benchmarks such as learning to play video games just prior to the formation of DeepMind.

I'm asking this, in part, because I've constructed a dataset for such a competition and found that I mayn't host a competition on Kaggle without first establishing an institutional affiliation, so I'm considering setting up a Herox prize based on Kolmogorov Complexity instead.

Why No Kolmogorov Complexity Prizes?
Comment a year ago in Kaggle Forum

I've opened up such a competition, called SocialCausalityPrizeI at heroX with an initial funding goal of $1000.

The dataset is public domain -- from the CenStat program of the US Census.


https://www.herox.com/SocialCausalityPrizeI

https://github.com/jabowery/OckhamsGuillotine

satoshi nakamoto is the known said of guru behind the blockchain technology. The name satoshi nakamoto is said to be a person or a group of programmers who have come together to develop the blockchain technology and come up with bitcoin as the first product of the technology before we started getting massive adoptions

More Satoshi Nakamoto-isms by the great Jim Bowery:

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 01 July 2007 15:42.

It should also be noted that not only is the doubling time fast, but the percentage of solar energy converted to food calories can’t be beat.

In last paragraph at link:
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/postcivil_society_empty_the_cities_one_week_cultivated_algae_bloom

================================

Last two lines here:

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, 05 June 2007 14:09.

PS: It should be noted that Dershowitz hangs his moral-high-ground hat on his support for the freedom of speech of his opponents.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/dershowitz_and_trivers_go_at_it

=================================

Known oft-used Satoshi Nakamoto-ism third to last sentence, first paragraph:

Posted by James Bowery on Friday, 06 January 2006 13:42.

It should be noted that decreased virulence does not equate to symbiosis.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_emergence_of_parasity_from_heterosity_demonstrated

=================================

Date cited as to when Szabo requested a skilled coder:

Bitcoin is a very non-obvious idea, of the kind that takes years of crystallization; maybe an entire lifetime. An idea born from the cypherpunk mindset, developed over time by a person with a deep passion for economics of the most abstract kind and a mastery of unusual cryptography concepts. The recent suggestions in the press that every other person who has a scientific background could be the creator of Bitcoin only serve to show how little some “journalists” understand about Bitcoin and its origins.

... In April 2008, a few months before the original Bitcoin announcement, he seemed to have reached a tipping point in his work, and publicly asked for help “coding up [a demonstration]”
https://likeinamirror.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/occams-razor-who-is-most-likely-to-be-satoshi-nakamoto/
================

"dumbed down"

Known Satoshi Nakamoto "dumbed down" quote with source-

On the adoption of electronic cash:
I would be surprised if 10 years from now we’re not using electronic currency in some way, now that we know a way to do it that won’t inevitably get dumbed down when the trusted third party gets cold feet. (Source)
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/10/08/nakamoto-quotes-immortal-archive/

James A. Bowery "dumbed down" usage:

Idiocracy, Now. Wow!

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 11 January 2007 05:42.

It’s such a relief to watch this movie.  I can empathize with the audience instead of seeing the audience as a potentially dangerously dumbed down army of marching morons programmed with zombie morals who (see the movie to get this) are destroying their food production because they believe a sports drink must replace irrigation water “because it has the electrolytes plants crave”.

...Indeed one of my main motives for working on artificial intelligence is my sincere hope that the “intelligent” idiots will hear the truth when a machine tells them, with encyclopedic detail and a bibliography-on-demand miles long, exactly how they’re being so abysmally stupid in key dimensions.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/idiocracy_now_wow

Why are you trying to find out who this person is? because this is a waste of time since you won't know it anyway

I also think that the Creator of bitcoin is a group of people United by one idea and moving the whole planet to progress and development. This may well be one person, but only as the author of the original idea of bitcoin, as well as managing the entire development team. I think that it would take a lot of time for one person to develop such a project.

Stylometric example of Satoshi Nakamoto's "in a nutshell":

Everyone Loses in this Battle of the Intellectual Lightweights:  WSJ vs LRC

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 17 January 2008 17:35.   
It should be no surprise that the more you must genuflect to the theocracy of Holocaustianity, the less intellectual horsepower you can bring to bear on critical issues and, indeed, we see just that situation present itself in the most recent clash of the—well let’s be honest—brain damaged Wall Street Journal vs the oxygen-deprived LewRockwell.Com over the meaning of Ron Paul’s libertarianism as it applies to militarism.  First the Wall Street Journal drools out yet another sophomoric essay on the virtues of neoconservative foreign policy compared to their portrayal of Ron Paul’s proposed policy of nonintervention and then Lew Rockwell fails miserably to address the article’s so-called “arguments”.

Well, here it is in a nutshell:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/everyone_loses_in_this_battle_of_the_intellectual_lightweights_wsj_vs_lrc

Second example, also 2008, when the Bitcoin C++ code was surely being written, of James A. Bowery's usage of Satoshi Nakamoto's oft-used midwesternism "in a nutshell", this time in a comment:

3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:31 | #

Matt, the issue of unbiased vs biased learning is central to a lot of machine learning theory.  Here’s the idea in a nutshell:

The shortest program that outputs the machine’s history of stimulus/response is also the best predictor of its world.  The problem is that this program cannot be the output of any other program.  In other words, it is not provable that a given program is the best.  The only thing you can do is evolve various programs and compare either how well they actually do against a test in a real environment, or measure how much shorter one is than another.

The moment you enter into the realm of evolution, you are in the realm of what machine learning theorists call the “Bayesian prior”—which is the current set of assumptions the learning machine uses to “learn”—to construct a minimal program outputting its history of stimulus/response.

So, other than testing the performance of the agent in the requisite domain, the only test you can apply to estimate “rationality” is to somehow estimate the relative length of their prediction program, or, in alternate mathematical terms—their minimum description length.

Note: The output of the stimulus/response history must be a LOSSLESS reproduction.  Any deviation of the model from the history must be adjusted by error terms stored as raw data within the program.  Another way of thinking of these error terms is as “exceptions that prove the rules”.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_myth_of_the_rational_voter
==============================

From the Memory Hole: Distributed Barter

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:46.   
Censored from the Archive of the World Wide Web (see link in upper left corner of that page—all other prior WWW copies of the software and documentation pages have been similarly purged from the archive.org) Majority Rights now links to the forbidden software packaged for a distributed barter system.

Why is this important?  Well, you could ask GT but you might also want to read what I wrote about it a few years after Dan Brumleve programmed the ‘alpha version’ based on the design he and I worked out around 2000…

( EDIT: https://math.stackexchange.com/users/1284/dan-brumleve  - bitcointalk.org user 'doublespend timestamp' )

While it is true that money is backed by promises, and those can be classified as one of:

Promises to do something of value on presentation of a token. (ie: commodity-backed money)
Promises to not do something damaging on presentation of a token. (ie: protection-racket money otherwise known as “fiat” money which is backed by the promise not to throw you in jail if you present it as legal tender for taxes)
...people seem to think that it is important to have only one currency as “the standard”.

Prior to desktop automatons pushing electrons around as tokens and ‘zero-risk’ arbitrage algorithms for money markets, this may have been necessary but discovery and transaction costs are now so low there is no reason for it.

In steps DBarter.

How DBarter Works

DBarter is a simple way for people to create and exchange value.

Value creation is similar to money creation in that someone creates a transferable promise of some sort.  All similar promises belong to the same “symbol” of value.  In normal money the promise is something like “I, the Victorian era Bank of England, will give a pound of sterling silver to the bearer of one of this symbol upon its return to any of my offices.”  A symbol can also have the same behavior as other financial instruments, such as insurance claims, mortage bonds, coupons, stock certificates, etc.

In any case, there are, presumably, some people somewhere who value the promise and are therefore willing to give up something of their own in order to acquire some quantity of the associated symbol. If what they give up is a quantity of another symbol, “barter”  occurs.

Value transfer is similar to money payment in that someone gives value to someone else.

To be precise, what is transferred is a bunch of values, possibly of various symbols, called a portfolio.  To be even more precise, what is transferred is a note for a portfolio.  A note is created by withdrawing a portfolio from an account.  The note is mailed to another account.  The note is then deposited by the other account thereby cancelling the note.

For example, Bob withdraws 15 Amazon Dollars, 10 eBay Dollars and 50 Bob Dollars creating a note.  Bob signs the note over to Cindy and mails it to her.  Cindy then deposits the note in her account.

In summary, the DBarter Server:

allows banker accounts to create other accounts of any type.
allows “minting” accounts to create new symbols.
allows accounts to withdraw notes, which can be sent via mail.
lets accounts send mail to other accounts electronically.
allows accounts to deposit notes.
keeps a history of all of these activities.
All steps that might be vulnerable to fraud are protected by public key encryption.

Anyone can run a DBarter server on their own computer, minting their own currency and communicating with other DBarter servers.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/from_the_memory_hole_distributed_barter/

=========================================

Distributed Electronic Barter System Archive

Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, 26 September 2009 12:54.   
I’ve previously written here about an actual, real live, in-existence, software package for distributed electronic barter using military grade encryption.  Well, as part of the archiving of my files from the soon-to-be-defunct geocities free webhosting service, I realized that this software package might become otherwise unavailable, so I’ve archived the latest version here for those of sufficient technical talent.

That is all.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/distributed_electronic_barter_system_archive
======================

Declaration of Freedom

Posted by James Bowery on Friday, 04 July 2008 22:26.   
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. —That freedom is the right to territory sufficient to support life, shared exclusively with those of like mind. —That the denial of others’ freedom entails the loss of one’s own. —That defense of freedom, even at the cost of life, is the greatest good. —That to secure freedom, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the mind of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their freedom.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to deny freedom to the governed, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future freedom.—Such has been the patient sufferance of the Posterity of the Founders of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present United States government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the denial of freedom. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It has denied the right of people to secede even when they have not denied freedom to others.

It has, in the name of “Civil Rights” imposed private relationships on people to which they did not consent.

It has taxed those who do not possess sufficient territory to support their lives, in order to support the lives of others.

It has refused to defend US territory from invasion.

It has, against the manifest will of the people, passed laws legalizing immigration that replaced the Posterity of the Founders of the United States.

It has drawn ever more power to itself from the States rendering the Laboratory of the States impotent to discover natural laws of Statecraft and the people impotent to alter their conditions by either changing their State governments or by changing their State of residence.

It has waged wars on foreign soil in the name of defending freedom while it assaults freedom on US territory.

It has deprived our inventors of the riches they need to continue to enrich us—favoring instead the transfer of technology ownership to others who, in turn, transfer technology to foreign nations, leaving our own inventors jobless, frequently impoverished and in any event incapable of further enriching us.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our United States government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of its own Constitution and establishment on this land. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of Freedom, in Cyber Space, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Posterity of the Founders, solemnly publish and declare, That this land is, and of Right ought to be Free, that the Posterity of the Founders are Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States government, and that all political connection between them and the United States government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free people, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:29 | #

Thomas, first of all, it should be obvious that there are several earth-shaking indictments involved and the one involving taxation refers only to the transfer of subsistence via taxation—not to taxation per se.

Secondly, it cannot be reasonably argued that the original intent of the 16th Amendment was to place a substantial tax or legal burden on ordinary citizens.  It is clear from the debates surrounding its ratification, as well as the initial rates of taxation, that it was to have little impact on the incomes of those even in the upper 99th percentile.  The departure from that original intent represented by today’s tax system, where people who have trouble supporting even 2 children on two incomes are paying substantial tax and legal fees, is so great as to represent lawlessness.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/declaration_of_freedom

Satoshi-san Bowery humorously tweeting re power consumption of Bitcoin vs power consumption of censoring VISA:



James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 16h16 hours ago
More
About 2500 MHash/Joule/Year increase since 2013.

0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply   Retweet   Like

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
15000employee/visa;1household/employee;7.9365079E3 W/household?W/visa
= 1.1904762E8 W/visa

1.2e8W/visa;111e9transaction/year/visa?J/transaction

= 34092 J/transaction

OK, so now we're getting somewhere:

For the low, low energy investment of 35kJ/transaction we get censorship.

0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
The total US electricity 1TW,  126M households

1TW/126e6household?W/household

= 7936.5079 W/household

...

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
Oh, excuse me for linking to those idiots.  Here's the W from Calchemy:

10909kWh/year?W

(10909 * [kilo*Wh]) / year ? watt
= 1245.3196 W

And, of course, that's just _residential_ energy consumption per household which doesn't power a Mechanical Turk...

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
One can't help but wonder about the energy consumption of all the _humans_ VISA uses as Mechanical Turks in its Unfriendly Global AGI.

https://www.electricchoice.com/blog/electricity-on-average-do-homes/ …

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
Here's a gem:  "According to VISA, the company consumed a total amount of 674,922 Gigajoules of energy (from various sources) globally for all its operations."

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption …

Aside from being dimensionally incorrect (energy rather than power)...


1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
Same for "bitcoin return for energy invested" and "bitcoin return per energy invested"

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 20h20 hours ago
More
More evidence for how moronic the debate over Peak Bitcoin is:

Google: "bitcoin return on energy invested"

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 21h21 hours ago
More
Calchemy's units calculator has been off the market for many years but I still use it multiple times a day:

35TWh/year?TW

(35 * [tera*Wh]) / year ? tera*watt
= 0.0039954338 TW

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 21h21 hours ago
More
Idiots put things in TWh/year rather than simply TW.

https://fm.c[Suspicious link removed]m/applications/c[Suspicious link removed]m/resources/editorialfiles/charts/2017/12/1513790249_20171219_bitcoin_energy_consumption_index.JPG …

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply 1   Retweet   Like
Show this thread

James Bowery
‏
 
@jabowery
 21h21 hours ago
More
The higher in a hierarchy of blackmail control, the more
...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48247836

Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of bitcoin and blockchain technology the greatest invention of the century, This technology is created in the pseudonym satoshi Nakamoto this might be a single person or a group of people no one is sure of the real owner of this bitcoin technology, this bitcoin technology is highly transparent

The founder of Bitcoin simple answer and Satoshi Nakamoto is a group of blockchain enthusiast here in bitcointalk and Satoshi Nakamoto we should  Thank to him for created Bitcoin.

I think Satoshi Nakamoto is a group of people. I think that creating Bitcoin alone is too difficult. Of course everything is possible, but ... One of the creators of Bitcoin is certainly a genius. It’s simply impossible for an ordinary person to create such an idea and bring it to life.
In any case, I'm not interested in the real identity of the creator of Bitcoin. If he (or they) wants to remain anonymous, then I respect his right to that. I think Satoshi has achieved what he wanted, so more and doesn't get in touch with the world as the creator of Bitcoin.

There is many theories about that who it is. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we'll never know who it really is. Revealing now would be too dangerous for him. Many governments are quite angry at him and it would probably end with arrest and many problems.

The fact would remain that probably we may never know who is he whether a person or a company or group of institutions etc . Nothing is clear and to which country it can belong to is also a question . But it has revolutionise the world as something which could not be thought is being created .