Bitcoin Forum

https://soundcloud.com/stew-pendousman4444/on-nash-ideal-money

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/20-years-ago-john-nash-re-defined-our-understanding-of-economics-again-and-we-still-havent-4f3b7f09fd0e#.6hpwhrbfo

john nash was a maths guy not a code guy... keep trying though

you obviously didn't read the article where i cited the programming he was doing in regard to searching for the next prime number.  Or the part where cederic villiani explained how nash was known for solving problems far outside his own expertise, by arranging different experts in different fields to solve certain problems he formulated for them to solve, which came together to solve a problem of an unbelievable order.  

You wholly just judged something in which you have no idea what you are talking about didn't you?

no one who listens to the entire thing with sincerity will disagree.

he used his mind and written and verbal words. he didnt do things like learn c++
he was a theorist and white paper writer. he left it for other people to translate the math into programming.

im pretty sure you havnt really dug deep into what he done in his later years (beyond lectures), after the millenium to realise that he is not really the coder level capable person to have wrote bitcoin.

but as i said.. keep digging

I made sure I was throughout enough that people will laugh at you for being the first person to shoot it down without reading it.  Good job. Please leave the thread though.

It is full assumption as I understand the article with some vague supporting facts. But I wouldn't remove the possibility that he maybe the one orchestrated a project that lead to Bitcoin creation.

And isn't it Primecoin that solve for next prime numbers? http://primecoin.io/about.php#what-xpm

some line from https://medium.com/@rextar4444/20-years-ago-john-nash-re-defined-our-understanding-of-economics-again-and-we-still-havent-4f3b7f09fd0e#.fzkbnx7hp


http://primecoin.io/about.php#what-xpm

There are some other very curious little notes he left on his homepage as well, one is an admission that he had built 
a program that could search for the next prime number, and this note about how he had a fear of consulting 
others on some ideas he was having:

What is the Scientific Value Behind Primecoin's Work?
Primecoin network searches for special prime number chains known as Cunningham chains and bi-twin chains. The distribution of these prime 
chains are not well-understood currently as even for its simplest case twin primes their infinite existence is not proven. The distribution of
 primes has been one of the most important discoveries in arithmetic, and the study of prime chains traces its lineage to the work of Riemann 
prime number theorem, with connections to the deeper nature of the seemingly random pattern of prime distribution. Prime distribution is not
 just an abstract interest of mathematicians. Riemann's study revealed connections between Riemann zeta function and prime distribution, 
 later on Riemann zeta function has been shown to be highly relevant in other scientific disciplines such as physics, thus the study of
 prime distribution is an important part of the foundation of modern sciences.

Not quite sure how this relates to Bitcoin. I might be wrong but this fuzz about Satoshi is making people see things where they don't exist. I might be wrong though, would like to see proof relating someone to Satoshi if it exists.

You are perfectly admitting you didn't listen to the link or read the article aren't you?  Like just for others can you clarify this is true or not? No one who has listened to the talk has said something so asinine, just so others are aware.

So wheres the evidence? Its funny coz he is not a code expert. But he is a math genius. How can he create such technology?
Keep trying. I think we are very close to Satoshi Nakamoto. Lol
Oh! theres another one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1765953.0

Did you also just comment on something you haven't read or listened to?

The article is fact after fact after fact.......

Everything is perfectly cited.

John Nash created bitcoin, anyone that sincerely looks at the facts will agree.

Yes, I didn't listen to the talk. No, I read the article. If you could point me to where in the talk do we have proof that John Nash created Bitcoin, I'd be thankful.

Indeed the proof of facts are very vague to point John Nash as the creator of Bitcoin even the qouted proof that were posted as a reply to my post here tells nothing about John Nash creating Bitcoin, those were just some events that were taken as proof of John Nash planning on something and that programming mentioned were built to search next prime number that were well suited to the concept of Primecoin.

My theory is that traincarswreck caused the taxicab accident that took John and Alicia Nash's life (http://abc7ny.com/news/dashcam-video-shows-taxi-crash-scene-where-john-nash-was-killed/858820/).

I do not care so much, I just care who operates BTC

Josh Nash sounded like a mathematician rather than a creator of bitcoin. If compared to Craig Wright, wright is more reliable than John Nash and If i were to select between the two it would be Wright that I will vote. But as of now neither of the two is Satoshi Nakamoto since they fail to establish enough evidence and proof that they are really the creators of bitcoin.

did you listen or read the article, because I don't believe you did. listen.

Lemme ask you something.  It is said Craig claimed him and 4 or more others created bitcoin, why are you calling HIM Satoshi? And do you believe Gavins bullshit lie that one can prove they are Satoshi by signing with Satoshi's private key?

with Craig Wright claims to be satoshi and the way many newbies, unaware of how bitcoin works, believed him and how the public media such as big news agencies (other than shitty bitcoin new sites) believed the story i expect more and more people come out as being Satoshi candidates either by themselves or by others after the fact.

Craig Wright and Andressen wants to split Bitcoin, for that Wright pretends to be Satoshi. Further in Satoshi's hide he will say that BU is not a alt.

the craig wright, andressen, adam back social drama is all orchestrated by coindesk, who has ownership stakes in blockstream(adamback) and bloq(gavin andressen).

if you didnt realise it, andressen is still part of the side you desire to control you, so when you look at the ties to who is paying them(barry silbert(coindesk)). you realise the game being played on you. you might wake up to this fake social drama.
the whole last 2 years of distractions of the r3cked campaigns was to point their own actions in a different direction by making a couple of their own the fall guys so people think they are safe under the control of centralists.

maybe less time being conned reading con artists scripts made to distract you, and instead doing your own research would help you more

Another thread how many people are going to claim he or that is satoshi. Why can't people just digest the fact that satoshi identity will never be told to the world. He shall never ever reveal himself and all those who are claiming that they know satoshi are trying for their ratings to go high. Why do people really need to know the real identity, just move on with life and get on there's more to do than find out his identity.

This thread doesn't claim Nash is satoshi, you mutt.

Few people are saying that the creator of bitcoin is Satoshi.
But now I get to hear that some John Nash is the creator.
Like you have to just post any topic just for increasing your posts
Count. It's very irritating , I am sure that this might
But answered by many but I don't feel that this topic
Needs any explanation.
Thankyou

Nash had understood unbreakable encryption, the solution to all finite games with n players, the value of money in trade, and a design for AI by the time he was 25.  Subsequently he fled the US because of his insight he call "ideal money".  This was 55 years ago.  Then he spent his time quietly at princeton, as the legend goes, scribbling on chalk boards at night. In 1995 he started touring the world explaining that an e-currency with a stably issued supply, is going to asymptotically take power from the central banks and he METHODICALLY explained how this would happen.

He left a note on his homepage saying he has come up with something based on new axioms, in which he is afraid to consult other people on, and I quoted that this axiom was that money should be issued in a way that it has a stable value.  And he left a note saying he developed a program that could search for the next prime.

He also said he has been purposefully obfuscating his lecture and work, up until at least 2013, out of fear from government reprisal.

lol.. dang this trainwreck cant see passed his own nose.

he thinks he has found something big, but doesnt realise that he is like a few years out of date in all his research..
people have already supplied far more stuff than trainwreck has and this john nash ploy of his is not original.

seems he needs to be the one that does more research

I am the only person that has done research and provided it to the community on the subject of Nash Ideal Money and its relation to bitcoin, dumbass.  Everyone.  Look at this idiot, talking about someone they know nothing about.

While I don't really believe that Nash was instrumental in the coding of bitcoin, I do believe his thinking influenced those who were involved, in some way.  And, coding was part of the curriculum in many higher math and science degrees then, but more so now (Nash, no doubt, was at least fluent in Fortran).  Now days, a simple B.S.E.E requires c++, assembly, and Matlab.  So, we could assume that Nash was at least exposed to coding. Mathematica is, after all, a staple in most courses in higher mathematics.  It's hard to separate the coding from the math now days.  I don't think (very seriously doubt) Nash is the coding guy but his thoughts may have influenced the thinking somewhere along the line.  Right?  Maybe?

I did not read it nor heard the provided materials. Anyone care to give a tl;dr? Besides that i do not care if he invented it or not. Since he is dead i would be even kind of glad, because he can not be used to manipulate the minds of people.

You are not the only one.  That idea has been suggested countless times.  You may be onto a trail that many others have been on but that trail may lead you closer to the truth.  I agree with Franky1, keep digging; the more you dig the more interesting things become.  Interesting find though, thanks!  Nash is one of my all time favorites.

You are referring to ALL me. No one else has read the material, numb nuts.

It's weird how you have an opinion but haven't traversed the material you have an opinion about.

John Nash got the idea for ideal money when we went crazy and was forcibly confined in psychiatric care. 50 years later he started to tour the world talking about how an international e-currency would take power from central banks to print money. He also explained in great detail, how this will all unfold, and what will be the result-and exactly how we should move forward with bitcoin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gzoxa/john_nash_is_satoshi_nakamoto/

http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/

https://cointelegraph.com/news/john-nashs-death-prompts-renewed-speculation-over-bitcoin-creation

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/called-the-inventor-of-bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto/

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/why-there-is-so-much-talk-about-john-nash-s-possible-relationship-to-bitcoin

http://bitcoinpricelive.com/john-nash-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin/

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/why-bitcoin-is-and-isnt-ideal-money/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/07/bitcoin-decentralization-and-nash.html

....ad infinitum

thats ALL from ME dumbass.

lol RESEARCH HARDER

2015 - http://www.indiabitcoin.com/can-bitcoin-be-john-nashs-ideal-money-newsbtc/
2015 - http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/
2014 - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30/business-finance-investing/john-nash-created-bitcoin-1432655/
2013 - https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/11/11/game-theory-and-bitcoin/

trainwreck.. your not original. you also have not even shown any proof. just opinions. and as i said a few times your not the first to try saying it.

research harder,

I am not denying nor supporting this thesis. But I find it is very convenient to call Nash creator of BTC, since he is unfortunately dead.
So there is no way for him to deny or confirm this revelation defectively making him a great candidate to force Satoshi title on him.
Until real Satoshi will reveal himself one day, Nash may be "Tier 1" candidate along with: Adam Back ,Charles Bry, David Chaum
Michael Clear, Wei Dai, Hal Finney, Neal J. King, Martti Malmi, Shinichi Mochizuki, Tatsuaki Okamoto, Vladimir Oksman and Nick Szabo.
 

You are still quoting me dumbass. plus the last links is irrelevant. I told you.  I am the ONE.

Did you read the article, or listen to my annotations, or just ignored them and came to spew ignorance.?

john nash although a maths genius, had other mental issues. which got worse.
he suffered medical problems too.
although he done the occassional 1 hour talks.. he lacked the attention span and abilities to have created bitcoin

i do laugh at how trainwreck is now backtracking to say he "influenced" satoshi, and was not actually satoshi..

anyway trainwreck. have a good night. you cannot provide any proof and you are just repeating yourself now about how we cannot be clicking your clickbait if we are not agreeing with your failed attempts of showing proof he created bitcoin.

your clickbait contains nothing of substance.

trainwrecks mindset
there was a caveman who was smartr then his peers. he mad fire.. every other living thing bowed down to him in shock of his brilliance and power.

later
someone produced a combustion engine car.
common sense if it involves combustion then it must have some underlying understanding of fire..
a few people years ago harp on about was the combustion engine enspired by the caveman inventing fire..

later

trainwreck makes a statement
"cave men created the car"
followed by
"i am the first person to blah blah blah, click my link give me fame click my link.. i need fame, i need glory, click my link"

"if you dont bow down and give me glory you didnt click my link, so click my link, click my link give me fame click my link"

He no doubt "created" Bitcoin in the sense, that he formulated the theory that inspired satoshi.

Satoshi was definitely not Nash, no way. Nash wasnt really into practical things and also not a coder.

However Satoshi probably read Nash's work, and got inspired by it.

I have seen over 5 threads recently with people claiming different names as being "the Bitcoin creators". No matter if that person is a math genius, a genius coder or anything else, unless he shows evidence there is no way you can find out who that person really was. Maybe he is someone VERY smart, a genius that nobody knows about.. And I personally think he will never reveal himself (unless after death he's found to be the one) for security reasons.

Quite frankly there is no way to prove who is satoshi, if he lost the private keys.

Even if satoshi would come out now, and say that he is satoshi, if there is no proof, then his whole "satoshi" identity is impossible to prove.

So I think this is one of the reasons why he doesnt want to come out ,because he cant prove himself anyway.

This person is an ignorant piece of shit commenting on things they know absolutely nothing about and have absolutely no capacity to understand. Get the fuck out of this thread you fucking troll piece of shit of a person.

You better have at least read the article before you put your nose in my shit.

as it just seems like there is an ulterior motive for this trainwreck to be so desperate to get people to follow and applaud him. it just seems too desperate to just be about medium.com clickbait

I am not saying that John Nash is Satoshi but for the sake of discussion, was it not shown in the early versions of Bitcoin that the code was not really that good? The "developer", Satoshi, probably was not a good coder or might not even be a professional coder. He might really be a math guy who learned to code then created Bitcoin.

Normally I would think you are a troll, but in this case I actually think you are this stupid.

The foundation of computation as we know it came from Alan Turing with his Turing Machine, and he was a mathematician. Some of the older computer science instructors at universities are were mathematics majors because there was no CS majors in their time

I wouldn't put it over a mathematician

there is no need to listen or read anything, if he really created it, just sign the correct block with signature, and we all we will accept it at that point

everything else is just bullshit to ride the notoriety

Im agree with you. it isn't important thing. I think, it is more important than who create this. John Nash must be beyond "name"

I think it was Satoshi who created the bitcoin and he named bitcoin smallest unit Satoshi under his name. Thats the most antithetic information i have heard across the internet. Rest all John Nash etc are just not look real and are false as everyone tries to claim himself as if he is the founder of this great invention.

I just finished reading everything OP wanted us to read and here is what I've got:

2^100 = 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.

Now give me my Nobel prize! :D because I'm him>Satoshi.

Sadly if it is true that John Nash is the real SN then he cannot sign it from the other world.  Anyway, I do not care about who satoshi is, why would I waste my time researching who he is. 


I would care much for this.  Satoshi was the past, so let us leave it as that unless someone just moved that Satoshi's Address or announced a sign message from that address then there is no doubt on that.

actually satoshi made bitcoin but it wasnt until later that
0.00000001 got 'branded' a satoshi and
0.0000001 got branded a hal

in honor of satoshi and hal, by the community in 2011

then much later
0.000001 got branded a bit
and people even now are trying to give nick names to the other decimal points

also Satoshi can post something under his account here

this isn't proof of satoshi, idiot.

Even if this article was true I don't see its relevance today because Nash has passed and I don't think this will be the last person who might claim or might be labeled Satoshi until the real Satoshi comes out with some hardcore evidence so for me it's irrelevant at this stage because Bitcoin has already come to stay.

Yes I agree because there are not valid proof about it, so it is still called conspiracy
the other people there were said created bitcoin was Craig Wright but it is still conspiracy too.
 I don't know who are true the most important bitcoin becomed more popular right now.

did you, or did you not read the article or listen to my explanation of it before you made this judgement?

trainwreck.
all you care about is clickbaiting your medium article.

many people have talked about john nash YEARS ago.
you have not added anything else to the argument apart from endless "did you read it did you read it" click begging

shut up about the click begs of wanting people to click your article.
the content of that article offers NO better info then whats already been discussed before.

You haven't read the article you talking about.  And what you are saying is wholly untrue.

Nobody brought anything from Nash on ideal money to the community but me. 

And so what is this poster doing, filling this thread up with their trash, talking about something in which they are both observably wrong about and completely ignorant about.

What is so valueless about your life that you will spend time commenting on something that you know absolutely nothing about?

I think no one expects the spanish inquisition made Bitcoin because

https://i.imgflip.com/10aiqe.jpg

In my opinion is less likely that the creator of bitcoin is an american or european. Probably a chinese or japanese. The name Satoshi Nakamoto indicates that as well and we all know that asians are born with IT skills. lol No offense here..

nope
analysts have looked at the details and spotted he is british background. and times zones of activity do not relate to asian daylight hours

the 'satoshi" seems to have emanated from a cryptographic game about anonymity.. this game existed way before bitcoin, which it seems bitcoins creator adopted that pseudonym after the game but before bitcoin due to an interest in that game.
that game was not asian founded either, but the target of the game had the name satoshi.(games target is not the bitcoin creator although both entities decided on same name)

its much like saying if i named myself franky. does that mean im german by default due to to the origins of the name.. nope
its my interest in the name frank that has many wordplay possibilities behind it, as the reason i chose it. one of which relates to germany.

but with all that said.. all indications and rational thought show that satoshi's skill set, dsires, motives and analytical info of what we can establish, the bitcoin creator is NOT john nash.. nor is satoshi japanese.. nor is satoshi craig wright either

Haven't heard of him before.
Craig Wright I have but not this guy.

Every time you address this point and say this it shows to everyone that read the article that you didn't.  Its crystal clear because are speaking to a framed argument that I did not propagate. What you are calling click bait, is the opposite of click bait.  I put a very well founded an cited argument together, but I never told you what the argument is.  That you continually speak to a frame that is wholly irrelevant to my article is a perfect testament to your ignorance on the subject.

How are you coming to conclusions for the community, but without having any knowledge on what you are talking about?

boring reply where all you are saying effectively is "click the link"
typical clickbait

now i see why you have no clue. you dont even read your own post to realise you yourself are not showing any proof on this forum that this topic has merit.
why even bother going to your clickbait repeatedly. if what it says has already been said before you even said it.. by other people.

i dont need to read it multiple times.. the article has NO merit. and is just meaningless clickbait.
move on with your life and get a real job instead of trying to gather pennies with click bait empty material.

As I heard the person of Satoshi Nakamoto stays mysterious. I have found on the net that it's still not clear who exactly create bitcoin and blockchain technology. Probably as everything the most genius it have made by some group of people.

It's amazing the time you waste talking about something you clearly have chosen to remain ignorant about.  That me posting a link of the most compressed version of the story I explain, makes it "clickbait" because you deem it not worthy even though you haven't read it, is the most trollish action I could possibly think of.

You are literally doing nothing but trolling in this thread.  I posted my argument, its there to be refuted, but no one has, and no one can because its founded. Every claim I make is backed up with a credible source.

i have read your link

nothing in it has anything credible.
there is no need to re-read it
no need for me or anyone to click it again

you have offered nothing that has not been said years ago
you are just clickbaiting

instead of making a point here. you are just screaming "click the link"
stop making posts asking to click the link.
this topic is 74 posts long and all you are doing is crying and screaming for people to click your link and insulting people if they call you out.

all you seem to care about is people clicking your link.

get the hint.. after 3 pages of asking people to click it.. if they have not clicked it by now. they wont click it by you simply screaming for them to click it.

get the hint. you have wasted your time raising a subject that has died out and debunked YEARS ago.

move on

What you are addressing is not the content of my article, and so to continue to come in and troll this thread while clearly not addressing the content, is FAR more convincing than you stating that you did in fact read it.

You are not contributing to this thread, you are purely and simply trolling me.

It's total clickbait and a stupid and retarded theory that has no merit in reality. If it wasn't clickbait you would post your findings here. In fact, I would bet that you've spewed more shit in this thread about how everyone should click your stupid link than what you've wrote in that link.
If you want to show your point, type it out here. Dont send people to a site they don't want to visit and then tell them they are ignorant for not giving you clicks. Try articulating you point on the forum, you know, the forum where you can type shit out to make a point or post an opinion.

:D

train wrck has wasted 6 days trying to clickbait.
all he wants is some @medium money

he wont articulate it here.. because there is nothing of worth to articulate

20 Years Ago John Nash Re-defined Our Understanding Of Economics (Again) and We Still Haven’t Realized It

I’m going to paint a picture for us that is going to get me labeled as “crazy” but I’m thinking its necessary to go all the way with this line of thought whether it turns out to be accurate or not (in some ways I already know its accurate since its based on facts that I myself have seen with citations and references).

In short, the movie A beautiful Mind starring Russel Crowe, about a mathematician named John Nash who descended into mental illness before being recognized as one of the greatest minds that ever lived, is not historically accurate and the ACTUAL events that took place in this mans life are incredibly significant TODAY.

One such example of CURIOUS inaccuracy is in a scene of the movie in which Nash’s wife Alicia shows Nash “evidence” that the letters he sent to the government intelligence agency he claimed to secretly work for were never sent or received:

She was hoping this would wake him up out of his delusional state. But the truth of the matter is, and this is commonly accepted in his biography, Nash HAD sent letters that WERE received by the NSA, Rand, and other partitions of the US government and intelligence agencies and these letters were made public by the NSA years later.

Moreover these letters turned out to be incredibly insightful and significant:


Furthermore a quick scan of Nash’s wiki turns up a cited paragraph explaining that he DID have a form of top-secret security clearance with RAND (and that he WAS targeted by the government for charges that were later dropped):


Another curious inaccuracy in this movie is that it portrays Nash as taking medication to get better, when in fact it is well known that medication did NOT play a crucial in his release from hospitalization or his recovery (and Nash is NOT a fan of such medication). Whenever Nash’s illness and recovery are discussed in regard to his biography there is always a very curious caution to it:


What does it mean to learn to consciously discard delusions?

Here we can read it in Nash’s own words:



Notice how he expresses his illness, as if he was expressing himself politically causing friction with society, and that he change his delivery in a way “…that is characteristic of scientists”.

I’ve listened to every John Nash interview I can find. He ALWAYS talks about his illness like that. He never flat out admits that he was mentally ill by his own standards, rather he always explains his “delusionary periods” as if he was simply having difficulty fitting in.

What is also significant about these periods of “mental illness” was that Nash came up with many ground breaking solutions that pervaded pretty much all of the sciences that exist today. And it took nearly 40 years for him to finally get recognized for it with a nobel prize.

Before his delusional episodes Nash was excelling at mathematical discovery at an unbelievable pace. Even well established mathematicians are in complete awe of Nash’s insights:

French mathematician Cedric Villani said this of one of Nash’s proofs:

 
This wasn’t a complete surprise for those around him as he was admitted to Princeton at 19 with a recommendation letter that literally explained, “He is a mathematical genius.”:

Currently it is trending on the internet that his paper “Equilibrium points in n-person games” is the greatest scientific paper ever published and Nash was 21when it was published. That same year he earned his Ph.D. with a 28 page dissertation on non-cooperative games that had only 2 citations, one of which was his own paper on equilibrium points in n-person games.

Nash never really stopped presenting incredible solutions to problems that just mystified many of the otherwise most brilliant men of his time:


And he admits himself (which is also verifiable if you think his mind can’t be trusted to remember) that he DID in fact continue to have such insights, at least in between bouts of delusional periods:

 
He almost mocks his own style of thinking, but admits only that he learned to fit in.

In 1994 he wrote:


And it is said by 1995 he was considered “sane” again:


This is interesting timing, because this is the year it seems Nash began to publicly talk about his proposal for “Ideal Money” which is a lecture supported by a paper of the same name that was published in the Southern Economic Journal in 2002.

So what did Nash do since 1995 when he “magically” gained his sanity back (notice my tone just changed there)?

He spent that last 20 years of his life (he passed away in a vehicle accident with his wife in May 2015) touring country to country and giving lectures on the topic of Ideal Money, and meditating on the subject which he expressed through various writings:

It is Ideal Money, I argue, that is his REAL defining work, and that we are simply yet to discover the value of it. But there is more…

In all my researching I have not found anyone that has read anywhere near the entire volume of papers Nash put out on the subject of Ideal Money. I also haven’t found any sincere persons that admit to having even a decent understanding of Nash’s proposal (this stands to reason since it seems no one has even traversed the material). I myself found some of these versions of Ideal Money digging around on Nash’s public home page (it just kinda seemed like he wanted someone to find them) and to my knowledge no one else really knew they were there.

There are some other very curious little notes he left on his homepage as well, one is an admission that he had built a program that could search for the next prime number, and this note about how he had a fear of consulting others on some ideas he was having:


Here is where things get even more interesting.

Ideal Money is a concept that Nash came up with in the ‘60’s when he fled to Europe. He was planning on denouncing his American citizenship and was wanting to exchange his American dollar for the Swiss franc. The Navy, he says, tracked him down and took him back to America in chains.

Nash was running around at one point claiming the anti-communist and communist governments were colluding against the people. One can imagine how this wouldn’t go over very well, especially back in those times (Cold war).

But even though Nash’s illness faded and he was declared stable again by doctors, family, academia, the general public, and the nobel prize committee (or perhaps not because the committee had concerns about his ability to accept such an award) he never actually left go of the declaration that the different forms of governments work against its own citizenry.

In fact the closing section of Ideal Money compares the notion of (Keynesian) central banking is comparable to Bolshevik communism:


So what was it then? Was Nash not delusional then, or was he still delusional up until he died?

To answer that we have to understand the argument Nash proposes in Ideal Money, which is difficult to do because Nash has a very awkward, old school, long winded, tangential, full of side streets, leaps of logic with no apologies, style. He often alludes to people or events without explaining the subtle underlying meaning of the reference (this I have learned over the years of “googling” different names and phrases he uses). He’s very clever in this way and he is also known to be a world class troll, which means there is often double or multiple meanings to the way he phrases what he says and writes.

His letters to the NSA had this quality. He wrote the NSA and told them he sent a machine design to RAND and that he was proposing an effectively unbreakable cipher machine. But more than that he explained that a conjecture in which, even though he can’t prove it, there is some certainty in his mind that encryption will out race decryption in the long run. Nash felt this was an incredibly significant insight that should be kept secret from “enemies”. He also suggested that the US should want to ascertain the level of knowledge of this conjecture from competing nations.

The NSA wrote back to tell Nash they hadn’t received word of the machine from RAND. They asked a few questions and then eventually said they could have no further communication and wouldn’t be able to tell him about whether or not they would be implementing his ideas.

I think maybe Nash was being very young and cocky. I also think Nash understood the significance of what he knew. And I don’t think we’ve realized the significance what he knew, even today.

Let me explain.

In 1954 Nash wrote this memorandum on a decentralized computing system that ran with highly parallel control. He rambles off some basic ideas for the design and ends with some discussion about computers that could solve problems man couldn’t hope to solve otherwise. The insight Nash concludes with is that the human brain must work in this highly parallel fashion (what is interesting and relevant to Nash’s life is that he also describes how this machine could heal itself):


The point I want to make is we still don’t have this technology and Nash was only about 25 at the time he wrote this paper (remember in the movie all of this was part of his delusions!).

A little recap. In his early twenties Nash solved 2 player games, n-player games, came up with a conjecture for unbreakable encryption, and proposed basic design philosophy for a highly parallel and decentralized computing system (AI), technology we still don’t have today.

He also put forth the Bargaining Problem (and his solution imbedding Riemannian manifolds which isn’t so relevant at the moment).

The bargaining problem is an interesting paper because it is relatively simple. You can sort of understand how someone who was only a few years earlier just a teenager, might have come up with a solution to such an important problem. The basic idea is there are two players that each have different preferences for a set of items. It is said Nash’s youth shows in the paper because the of the items he chose such as a ball, a toy, and a knife. The paper effectively explores the efficiency of money in trade.

This paper is special to me. Because when I couldn’t understand what Ideal Money was about, after reading it multiple times, I was sitting there one day meditating on the bargaining problem, asking myself something I’m SURE Nash was asking himself immediately after he came up with the solution for the paper-what is the NEXT evolution of money?

That’s when I was stuck with the insight I think HE was struck with (but more than 50 years earlier).

Here is a young man, and the world doesn’t know this, but he does, and he’s already solved all games (which is perfectly applicable to war games), he’s already informed his government that he is leagues beyond them in encryption and complexity theory, he’s got a general design for AI in mind, and he’s beginning to explore the concept and value of money to our society.

And then he snaps?!

He gets super paranoid and starts claiming the different governments are colluding against the people and he is going to be our savior like Jesus or Muhammad (he also makes references to both religions in Ideal Money).

He comes up with the concept for Ideal Money and flees to Europe to denounce his citizenship and exchange his USD for the Swiss Franc because he believes it to be of better long term quality.

He’s tracked down by the US government and brought back, and then admittedly and in his own words as I quoted earlier in this article he learned to fit in to society enough that he was no longer forcibly confined in a mental institution.

He spent his time quietly at Princeton University earning the name “the phantom of fine hall” which is where he was said to have spent much of his time.

What was he doing with his time?

From 1995 up until his death Nash was a vocal proponent of what he described as “Ideal Money”.

But what is Ideal Money?

I can paraphrase his argument by saying that Nash suggests that an international e-currency with a stably issued supply will arise to compete with each national respective fiat currency. This competition in turn will solve a problem of otherwise self-interested banking practices because the central banks will now be FORCED to serve their “customers” otherwise they will lose them to a better option.

What’s more, Nash explains that by having a “good” option as an alternative the citizens and markets will begin to naturally force banks to print money of a superior quality. Nash relates and compares this quality to an optimally chosen basket of international commodity prices he calls an ICPI-something that can’t necessarily be created because of the political implications and corruptibility.

There are three key points here, firstly without the concept of the ICPI its difficult to explain what he specifically means in regard to “good” or “ideal” quality. Gold is an example of what has historically served as a “good” money, whereas the fiat money we are served today would be viewed as lesser in quality since it would not remain stable versus an ICPI.


The 2nd key point is that “ideal” means “conceptual”. This is where Nash was very clever, and I’m starting to feel like no one is ever going to understand what he did. Everyone is looking for Nash’s ICPI and how it could possibly be constructed, but Nash is simply using it as a (conceptual) device for dialogue with himself.

The 3rd point is that there IS in fact a limit to the “idealness” of a money in regard to its quality (remember Nash is specifically speaking to HIS definition of quality). That is to say, he predicts, our money systems will begin to asymptotically limit towards this ceiling. This limit, or the concept of it, he surmises will bring our collective awareness to a unit of value that is stable for a “very long” period of time.


That unit of value, is something we have been chasing since the dawn of man, since it is to be the bedrock of all nations functioning on the same (unpardonable and incorruptible) page. It is a unit created not by the competition of armies of nations on the battlefield, but of the competition of the CURRENCIES of their respective nations that arose on a higher order to solve the problem of society that cannot otherwise be solved (effectively the optimal distribution of commodities).

He predicts, and this speaks to the comparison of anti-communist and communist governments, this will wholly changes our banking system and take the power from central banks to arbitrarily print money, all because of “alternative options” for savings:


Nash’s Ideal Money re-solves a problem that is central to the optimal function of our society. My claim here is that his insight will eventually be seen to have brought peace to our conflicting nations. If you know the context of this entire article you can see this and understand it in every interview he gives and every facial expression he makes (watch at the end of this documentary @ 54m — 55m his double look after he talks about a future where a miracle could happen):

everything is cited with links to the sources, and the facts aren't even controversial, they are all accepted on wiki and in his bio, and throughout the academic community.  The rest are quotes from Nash's himself. Troll.

All of the links and citations are in the article, I have no reason to post them for a couple of clowns who don't have the mental capacity to fact check anyways.  I don't get paid from medium.

I may understand some of your words, basically what's doing by john nash is a theory and no more. there is nothing were linking into bitcoin. John nash has encouraged the basic idea of the decentralised computing, but he was never pushing it to be the real form.  :o

You haven't read anything and you clearly aren't strong with the english language.  John Nash spent 20 years defining the intricate details of how and international e-currency with a stably issued supply would arise to usurp the central banks control over our money quality.  20 years he spoke and wrote and you just made an ignorant comment against his works which you have no clue even exists.

He encouraged the idea of decentralized computing?  This was essentially before computing existed nearly 70 years ago when he was barely in his 20's.

I showed he had all the components needed to realize bitcoin and I showed that his paranoia was really him coming up with the idea for ideal money, causing him to flee the US. And that the government DID come after him.

You say there is nothing connecting him?  Wtf is connecting Craig Wright, other than outrageous claim after outrageous claim from something who has a wholly opposite demeanor than Satoshi and the FACT that he doesn't understand the limits of pgp cryptography?

How is it that a man that spent 20 years talking about an international e-currency and how the parameters need to be chosen for it to be come relevant, is seen as so irrelevant that its not even worth reading his argument, and a pyschopath who consistently and constantly say things that are clearly unfounded and go against conventional economics is rather see as your savior?

You provide zero evidence of anything linking him to Bitcoin or its technical concepts. Your entire post is based on your interpretation of the word "ideal", which you have completely wrong. Oh wait, he talks about e-currency or something similar like 1000's of other people over the past 20 years. I have to admit picturing an old man like John Nash hovering over his keyboard on this forum for over year is fucking hilarious. Your idiocy is quite entertaining.

Hey fuckhead.  There is no evidence for satoshi.  suck is the premise. wright provides none. the only evidence wright provides is he is a psychopathic idiot. 

1000's of people?  Name 5 you fuck.

my interpretation of ideal? how about, I am using the standard conventional definition.  Did you pass grade 5 english?

My idiocy?  I was smarter than you when I was in kindergarten.  That isn't an exaggeration its observation.

Name five you fuck idiot piece of shit scum of earth reason this world sucks, because people like you are barely smart enough to tie their own shoes.  And barely can speak and use English. Honestly, you are too stupid for me to address. I will call you, spit.

Hey spit, you are an idiot.

Well you are a fucking idiot that commented with out reading the content.  do you live your whole life being so fucking retardedly ignorant?

I hope you don't have a significant job in this world, asshole.

Very strong circumstantial evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18502866#msg18502866) that John Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto!

Read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18502866#msg18502866)!

I got puzzled when I saw Graig signing a message to Gavin ... why he added more characters on Gavin's original msg?

Yes he is a great man and even if Nash is keeping pushing that kind of ideal it doesn't mean that he is truly Satoshi, even if they have many evidence that he is truly him many people would not believe it or buy anything like this, it sounded like they are pushing him to be satoshi, I think Nash is a remarkable guy and done a lot of thing to the community but we can really never know who is satoshi, and I think do we have to know the truth bitcoin is doing well even if he is not around.

I'm surprised this topic was not moved to the speculation sub  ::)

satoshi was allready busted
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-this-unknown-australian-genius/

But it had happened by mid 2015 but we were searching Satoshi Nakamotto from late 2010 itself. (I am not going to say he would have been active till his end of days).

Here is more info on John Nash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.

I am not finding much interest on chasing a man who is no more. I want Satoshi to be unveiled and he needs to be active here in this forum for some guidelines through which I believe bitcoin will get wide spread to new people.  

Ya, he died 2013, have you googled David Kleiman?

This is exactly why Satoshi cannot be Nash.  Satoshi's creation contains too many blunders (mathematical, cryptographic, economical, game-theoretical and programmatic) to be made by a genius like Nash.  Contrary to what many in the bitcoin world believe, Satoshi wasn't a genius at all (or he was a very evil one hiding what he was really up to).  Satoshi DID have some bright ideas.  And he also did mess up quite a bit, and as such, he did demonstrate he didn't deeply understand certain aspects of what he was doing.  Nash can't be that silly.  Or his high age had deteriorated his genius.

I already indicated several of these silly errors in bitcoin.  One more: the true protection of a bitcoin signature is NOT the elliptic signature scheme, but rather the hash function that transforms the public key into an address.  If a bitcoin address is only used once, the cryptographic security of the digital signature scheme doesn't need to be strong at all.  There's no need to go to 256 bit elliptic curve signatures: in fact the signature scheme only needs to withstand attacks during the time the transaction is broadcast, and is included in the block chain: so at most an hour or so (unless full blocks :) ) and even 10 minutes is good enough.

The reason is that the public key is only made public when signing a transaction.  Even a very cheap signature scheme would be good enough: it will withstand 10 minutes to an hour.  The public key is invisible as long as the hash function is secure.  I said somewhere else that it was totally utterly stupid to have 256 bit signatures but only a 160 bit hash.  But the complexity of the elliptic curve signature scheme was total overkill.  A genius like Nash would not even be capable of thinking of such a blunder.

Satoshi did have bright insights, he wasn't an idiot.  But he wasn't a genius (I see a genius as someone with very profound, deep insight in matters that nobody was understanding at that point).  

This is often a confusion: people think that "successful" people are genius.  Genius is rarely successful, because the deep insight also shows the genius all the limitations of a possible creation, refraining him from going ahead.  A successful person has a bright idea with limited understanding, over-estimates his view on things, and hence doesn't realize that his creation has serious flaws.  This allows him to focus all his energy on his half-failed idea, which, with sufficient luck, becomes a temporary success.

This is also why the elite is not very bright, but has had some successful ideas and mainly a lot of luck.  It is why they are arrogant, and mess up things: because of their limited understanding of things, and their confusion between the fact that they were just lucky to be successful, thinking erroneously that it is caused by their "genius" they are in fact totally lacking.

The successful elite are lottery winners that think that they know better than anyone else how to win at lotteries.  True genius is not like that.  Satoshi has made a successful invention with a lot of profound errors (like most successful things), because he had some bright ideas and was totally lacking the profound insight of the system he had created - lack of insight which allowed him to persevere in his creation of bitcoin.

Maybe you are right in moving this topic in speculation but I think it is still OK that it is here in the discussion, there are really many allegations regarding who Satoshi is, and many in this forum are very curious and would like to really know the true identity of satoshi.

Lol this guy, TRAIN: stop with the personal attacks. Its absolute insanity to think that all the people here have not read the material and have each come to the same conclusion.

If 30 people are telling you that your evidence is circumstancial at best and proves nothing, it doesn't mean we don't know the english language, it doesn't mean we don't see the clues you are trying to tie into, or that we're idiots that haven't read your material. It means that we are taking in the SAME INFORMATION that you are, but we are not coming to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as you. I'm sorry dude, but I think it is YOU that is being the close minded retard at the moment.

Why are you so emotionally invested in this? You think that makes us want to listen to you?

It makes me laugh at every comment you say because you literally say the same shit over and over about how no one is reading the material, despite the fact that people are literally quoting text from said material.

You might THINK you got Satoshi pegged, but so does 100 other people. That's the thing about circumstantial evidence, it's circumstancial... lol.

Stop being such a whiney lil douche. You will never prove whom Satoshi is unless you can get a Satoshi sig on a relevant block, and because of this, no one will ever give you the recognition you oh-so-desperately desire, no matter how EARTH SHATTERING (that's debatable) your circumstancial evidence is.

Sure Nash does look like a great candidate, fuckin' prove it though, idiot lol you never will.

You might as well be looking for big foot and calling anyone that is a skeptic an idiot. Is it the skeptic or the person whose spending his precious time searching for big foot thats the idiot, hmm?


Until you can prove it (which is an impossible task), you are just as big of an "idiot" as anyone that is skeptical about this because you are full heartedly believing in circumstantial evidence (evidence that would be thrown out so quickly in court its not even funny) which is completely unproven and honestly pretty fringe-theory at best.

Sorry to rain on your ego parade.

If John Nash was so smart and he invented bitcoin then why didnt he foresee that a chinese cartel would arise and centralize his entire project? this doesn't make sense to me.

Let this guy go. He has no proof and obviosuly gets zero pussy. You mad bro? LOL

I have refuted you in another thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18510047#msg18510047). You had some really dumb errors in your analysis such as claiming that RIPE160 reducing security. No it only reduces the space of addresses increases potential collisions but only astronomically small probability yet saves a lot of scaling space.


The game theory of Bitcoin is a crab bucket mentality Schelling point (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857162.msg18490584#msg18490584) and nobody can change the protocol, they can only block changes to the protocol. Which is exactly what is happening.

Chinese cartel doesn't control Bitcoin, the protocol controls itself. The Chinese are protecting the protocol precisely as the game theory expects they would.

It is difficult for me to have a discussion with the idiots here in these forums. You guys don't assimilate everything I write.


Thirty idiots who can't assimilate detailed technological research are basically just noise.

I have already explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18514473#msg18514473) that Nash was obviously (but likely unwittingly) involved and explained why.

Idiots are not worth my time.

From the wiki and general articles related to bitcoin understood that more of the bitcoin legendary cryptograph developers claim themselves to be Satoshi.

Given that that thread is closed, I won't reply there of course.  But your rebuttal is wrong, most probably because you didn't see the point I was making.

Here is your rebuttal:

There are different forms of attack on a bitcoin UTXO, some more theoretical than others, but here it goes.

In order to spend an UTXO in an attack, you have to provide a digital signature and a public key that allows to verify that signature, in such a way that:
1) that signature corresponds to the transaction as verified with the given public key
2) the hash of that public key corresponds to the given address.

Of course, 1) is not difficult by itself: just any key pair (P,S) will allow you to use S to generate a valid signature, that can be verified by P.  The hard part is 2), the fact that the public key has to hash to the given address.

Essentially, we need to find a P such that
1) P corresponds to an S that can generate a signature to be verified by P
2) P ultimately hashes to A, the address.

In this problem, A is the only given.  ANY P that hashes to A and that has a corresponding S, will do.

The cryptographic assumptions are that we have an easy elliptic function ell(S) = P, and an easy hash function hash(P) = A.  Note that the fact that hash() is a compound hash function of two standards, SHA-256 and RIPE160, doesn't matter in the theoretical description.

ell() is a 256 -> 256 bit function
hash is a 256 -> 160 bit function.

In the end, the only thing that we need, is to find an S, such that hash(ell(S)) = A.

As hash o ell = full is a 256 -> 160 bit function, to brute-force this, your security is essentially 160 bit.  After on average 2^160 trials, you will have found an S.   It will not be the owner's S, but that doesn't matter.
This particular S will:
1) provide a P that will be able to verify the signature generated by S
2) have the P hash to A

and that's all that is needed.

In fact, 2^(256 - 160) = 2^96 different (S,P) key pairs will satisfy the needs to spend the transaction output.  Only one of those is the true owner's key pair, but the whole point is that that doesn't matter.  The transaction can be satisfied by 2^96 different key pairs, because the only thing that is needed for such a key pair, is for its public key to be hashed to the address.

So the effective security of bitcoin's signature scheme, is 160 bit on the condition that all cryptography is perfectly safe.   There's no point in going to 256 bit for the key pair, because 96 bits of that are lost, given that 2^96 key pairs hash to the same address, and are interchangeable.

Now, ONCE the public key is exposed (which is normally, if no address re-utilisation, only when the payment is broadcast), the security of a 256 public key scheme with full cryptographic security is 128 bits (all schemes are vulnerable to Pollard's rho attack which halves the number of bits).  As such, it seems at first sight that a 160 bit hash doesn't seem to decrease the security of the key pair, a 256 bit key is in any case not more secure than 128 bits.  I'm even not sure that you really maintain the 128 bit security if 2^96 key pairs are possible, even though for most general attacks I know about, you need to know the explicit public key and not just a hash test of it.

However, such security is not needed.  The public key only needs to be secure from the moment of broadcast until the moment of integration in the block chain, that is, about 10 minutes.  There is no need for 128 bit security in that case.

If you would have taken 80 bits of security, that is, an elliptic curve crypto system with 160 bit keys, then there would be only a single key pair that corresponds to the address. You wouldn't have wasted 96 bits for each input.  The long time security would still be 160 bits, because of the security of the (combined) hash function.  And 80 bits of security would be more than sufficient to keep the secret the time between broadcasting the signature and the key, and its inclusion in a block.

The error you (and probably Satoshi) make is to think that because at a certain point we have 256 bits, that this level of security is "locked in".  This error comes from thinking that one has to crack the scheme "backward" one by one: first one has to crack RIPEM160, then one has to crack SHA-256, then one has to crack elliptic curve discrete logs on 256 bits.  But that is not necessary.  You can see the system as a whole, and you shouldn't see it as reversing several individual steps.   You can easily see the problem with that notion.   Suppose that passwords are protected with a 20-bit hash.  That is, an idiot programmed a log-in system such that, for reasons of security, your password is hashed with a 20-bit output hash, and only this hash is stored.  (that's like bitcoin's address).  Now, to log on, you provide your password, the hash is calculated, and if it fits with the 20-bit hash, you are allowed to log on.  You remember that one should use long pass phrases.  So you type a sentence of 60 characters, nobody can guess.  You think that you have ~300 bit security if we take 5 bits of entropy on average for a typed character.  However, the hash of that long phrase is only 20 bit.
If I want to brute-force your log on, I only need to try about a million passwords.  I will NOT guess your password.  I don't need to.  I will find a password (a different one) that will hash to the same hash as yours.  And I will be able to log on.

By limiting the hash of the public key to 160 bits, Satoshi has limited the security of that key to 160 bits in any case.  Providing 256 bits is not meaningful, not any more than your long pass phrase was meaningful security.  You could have taken a password of only 4 characters, you would have had about the same security.  Satoshi could have taken a public key of 160 bits, that would have given the same security ; apart from the small time lapse between rendering the key public (broadcasting the transaction) and its inclusion in the chain.
And one would have saved 96 bits per input on each transaction.

What is even more, if for one or other reason, Satoshi was of the opinion that the key needed its security by itself, then it is even stranger to have a key with 128 bit security, and an address with 160 bits of security.  If Satoshi considered 128 bits sufficiently secure, there was no reason to keep 160 bits of the hash in the address. 128 bits on the address would have been good enough.

In other words, the word length choices make not much sense, security wise.

A) Satoshi wanted 160 bits of security only for addresses --> a 160 bit (80 bit security) elliptic curve signature would have been good enough, and 96 bits of saved room per input

B) Satoshi wanted 128 bits of key security overall, also with public key --> the 160 bit hash of the address is too long, he could have won 32 bits per output with addresses of only 128 bits

C) Satoshi wanted 160 bits of key security overall -> his 256 bit elliptic curve signature is not good enough, it has only 128 bits of security, and maybe even less.

==> clumsy crypto.

Readers I am not admonishing @dinofelis. I respect him very much. Please read all the way to the end of this post.


Correct the intractable brute force collision attack is reduced to 2^160 bits.

And that is you're mistake. Shocked?  ;) I had thought of that of course and was waiting for you to make this mistake.

Here we aren't concerned about an intractable brute force attack. We are concerned about cryptanalysis breakage. And non-brute force, cryptanalysis collision attacks require attacking the input (and output relationship) of the RIPE160, not attacking the input of the SHA256 whose output in the input of the RIPE160. Such as for distinguishers, boomerang attacks, etc (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085436.msg11768684#msg11768684).

I have studied hash functions and their cryptanalysis some, so I became aware of this.


Although you try to make that big number of potential duplicates sound like a big deal, it is in fact intractable to find one because of the 2^160 bits of collision space in the brute force attack case.


As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage.


That is why we need the 256 bitlength security for the ECDSA. That has been my point. Don't conflate hash function attacks with ECC attacks.


You're thinking about it entirely incorrectly per my points above.


Incorrect. Think about it.


You presume we are simpletons, because you have made a Dunning-Kruger mistake.


Please don't lecture me. I understand all that. But you got lost in the trees and didn't see the big picture point.


Nope. Your analysis was clumsy.

Please stop thinking Satoshi made mistakes. He was more clever and exacting than you. You really want to believe the global elite didn't create Bitcoin. And you really want to believe Bitcoin is going to fail. But your beliefs do not align with objective reality.

I am not trying to insult or demean you. I know you are very smart and I have appreciated all your very high-quality analysis. As well you turned me more on to the concept that PoW is a crab mentality immutability game theory.

I am just noting that your confirmation biases for wanting Bitcoin to fail, are I think causing you to be overconfident and not skeptical enough on your analysis.

I am thoroughly convinced that iamnotback is a total moron.

You are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.


@dinofelis will acknowledge the correctness of my rebuttal, unless he is disingenuous. And I don't think he is.

@dinofelis's mistake was thinking that something that is intractable is worth worrying about. Cryptanalysis attempts to reduce the intractable bitlength security to a tractable attack. But I explained the staging of the SHA256 before the input of the RIPE160, in theory makes cryptanalysis attacks on the collision equivalent to attacking the 256-bitlength collision security of SHA256. Cryptanalysis attacks don't collapse to 160-bits. I possess more knowledge about hash function security than @dinofelis.

Maybe iamnotback is not suffering from the same (Dunning-Kruger effect), that he is really superior and somewhat legendary.





You know, sometimes it can be fun "praising" the truly foolish, and watch in glee the fool nodding in agreement.

Dorky keep digging more into your Dunning-Kruger facepalm.

There will plenty more coming for you because you seem to feel it is necessary to try to prove something against me.

Seriously dude, you are not competent. So much so, that you can't distinguish competence. Sorry if you are butthurt. I am simply stating facts.

The difference between the uninformed and the stupid, is the stupid insist even after they've been informed.

The best advice I can give you is to read more, and type much less.

That is the definition of the security level.


Of course not.  The *naming* of different steps in the process is just this: a matter of naming.  The combined SHA-256 / RIPEM160 hash function is a hash function by itself.  



The whole point is that if you consider a security level of 160 bits sufficient (which it most probably is), then there is no need to go to a 256 bit key.  


There is, again, an incoherence in the required security levels, as I pointed out:


Correct ; think about it  ;D


--> no argument yet.

In the whole system, you have incoherent security levels, which cost in terms of room on the block without added security, as I demonstrated.  Simply saying that it is wrong is not an argument.


I don't want anything.  But I see an adulation of Satoshi which is based upon self-referential beliefs as if the guy was a genius.  When I present simple arguments of where he made mistakes, and demonstrate that with obvious simple mathematical arguments, the only way to counter that, is with better mathematical arguments, not with the self-referential belief that
"Because Satoshi is a Genius, He cannot have made mistakes, and if people point out that he made some, they are wrong because Satoshi's genius cannot make mistakes. Given that everybody pointing out mistakes is hence wrong, this is the proof that Satoshi, is, after the fact, a genius."  QED.

Maybe I'm missing something.  But my analysis is basic cryptographic design methodology.  
1) fix your security level you want to attain, in what cases.
2) design the crypto so that this security level is reached *consistently* throughout the design.

There is no reason to overdesign (nowhere), and there is no reason to underdesign (nowhere).  The first is a useless penalty on computing resources ; the second is putting into danger the overall security.

One has to make assumptions about the cryptographic soundness of the cryptographic primitives used.  There's no reason to assume a finite loss due to crypto-analysis: a system is considered broken, or not broken.  Not broken means that up to a few bits, the known security level / key length is accepted as a given ; broken means that anything can break down, so you simply cannot design for that.

We have to be assuming that the combined hash function SHA-256 / RIPEM160 is cryptographically secure*, of an UTXO is 160 bits.  There are (as you point out) good reasons that this combined hash function will remain for quite a while secure (that is, will withstand cryptographic analysis).  It is hence at a security level of 160 bits.  Not more.  Not less.

We also have to accept that elliptic curve crypto has a security level of half the key length.  If the specific group is broken in the future, depending on how it is broken, anything can happen, and a 256 bit key system can just as well have 100 bit remaining security, as 32 bit remaining security.    So one cannot design anything on that basis.  

Hence, 256 key length is 128 bit security.

There are a few possible security design criteria that Satoshi could have proposed:

1) overall security 160 bit.  As I indicated, his 256 bit key has only 128 bits security, so this is under-designed --> failure.

2) overall 128 bit security.  The hash is over-designed. --> failure

3) 160 bits security for long term, 128 bits for short term (key exposure).  This corresponds to the actual bitcoin design, but makes no sense, I will tell you why.

4) overall 160 bit security for the long term, highest possible short term security with no room penalty. This is the most sensible economic design, which results in an elliptic curve signature with 80 bits security, matching the 160 bit key length.

==> Only 1, 2, and 4 make cryptographic sense.  4 is the most economical design even though it is cryptographically not coherent, and 1 and 2 are the most coherent designs.

I will now explain you why the actual design doesn't make sense.  The ratio between 160 long term security, and 128 short term security, would make sense if the long term is 2^32 times longer than the short term.  If you take the short term to be 10 minutes (the shortest term that the 128 bit security has to withstand an attack), then the "shortest" long term with 160 bits is 81715 years.  If the short term is longer, this long term becomes even longer.

So there is no adequacy between both security levels.  Or 128 bits is too short, or 160 bits is too long.

It is not dramatic.  It works.  It wastes space, that's all.  But a mathematical genius wouldn't make such errors, that's my point.   Now, if there was a smart crypto analysis why this was nevertheless done this way, and not another way, that would maybe explain things.  I've not seen Satoshi explain anything about this, apart from the silly argument against quantum computers breaking ECC, but limiting hash breaking to.... 80 bits effort :)

Satoshi was a smart guy, but he was by no means a mathematical genius, and he did quite some things a mathematical genius wouldn't be capable of thinking of.  If your view of the world needs that, and you have to resort to circular proofs of his genius, be my guest, I don't want to destroy your view of the world.  

You speaking nonsense. Satoshi Nakamoto is not an apple that you pick from a basket full of developer. Satoshi Nakamoto is some body else. iamnotback You know that you are not Satoshi Nakamoto but you have got your moniker  from Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi will come back soon with a new moniker iamback but not adamback.  He will resurect the dead from the compartment and will empower the poor with more Bitcoins to establish social justice that's has been  hijacked by the alien hypocrites. John Nash even could not imagine about Bitcoin. The real architect of Bitcoin and Blockchain is not a dead man but an immortal.

Yes for the brute force attack, but when attempting to find a cryptanalysis break (i.e. break the internal mixing of the hash function) we have to consider the fact that SHA256 does internal mixing in 2^512 bits space.

Satoshi outsmarted you.

I suggest you consult with Daniel Bernstein or perhaps @johoe. Raise the issue in the Bitcoin Technical Discussion forum, if you want to have a serious technical discussion about it.


Agreed it is but collision attacks based on distinguishers, boomerang attacks, and other forms of cryptoanalysis which attempt to reduce the intractability are what concern us.

The 160-bits is more than sufficient for a brute force attack defense and greater than the 128-bit security of the 256-bit ECC.


Disagree. It is needed because the effective security is as you stated only 128-bits due to rho attack.


There is no incoherence. The 160-bit hash brute-force security greater than the 128-bit security level of the ECC.



And if your transaction fee is too low and doesn't get into a block? Or if there is a chain reorganization?

You're advocating reducing to 80 bits, so that means in the future if someone has to computational capacity to break 128-bits in 2.814749767×10¹⁴ / 60*24*365.25 years, then then at your suggested 80 bits they could break it in 1 minute.



My argument is a slam dunk already.


If you are going to be disingenuous then we can't have intellectual discussion.



No my opinion is based in fact of the genius game theory and concept. And I see no math flaws. You have shown none.


I have refuted your misunderstanding of hash cryptanalysis security. If you don't believe me, go ask a recognized expert. You are simply wrong. I've tried to explain why. If you don't believe me, go consult with a recognized expert such as Daniel Berstein.
 

He didn't make any mistake in the crypto design. I have explained it to you above.


The point of using 160 bits is compression of block size. What is the #1 issue of Bitcoin right now? Block size.

The 160 bits is more than the 128-bit security level of the 256-bit ECC.

It is a perfectly balanced and clever choice.


You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. By frustrating crypt-analysis with the prehashing with SHA256, this RIPE160 is deemed to be a perfect balance of compression and brute force collision resistance.


Ok great so you acknowledge that I was correct on that point. Thanks.


He didn't have any choice to increase the ECC security. The industry acceptable established choices were 256 bit and less at that time.

Also that would increase the block size because of signatures.

He made the most ideal choice.


I already explained in this post that it is not overdesigned.


Nobody would have invested long-term in Bitcoin with 80-bit public keys. And I don't even think there was an established 80-bit ECDSA curve available.

Also the differential between 160-bit and 128-bit is 2^32 which is a factor of 4 billion longer to crack with brute force. So you argument about not being balanced between long and short-term seems incorrect.

There is another factor too which you might not be considering, which is that afaik the public keys of the wallet are stored on the user's machine while the private keys may be stored in a paper wallet which is much more secure. So 80-bit public keys would be very insecure to store on user machines with all the viruses and hackers we have these days. If I am mistaken about this point (actually I never studied any wallets), then my other points remain.



That doesn't make any sense. You are admitting the long-term hash should have a greater security than the short-term ECDSA. Thus #3 is most sensible.



Reducing 160-bits by 16 bits only saves 10%, and for that miniscule size reduction you are not factoring the exponential loss in randomized collision resistance:

http://preshing.com/20110504/hash-collision-probabilities/

Gotcha.  :P


All the errors in analysis are yours. So now we know you are not a mathematical genius, but your own rule of exclusion.  :P


Because you are supposed to think he was only a lone hobbyist in his garage. And you fell for it so gullible you are.


That sentence is internally inconsistent.


I'd be happy if you could prove he made a mistake. You haven't yet.

You are the one trapped in irrational subjectivity of what you want to believe. The detail of your analysis has been refuted above with even more detail that you apparently didn't think of.

And even I might be missing some of Satoshi's additional reasons. I seem to find more and more reasons to agree with his design as I go forward.

Lol, I told my angel investor last month that the great thing about my username is it would make people think of adamback, but in reality the motivation of was Michael Jordan. And yes I used both @iamback and @iamnotback, but the former has a scrambled password and I can't access it. And also I think some users misread it as @iamnotbLack which I like so that it can cause SJWs to become hyperventilated.

https://i.imgur.com/BpHGLYX.jpg

Well, it's not that I don't read more.
It's just that I am not interested in your subject of interest (who is satoshi nakamoto? john nash is!) and couldn't care less about it.

I can identify who (or what) is behind the force of bitcoin even without taking the path of understanding who is satoshi nakamoto.
So what if you have all the information that john nash could very likely be satoshi nakamoto?
The NSA already has a complete research paper on cryptocurrency way back in 1996, do you know that?
And back in 1988, The Economist magazine already touted a "phoenix" world currency.
What is most important is not whether john nash has a role in bitcoin.
What is most important is what's the intention of the shadow elite with bitcoin on us, how their plan will play out, and how it will affect our lives.
Your path of tracing bitcoin's root back to the shadow elite is just one way out of several.
And just because your way is through john nash does not mean your way is the only way or that other people's way is not.
If you think people will eventually know bitcoin was by the shadow elite thanks to your research, then I say you are very full of yourself.

Edit:
Besides, if you think bitcoin will be rejected in favor of one or some of the alts out there, that shows you don't understand the shadow elite well enough.
Yeah, I can see you are a thinker. No sarcasm here. But I believe you need to think even more.

In my analysis, there is definately contradictory aspect to bitcoins. When I do analysis, I try to grasp at person intention, what they spend time on, what they care about , and what are their motivation and state of mind.

Because you get on one side still a super smart concept, well polished, well thought, very deep etc.

And on the other side, the code who seem to be really rushed.


On one side something that definately involve Nash like math. I have read the last post of iamnotback im convinced Nash theories and bitcoin are connected.

But to write blockchain problem, mathematician would express as something like a set of nodes, and matrixes / tensors applied on them to get some kind of statistic informations or whatever.

It's generally easy to spot when code is made out of math theories, because the variables and functions and organized with mathematics thinking.

Here you get code who originally used openssl crypto, and most of the work on the code is glueing different part of framework together.

Basically, it's not math code.

It's not code made to be easily upgraded, or developped collaboratively GPL style.

When people want to launch gpl projects, they install bugzilla, and tracking tools, doxygen,  and lot of other things to manage collaborative developpement on large scale. No such thing with btc right.

More or less the base was laid once for all, from the first time, with method that remind completely of software industry, one whitepapper, one shot release made once for all, and not thought to be developped GPL style. Not too much documentation. Something targeted at end user more than to developpers.


And ive been tweaking with my share of blockchain code, on bitcore, monero and blackcoin, and they are incredibly hard to modify safely. There are threads everywhere, even you could say the whole thing would only make sense if someone wanted to make the threading such that it's very hard to change anything because  of all the different concurent access from different things.

it's so messed up you would almost think there is some game theory in it :D

But the whole way the code is produced really look like something out of a company or start up. Or from people who think in term of commercial software, not mathematician or gpl guys.

From the post attributed to him, you see he still had a plan in mind, but more something based on trading/gambling shared profits and personal profits rather than something really made out of mathematics theories.



If I had to make a bet, id say there was on one side some sort of think tank crunching on the concept of trustless security, decentralized currency, and distributed database is also huge interest for IT due to the economic impact, and adding some twist of crypto on top of distributed database is not necessarily super new either, there are things like hibernate who already deal with this sort of problem, and the infrastructure of blockchain is a distributed transactional database.

The part in itself with distributed database, and signed operation/transaction is not totally new.

But what is very smart with btc is that it's completely made to take in account interest game, speculation, reward, and is completely sound commercially.

It's clear to come up with something like this, need to have at least heard of the kind of math of Nash, and the problematics involved, with decentralized authority, conflict of interest, to get something that is successful and reliable.

But to me it seem it's more like someone like smart buisness man from IT world, from the world of startup and software companies, who would have been introduced to game theory, maybe in the context of gambling, or probability based games, but fundamentally someone from IT industry, and maybe he came into Nash throught online gambling industry.

Then don't comment. Or try to reason with me as you are doing now, instead of treating me like shit and mocking me as you were doing.


And so did I, when I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.160) in March 2013, when I first joined this forum. I also published that at marketoracle (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39704.html) as well.


Because it helps me (us) to understand what exactly their plans are for Bitcoin. Now I know they intend it to be a settlement layer.


I've known about that since 2013.


I've known about that since 2007. For example look at when I mentioned it in 2010 (http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t32p105-changing-world-order#3831).


That is why understanding Nash's role (even if only symbolic) and his Ideal Money is so important.


Did I ever say anyone else's research on connecting Bitcoin to the shadow elite was worthless?


You underestimate how many dozens if not 100s of people read my posts. Just because a few trolls like you think you are so important, there are more lurkers who at least are interested to read what I have to say (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18531448#msg18531448). My technical skills are also legit.


I have secret weapons.

Besides the shadow elite are apt to love the altcoin I will launch, because they will see it as yet another speculation that falls under Bitcoin's umbrella.

Maybe bitcoin was developed by separate groups of programmers working on specific functions before the pieces were assembled together into one.

You obviously don't understand programming.

I studied programming (Python, C++, Java) on my own.

But of course I didn't check out that bitcoin source code.
What's the point since I am just a user?
And if the shadow elite is behind it, whatever their plan will still going to enrich me financially.
Settlement layer, currency, no problem.

What I mean is you apparently have no experience creating a complex application. It can't be done by separate teams and produce a coherent result.

Mythical Man Month applies.

Programming is an activity that requires coherence of design, unless very well designed modular APIs have been designed between separate components.

People can collaborate on code via open source, but not separate teams isolated from each other.

No, no experience in complex application.

I did programming for my futures trading program. And I learned enough for my own application.

Oh, yeah? What secret sauce do you have?

I believe the shadow elite intends to make bitcoin lasts, and certainly will just treat the rest (altcoins) as either sandboxes for improvement on bitcoin or total pump and dumb scam.

Maybe next time you meet Andreas Antonopoulos, you can shoot him a question on bitcoin = rothschilds = phoenix currency and see his facial expression.

Referring to this post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18531448#msg18531448

I don't think they will force the noobs into litecoin or alts for transactions.
They plan to implement segwit with lightning into bitcoin so there is likelihood that these addons are for us to do noob-based transactions, while they do the same without segwit and lightning.

I don't see the long-term as bleak, materially and financially. How can life be bleak if your bitcoin is worth some millions each? You can waste any one on a sports car without bank loan.
I do see the long-term as very bleak and dark, spiritually, because the world is degenerating very rapidly.

Nah, it's not this :)

It's very typical of engineer who are all indoctrinated with making profits with startup, and their thinking is getting the lowest time of developpement for maximum profit, developped with clear timing in mind to reach the spec and whitepapper.

This lead to always tend to use well approved mainstream libraries, and where code reusability , packaging of code is more important, to be able to develop complex application with many different aspect with low time.

The c++ code is pathologically this thinking, of encapsulate / integrate / stick some boost duct tape on top of it, it does the job for the buisness model, it's good.

The code wont be modified / upgraded by anyone, no one has to modify it, the open source is more for trustless aspect, than for collaborative developpement.

But there are nicely packaged app for linux/win/mac and some relatively good security, and it allow to duct tape things together in a way that it can still work together without crash, but there is no "holistic approach", there is low coupling everywhere, some .h file are included in almost all files, it's still very monolithic.

The things that duct taped together are already existing framework like qt, boost, openssl, database engine, and that sort of things.

Not code made by bitcoin developers.

You see for example  libsecp256k1 (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1) only by the name you know it's made by a mathematician :)

But it has been integrated after, as a library with math functions.

No need. The finance tail doesn't wag the dog. The n00bs on Litecoin works just as well for the elite. They don't want that off chain technology mucking up the Bitcoin blockchain. They want absolute reliability of the Bitcoin block chain for $billion settlement transactions.

Watch and observe that I am correct.

So you mean segwit and lightning will pass away?

Sure, I can wait and see if you will turn out right.

It will be available on Litecoin. The masses will be transacting on Litecoin or some other off chain derivative of Bitcoin or even fiat system ecurrency such as SEPA. Bitcoin's protocol will not be modified.

What's this SEPA stands for? First time I come upon it.

Anyway, I hope bitcoin will someday be worth enough for me to buy some Mercedes/BMW suv.

Now I think the best part is WHEN will bitcoin price starts to shoot up non-stop all the way to saturn.

Clif High said 2019 will begin the race to saturn.
I am not sure about the beginning but I think the beginning of a new economic cycle/prosperity will be around 2020 - 2024, thus if the shadow elite doesn't want to "miss the train", everything should be well in place before that year comes.
And that includes major economic and stock market crashes before that.
Clif High's webbot report said such crash will happen in this year.
I hope I don't need to wait too long for everything.

Then why don't you accept it as personal belief and move on with your life? You sit there and say that "idiots aren't worth my time" but then you continue to respond to all of the "idiots" posting in this thread. Does that sound logical? You say one thing, but your actions say another.

Why are you sitting here trying to make an "idiot" like myself, or for that matter any of the other 1000 idiots here, believe in something that you can 100% never prove. Does that sound like a profitable business opportunity to you?

You're supposedly smart, what's the end goal here? You can never prove it, so what's the point of this fight? If being a skeptic makes me an idiot, then I am 100% full heartedly an idiot. Why? because your evidence is circumstantial at best and proves nothing. I'm sorry, you calling me an idiot doesn't change a thing, it only makes you look like a closed minded ass hole lol.

At the end of the day, you are just another tech nerd with a story, emotionally invested in making lil ole me believe you. What's the ulterior motive?

I can 100% promise you that you are WASTING YOUR TIME, is it the skeptic or the person believing in evidence that's completely circumstantial and can be repeated for many of the other Satoshi candidates that's the idiot? lol.

Because I wanted to discuss the ramifications of Nash's ideal money and other potential interpretations.

Why do you have a problem with myself wanting to be very well informed about the sector in which I want to work and market?

Even @Dorky learned to reason with me.

Maybe you will learn too. Instead it seems you just want to fight with me.

If you are not an idiot and can make well reasoned discussion, then the 'idiot' didn't apply to you.

All I see you doing with your post is wasting my time. Creating more animosity. Adding nothing to my productivity. Etc.

Why the fuck are you here if you want a profitable business  ??? You make no sense. I am obviously not working in this field only to make a buck. I have some intellectual curiosity and ideological motivation.

Why can't you guys stay on topic without needing to insult everyone?

Always elbows and acrimony. And note above I was responding to an idiot that was insulting me. He wasn't making any reasoned post.

Not to insult you, but you want to profit on the rest of the world collapsing. That usually doesn't work out very well.

Na, all i did was tie together the last 5 pages of "you didn't read my material you are an idiot" lmao. It's me that's the one that's being inflammatory and not being useful? lol really?????

My addition to this thread was to open your eyes that all us idiots aren't idiots, we just don't see it the same way as you.

We are taking in the SAME INFORMATION as you, but we are not coming to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as you.

If i can add anything to this thread, it's that just because you have circumstantial evidence that proves nothing doesn't mean that someone like me is an idiot for not believing in it.

Come on, I'm not impressed with this at all. Go program or something. Accept this as personal belief and move on with your life. Admit that this thread is for nothing more than inflating TrainCarWrecks ego, as shown below:



I spared you the full five pages, you need something more to do with your time anyways and enjoy research so I'll leave that part up to you.

Let's just all admit right now that the point of this thread was for TrainCarsWreck to be named as "the man who tied John Nash to Satoshi" instead of just simply trying to tie John Nash to Satoshi. This is a fame game, and i'm here to rain on your parade.

Shouldn't you be doing something useful like "killing bitcoin"? still waiting for that one lol..

You are quoting @traincarswreck.

I am not him.

Please stop accusing me of being him. I had to lock one of my threads because he kept spamming it.

WTF is wrong with you that you accuse me of being someone who I am not!!!!!!!

Just fuck off already.

I never accused you of being him. Don't try that game lol. I meant that this whole fucking thread is a inflammatory circle jerk, I just joined the party, I never said that you were him. Is English even your first language? I'm starting to wonder now lol.

I never said I personally wanted a profitable business opportunity, (lol what????) I said that calling people idiots for not believing in your circumstantial evidence and being so emotionally invested that you are rude to any skeptic on the thread over something YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE is a fruitless endeavor.

Sorry that you didn't get the metaphor lol. I thought you'd be able to grasp it.

You still haven't grasped what I wrote. Idiot.

I determine what is fruitful for me. The point is I am not measuring the value w.r.t. to a profitable endeavor. I told you already I have some other motivations which are fruitful to me.

You're such a marketing idiot. Do you think that the few dolts who post here are representative of the 1000s of people who read my posts. I get a lot of PMs and I know my audience has grown to 1000s of readers.

You watch when my altcoin is launched, what the effect is of the effort I put in here. Then you learn something about how to become a multi-millionaire.

Ok that's great. Why are you so invested in proving it to me though?

If i'm such an "Idiot" that you can't spend your "time" on, WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING TO ME?

Why not just accept as personal belief and move on? Is the recognition what you are after or what?

WHAT IS YOUR GOAL buddy?

"Your audience" lmao. YOu just answered my own question. You are in this for your own ego.

Your altcoin is just another dime in a bag of dozen my friend lol, sorry to shit on your parade.

I just having fun REKTing your illogic and making fun of you, because you deserve it for being an asshurl.

Ego? More on $millions and teaching at the same time. I am even teaching you. You'll appreciate it one day.

lol Yes definitely, two super wits going at it like superman and batman, who will win? Will it be BITWHALE the ultra-king of shit-talk that utilizes metaphors and sarcasm to completely annihilate his opponents mental capacity and language aptitude...

 or will it be IAMNOTBACK, who is clearly back, that is the super great multi-millionaire altcoin creator spectacular that has the witts of Satoshi & the morals of Jesus coming to save us from the "horror" at which we find ourselves. The king of inflated egos has returned, or has he? You act very very powerful for someone that still hasn't even completed his altcoin. You don't think that's a bit premature to act like you've already made it to the big leagues??

Tune in next week for the cock sword fight at Satoshi gladitorial ring. It will be a fight to the mental death.

That sir, is how you make fun of someone.

What you've done above is just laughable childs play that makes me smile inside to think that I actually get to respond to that shit lmao.

Maybe you are finally learning. So when are you going to STFU?

Btw, I had some worthwhile discussions with others in this thread and other threads. Which you've managed to totally bury with your shit-talking.

I agree with you, you are a shit-talking noise maker.

I don't know if you noted that I wrote I won't be creating any more unmoderated threads. That means in the future, all your shit talking will go poof. And I won't need to reply to it.

Are you done?

and I think that you are counting your eggs before they hatch.

Uh oh, another metaphor. Don't think too hard now. ;)


Yes, please do create that self-moderated thread. We all know you only like hearing yourself talk anyways lmao, it will be perfect for you.

I'll never be done, this is the bitcoin forums.  As long as spoetnik is here, I will be too.

Why would they love a currency that is designed to be truly decentralized? Please be more specific on that.

My favorite quote in the broader context is a comment made by Vitalik long time ago:

Because they don't think anything can be. They will view it as another speculation or if necessary something they can capture when needed.


That describes John Nash.

Moderated threads are going to be much pleasant.

Every shit talker's noise will simply go poof.

Almost done here. This thread is not properly moderated.

^ yes, then you will be able to control everything, won't it be great? Hell, you can even remove any reply to the thread so it's just nothing but yourself just how you like it buddy! It's like xmas for a sociopath.

I think it is YOU that's learning that you should stop replying to "idiots" that "aren't worth your time". You are nearly living by the words you preach brethren.

Those on my Ignore list (BitWhale was added), will get their posts deleted without even being read. This will foster civilized discussion.

Eliminating the baboons can only make the S/N ratio much higher.

I assume you meant "decentralized". But that leaves us with a dilemma:
a) They think it because they are very smart and proved the impossibility of decentralized currencies before releasing Bitcoin. Though that would mean that your design would turn out as impossible as well. Either because it's impossible as such or because it will finally get captured by them.
b) They didn't prove it and just think (or hope) it. In that case they would be very dumb (and thus cannot be called an "elite") since they must have been aware of the risk that someone would eventually come and fix Bitcoin's flaw of becoming centralized.

I consider that a success, this "idiot" whom wasn't worth his "time" had to be ignored in order for him to live by what he said. I guess that's one way to do it.

now let's start the replying to the "others in the thread" about blank and pretend like we aren't actually directly talking to eachother. I love this part! :p

Somebody forgot to take their meds today.

Would you like me to get you a glass of water? I think the Nash/millionaire delusions are coming back.


 I thought i was on ignore?

I hope you don't say things you don't mean about your super-duper amazing multi-gagillion dollar altcoin you are creating, because what you SAY and DO are clearly two different things lmao.

God man, you really aren't as bright as you like to make yourself out to be are you? Why would you respond to that? I was literally done.

I think we could continue this forever.

Until his F5 key craps out.

Let's take this to the absurdium that he wants to prove.

When this thread has 100 pages of his nonsense, then we'll see if the moderator takes action or not.

lol we could, or we could kiss and make up and you just admit that all skeptics aren't idiots and that we got off on the wrong foot.

I don't need to read, I can just type my reply.

Thought you were a clever fuck didn't you?

NaNaNa, NaNaNa, Hey, Hey, Goodbye.

Go take your meds dufus.

lol what a perfectly worded comment. It's almost as if it was crafted to look like he didn't read and just replied :D I guess we will never know.

You thought you were a clever fuck didn't you? ;)

Really though, i was done 3 comments ago. It's similar to how a cat gets bored after the mouse he's playing with dies.

Back for sloppy seconds I see.

No need to read, for we know what he be.

Thank you.

Yes I see now that is the only reasonable way to have quality discussions.

It just occured to me now how reward seeking is completely the base variable for game theory algorithm  :o

https://sites.google.com/a/nau.edu/game-theory/about/philosophy

In Economics, Game Theory models the behavior of individuals as if they are participating in a game. Much like any other game, they are playing to receive some sort of payoff or benefit. The goal of the game is to attain the highest reward for themselves by using any strategies available to them. Risk dominance and payoff dominance are two related refinements of the Nash Equilibrium solution concept in game theory defined by John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten (Risk Dominance, 2013).

So it's still possibly someone familiar with game theory and mathematics. I was looking for links from mathematics jargon in the code.


Now I can completely see the equation with risk taking = computing a hash, reward = coin emission for the block miner, and how the thing is tied together with the proba/risk as work, and how low risk taking lead to seek for consensus on mutual benefice, and lead to an equilibrium.

Where the force of the market aka speculators/whales are still separated from decision power by risk taking of computing hash to win the reward, and they wont manipulate directly the network even if they own large part of the data it hold.

And it still make in sort everyone still will keep relaying the good transactions, either speculators/whales, miners, with different risk taking (buying the coin /  computing a proba hash (difficulty = 1/rateof (xx)), and different reward (coin emission for miner, high coin value for whales), well it still need more thinking on it to get it completely, but the similarities in thinking with game theory math start to appear to me  ;D

Im sure a good mathematician could pull out the 2x2 matrixes with coefficient being reward & difficulty (aka risk), weighted on if the risk is computing hash or buying coin, and deduce the good parameters for it to reach equlibrium on consencus. ( !  ;D fatal genius )

It's a bit more twisted than this because miner also get benefits from high price of the coin,  and also you would expect pow difficulty to get higher as trading volume & market cap increase due to higher coin value. And the inflation rate of the block reward also cross the speculators reward (and maybe involve a risk for them).

I really wonder if the parameters are pulled out of mathlab now  ??? ::) ::)

Im sure it's a very simple 2d stuff in game theory now with difficulty/reward with trading and mining  ;D



But it's hard to get how he went from the math theory to the code, or from buisness problematic to math and to the code.

If he went from math and ideal concept to the application code, there is definately a break in the chain somewhere and at least 2 persons involved.

But satoshis nakomoto looks more like a project name based on concept of balance and source of balance, involving person from different expertise, and probably inspired by Nash in some part.

WOAH...guys....


guys... guys...

you're obviously overlooking the OBVIOUS here:

John Nash was AMERICAN....mkay???

Satoshi Nakamoto was JAPANESE.....

DUHHHHHHH.....

so he's not Satoshi, stupid.

unbelievable.

A priori, by hashing the public key, you don't win, but you LOSE space on the chain.  The reason is that you should consider an input and an output together.  A UTXO by itself is worthless if it is not spend one day.  So you have to consider both together.

Now, if in the output, you HASH the public key, you will have to publish that key openly in the corresponding future input, because otherwise, nobody will be able to check the signature.  If, on the other hand, you publish the public key at the output directly, without a hash, you don't have to repeat that at the corresponding input, you only have to specify the signature as everyone can go and get the public key to check it.  

--> hashing the public key adds a bit load equal to the hash length.

There are seemingly only two valid reasons to hash the public key:

1) you think that the public key scheme is vulnerable in the long term
2) you want to separate long term and short term security.

It is true that hashing the public key of 256 bits (which has a security of 128 bits) INCREASES its security to the level of the number of hashed bits if that number is between 128 and 256.  So it is true that a hashed key to 160 bits, is 160 bits secure, while the key itself is only 128 bits secure.  This 160 bit security is maintained until the key is published in a transaction.

However, let us make a small calculation.  Consider H the hash length, and K the key length.

Let us call long term security L, and short term security S.

Let us call B the total bit cost of an input and an output.

If there is no hashing, that is, if you directly publish the public key from its outset, then:

L = S = K/2

B_nohash = 3 K = 6 L = 6 S

(because there is the public key of length K, and the signature size is twice the key length, hence 3K)

If there is hashing, and we assume H between K and 2 K, then:

L = H

S = K / 2

B_hash = H + 3 K = L + 6 S

I will now show you why there's some craziness in this scheme:
Take Satoshi's system: L = 160 bits, S = 128 bits, which makes his B_hash(160,128) = 928.

Suppose that I would have taken L = 160 bits overall: B_nohash(160) = 960.

So I would only have used 32 bits on about 1 K more to have OVERALL SECURITY of 160 bits.

The hashing wins me 3% of room, to decrease the ECC security from 160 to 128 bits.

If I would have a direct address with a 320 bit ECC key, I would use about as much room on the block chain, as Satoshi's scheme, which LOWERS the security of ECC to 128 bit in the short term.

If I consider 128 bits enough, I would  have B_nohash(128) = 768 bits, which is about 20% less room.

In other words, apart from a suspicion on the fragility of ECC, there was no point in doing what he did.  And if there is a suspicion on that fragility, it is very wasteful to take a useless 256 bit key which would in any case easily be cracked by assumption.

I already told you that if the public key were exposed for a longer (indefinite!) time, so you would need to increase the security of the public key.  But to what level given quantum computing may be coming?

And 256-bit was about the upper limit of what was available and well accepted in 2008.

I remember seeing that 256-bit was only expected to be recommended security for ECC for only another decade or so.

https://www.keylength.com/en/3/

https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/


You are not accurately accounting for the savings in portion of UTXO that must be stored in DRAM (for performance) versus what can be put on SSDs. Without that in DRAM, then the propagation time for blocks would be horrendous and the orphan rate would skyrocket (because nodes can't propagate block solutions until they re-validate all transactions due to the anonymity of who produced the PoW). 320-bit public keys (i.e. 160-bit security) in UTXO would require 100% more (double the) DRAM.

Satoshi just nailed you to the cross.  :P


You are not assimilating all the information I already provided to you.

The public keys can be hacked off the users' wallets. So we need more than trivial security there for the ECC public key cryptography.

Another reason (in addition to the compression of UTXO) to hash the values on the block chain is because when the use of a quantum computer is detected, we have some protection against chaos and can map out a strategy for burning the values to a new design securely. Hashes are much more likely to be quantum computing resistant.

Satoshi's cryptography choices are so clever and obtuse that even a very smart person as yourself takes a long time to finally grasp his genius. That indicates how genius Satoshi is. When we find that PhDs (college professors?) are offended by the notion of Satoshi being a genius, and such PhDs are committing Dunning-Kruger blunders when analyzing Satoshi's work, then we have a very strong indication that Satoshi's IQ was in the 180+ range. For example, when listening to Freeman Dyson or John Nash (180+ IQ for both) speak initially the unsophisticated observer (not you @dinofelis) might conclude they are not super intelligent. But that is simply because the observer is incapable of perceiving the depth of complexity being communicated so concisely. I have had public+private discussions with college professor Jorge Stolfi on Reddit in 2016 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1465136.msg15216851#msg15216851) and generally thought him to be intelligent and mathematical, but I was shocked to read his myopic presentation to the SEC (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0) recently concerning the decision on the approval of the ETF.

If we appreciate how rare 180 IQ is, then we understand that the set of people who could have been Satoshi is quite small.

P.S. readers I don't know who @dinofelis is. And I would guess he is probably more formally trained than I am in math and Physics and other STEM fields. I have some areas of programming level expertise that he may not have (not sure about that though). My main talent is I am highly creative non-conventional thinker, similar to John Nash but lacking the full breadth of Nash's mathematical genius. I was no where near a teenage math genius but this could be because I was so into athletics and also I wasn't even exposed to learning materials until about 8th grade (my parents had me in inner city public schools and changing schools every 6 months). I did ace Calculus at a college in night session while I was still in high school. My SAT was high in math but not a perfect score (although I had a hangover and still slightly drunk when I took it). I wasn't interested in studying for standardized tests and I never showed up for my math classes in high school, yet still aced the exams. In short, I excelled on the things I was motivated to excel on but more interested in my intellectual and athletic hobbies than in conforming with the structured curriculum. At the university, I hated to attend lectures and would learn independently and also doing my own research on things I was interested in the library. And spending the rest of my time partying and playing sports.

Well, this is the kind of cryptographic "common sense" that doesn't make sense.  As I said before, one has to assume, in a cryptographic design, that the cryptographic primitives are about at the security level that is known - for the simple reason that one cannot predict the deterioration of its security level by future cryptanalysis.  As far as one goes, it can be total.

Let us take a very simplistic example to illustrate what I mean (it is simplistic, for illustrative purposes, don't think I'm cretin like that :) ).  Suppose that we take as a group, the addition group modulo a prime number, and that we don't know that multiplication forms a field with it.  We could have the "discrete log" problem in this group, where "adding together n times" the generator g, a random number between 1 and  p-1, is the "hard problem to solve", exactly as we do in an elliptic group.  Suppose that we take p a 2048 bit number.  Now THAT's a big group, isn't it ?  Alas, the Euclidean division algorithm solves my "discrete logarithm" problem as fast as I can compute the signature !

2048, 4096, 10^9 bit key, it doesn't matter: the difficulty of cracking goes polynomially with the difficulty of using it ! (Here, even linearly!).

So the day that one finds the "Euclidean division" in an ECC, it is COMPLETELY BROKEN.  The time it takes a user to calculate his signature, is the time it takes about, for an attacker to calculate the secret key from the public key.  As such, the ECC has become a simple MAC, and it doesn't even last 3 seconds once the key is broadcast.

--> if we assume that ECC will be broken one day, bitcoin's crypto scheme is IN ANY CASE not usable.  This is why the "common sense" in cryptography, of "protecting primitive crypto building blocks because we cannot assume they are secure" is just as much a no-go as the other common sense of security by obscurity.  It sounds logical, but it is a fallacy.  You think ECC will be broken, don't use it.  And if you use it, accept its security level as of today.  Because you cannot foresee HOW HARD it will be broken, and if it is totally broken, you are using, well, broken crypto.

Now, what is the reason we can allow LOWER security for the exposed public key, than for the long-term address in an output ?  The reason is a priori (and I also fell into that trap - as I told you before, my reason for these discussions is only to improve my proper understanding and here it helped) that the public key needs only to secure the thing between broadcasting and inclusion in the chain.  But as you point out, that can take longer if blocks are full than 10 minutes.  This can be a matter of hours.  Also, in micro channel spending, you have to expose your public key to the counter party for the time the channel is open.

Now, if we are on a security requirement of days or weeks, then there's essentially not much difference between days or weeks, and centuries.  The factor between them is 10000 or so.  That's 16 bits.  A scheme that is secure for days or weeks, only needs 16 bits of extra security, to be secure for centuries ====>  there is no reason to nitpick on 16 bits if we are talking about 128 bits or so.
There is no reason to introduce "short term security" if this is only 16 bits less than the long term security level.

In other words, if you are afraid that 160 bits isn't good enough in ECC for the long term, well, then 128 bits (as it is now) is not good enough either in the short term.  If you think a "quantum computer" can crack a 320 bit ECC key in 50 years, then that quantum computer will be able to crack a 256 bit ECC key in less than a day.

So you may very well protect an address with an unbreakable hash of 160 bits for 50 years your quantum computer breaks its teeth on, the day that you use that address in a micro-payment channel, by the evening the key is cracked.


Of course not.  You don't have to keep all UTXO in DRAM of course.  You can do much smarter database lookup tables.  If the idea is that a node has to keep all UTXO in RAM, then bitcoin will be dead soon.


Nope, Gavin Andresen is talking bullshit and confuses cryptographic hashes and lookup table hashes.

http://qntra.net/2015/05/gavin-backs-off-blocksize-scapegoats-memory-utxo-set/

If you need to keep a LOOKUP HASH of UTXO, then that doesn't need cryptographic security.  There's no point in having 160 bit hashes if you can only keep a few GB of them in memory !  160 bit lookup hashes means you expect of the order of 2^160 UTXO to be ordered.  Now try to fit 2^160 things in a few GB of RAM ;)

You only need about a 48 bit hash of the UTXO to keep a database in RAM.  That doesn't need to be cryptographically secure.  Completely crazy to keep 160 bit hashes as LOOKUP HASHES in a database hash table !   And there are smarter ways to design lookup tables in databases than keeping a long hash table in RAM, ask Google :)

I'm not even putting this on the back of Satoshi.  I claim he made sufficient errors for him not to be a math genius but he is a smart guy nevertheless.  I can criticise him because of hindsight, I'm absolutely not claiming to be at his level.  But I claim that he's not of the type of math genius as a guy like Nash.  This is the kind of argument I'm trying to build.  

But SUCH stupid errors, I don't even think Satoshi is capable of.  It is Gavin Andreesen who is talking bullshit to politically limit block size.  If ever it is true that RAM limits the amount of UTXO in a hard way, then bitcoin is dead from the start.  But it isn't.

This is a very interesting read BTW:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/


The first piece in bold is the network configuration we talked about earlier: the backbone of miner nodes, and all others directly connecting to it, no more P2P network. (has nothing to do with the current subject, but I thought it was interesting to note that Satoshi already conceived the miner centralization from the start).

The second part is indeed considering bitcoin scaling on chain to VISA-like transaction rates, with the chain growing at 100 GB per day.  He's absolutely not considering a P2P network here, but a "central backbone and clients" system.

The point however, is the fact that most certainly, he doesn't think of any RAM limits on cryptographic hashes and hence on the maximum amount of existing UTXO permissible.

Yet another "strange aspect" of the bitcoin protocol is the following: the fact that we use bloody 256 bit transaction hashes.   Transaction hashes have limited cryptographic validity.  They are essentially "lookup" hashes.  Maybe I'm missing one or other security point, but I don't think so.  Being able to "fake a transaction hash" doesn't seem to win any advantage, because in the end, what counts is the signature as cryptographic "unlocking".  So in as much as the transaction hash is just a lookup hash, 256 bits is totally absurd.  There cannot be 2^256 transactions on the block chain ever.  64 bits would even be overkill.  At VISA rate with say, 10^11 (that is, 2^36 or so) we'd have thousands of years of spending with 48 bits, and with 64 bits, till the end of the universe or close.
If 64 bits is more than enough, we are wasting about 200 bits per spending for nothing.  If there was much ado to "compress" (erroneously) a 256 bit key into 160 bits to win 100 bits, then wasting 200 bits sounds cavalier.

But even if there is a cryptographic security to transaction hashes (which escapes me entirely), there's absolutely no reason to require much higher security levels for the transaction hash than for the key security !  The 200 bits extra room could be better spend on ECC security, or on key hash security, rather than on this silly transaction hash "security" which doesn't serve much of a purpose.

If bits are expensive, transaction hashes of 256 bits are ridiculous.

The 32 bit word indicating the "entry" in the transaction is also somewhat crazy.  Transactions won't contain 4 billion outputs.

So there's a lot of "spilled bits" which are totally useless in the specification of a transaction input.

===> EDIT: I should multiply my lookup hashes with two to avoid the birthday paradox of course.  But that doesn't change the principle.

I asked my girl friend yesterday, she is indonesian and work with chinese ambassy and she know a bit of japonese i think.


What she told me that satoshis is a word related to taoist concept of balance of opposite (male/female, yin/yan) etc, and nakamoto mean 'the central source of'.

http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=nakamoto

Nakamoto Name Meaning Japanese: ‘central origin’ or ‘(one who lives) in the middle’; found mostly in the Ryukyu islands.

http://www.behindthename.com/name/satoshi/submitted

Given Name SATOSHI
GENDER: Feminine & Masculine
USAGE: Japanese
PRONOUNCED: sa-TOH-shee
OTHER FORMS: 覚 Japanese
CONTRIBUTOR: Spirited Sarah on 3/12/2011
LAST EDITOR: Spirited Sarah on 5/11/2011   [revision history]
Meaning & History
Means "wisdom" or "sense" in Japanese


So litterally satoshis nakamoto would mean ' the central source of balance '. (Cause wisdom with taoism is related to duality of symmetric opposite)

Because with the kanji also name can be translated to a meaning.

And i'm pretty sure it's not hard to find connection between nash theories of equilibrium from opposite agencies and taoist philosophy of harmonious whole from opposite and central balance.

In the idea, it's not because you name a coin 'archimedes' or 'descartes' that your name is necessarily this :)

It more look like a philosophic concept based on tao and/or nash game theories, involving surely persons from different field.

It's almost sure to me it involve at least two persons from at least mathematics and IT background.

Because to get into implementing a game theory model on a P2P network like this, need necessarily two persons. And it's obvious the code is not involved with game theory math. But in itself it doesn't mean the value and parameters are not computed from a math model issued from game theory.


And i'm being more and more convinced that there might be game theory model directly involved with the code of bitcoin now.

The two more important value for a node on POW is basically block reward and mining difficulty, that's the two things that matter, and it's exactly the same parameters you would find in game theory model (risk = difficulty = 1 / rateof ( good nonce) ).

Or it doesn't look like something that would not be very hard to express in term of nash game theories.

You're either not comprehending or being disingenuous. Do you not know that Shor's algorithm is known to theoretically break ECC but not hash functions? I had already told you as follows, that the hash has greater security for expectations of quantum computing. It is a prudent precaution.


If you argue that it doesn't matter if we have the hashes when ECC is broken by quantum computing, because the transactions can be intercepted and cracked by the attacker before they are confirmed in the network, you would not be thinking clearly. Because quantum computing would at its inception (nascent stages) likely be only able to break long-term security but not short-term. So there would be a period to transition as I already stated in the above quote from my prior post.

Please be more thoughtful, because I am losing precious time where I am confident you are smart enough that you could have figured this out if you'd remove your highly irrational confirmation biases (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0).


You are describing future cryptanalysis breakage of the math theoretic security of the intractability of the discrete logarithm over certain fields.

But you're analogy does not apply, because Shor's algorithm (a form of cryptanalysis) is already known! It is not a future unknown.

Also (and this is a minor point which isn't really necessary for my slamdunk) you are conflating the breakage of discrete logarithm math theoretic security with the security of permutation algorithms of hash functions. I repeat the distinction between the two which you have failed to assimilate:



Thus...


Not only are you failing to assimilate the fact that Shor's breakage is already known (not a future thing not knowable as you are arguing) which is sufficient slamdunk on why you are incorrect, but you are also claiming that hash functions can typically be entirely broken in one swoop which afaik not the case (and I studied the cryptanalysis history on past SHA submissions from round 1 to final rounds).


You have incorrect conceptualization. The point of long-term security is not the difference in the time it takes to crack with a given level of technology, but rather that over the long-term we can't know when that moment comes that cracking has become sufficiently fast enough. The Bitcoin UTXO from 8 years ago that Satoshi has not spent, could have been under attack for the past 8 years. By having the hash for the long-term security, then we force all attacks to begin only when the UTXO are spent. This enables us to restrict damage to a very few number of transactions and the community will become alarmed and take corrective action.

Yes you are learning from me (and sometimes I learn from you also). I was quite busy the past 4 years learning this stuff.

But I truly hope we can wrap this up, because I have some more important work I want to do today than debating with you, unless you're sure you have an important point to make. But please try hard to think because I have thought deeply about all this stuff already. You are not likely to find a mistake in my past analysis unless it is math based above the level of math I'm knowledgeable.


Of course I am knowledgeable about Shannon information content (entropy) and also efficiency of various sparse space lookup algorithms (in fact I did considerable research on this in 2015 which is why I am prepared to refute you now), the problem is DDoS resistance (https://github.com/shelby3/hashsig/blob/master/DDoS%20Defense%20Employing%20Public%20Key%20Cryptography.md). The collision resistance on 48-bits (http://preshing.com/20110504/hash-collision-probabilities/) is too low (especially relate that to equations for a sparse space lookup algorithm and the relationship between how full it is and the probability of collisions) so the attack can DDoS the network with invalid address, which force you to go off to SSD storage and bring your system down to a crawl.

And don't give me some BS about using PoW to rate limit, because I already refuted @Gmaxwell when he offered that to me as a solution. Just remember that PoW is a vulnerability to botnets at the nascent stage and then later it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. Satoshi had thought out all of these issues.


I am sorry friend, but the errors continue to be all yours. This is the 3rd time I've replied and obliterated your arguments (pointed out the errors in your thought processes). I went down all the same thought processes you did, but had since realized that indeed Satoshi was a genius.

Maybe you will finally pop out of your pompous confirmation bias delusion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0) and start to realize it too. I hope you aren't going to make a total asshat of yourself as Jorge Stolfi hath done (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0). I know you are smart enough to stop insisting when you've become informed. You are informed now.


I quoted that back in 2013 for making my points about Bitcoin was designed by the global elite.


No you don't understand.

The DRAM issue is for the early decentralized years of Bitcoin's adoption so that the illusion of the idealism could be sustain long enough until Bitcoin becames unstoppable.

Given that Bitcoin will be a settlement layer between power brokers, then UTXO will not be a problem and also centralized mining will mean that DRAM cost is also not a problem.

Bitcoin has already reached the stage of being unstopped, which will be proven when it can't be mutated. Not by anyone. Not even national governments. NWO will be another thing however.

I'm only capable of understanding logical arguments, unfortunately :)

Instead of we discussing it here let Nash come up with some genuine proofs.We all know Satoshi created bitcoin and Satoshi certainly knows how to proov his identity.

Umm. John Nash is (purportedly) dead.

==> something got wrong when I tried to post, so here it is, hopefully, again...



I answered that already.  If you think that your system has to work when a component is totally broken, you don't use that component.   My answer to your rebuttal was already written out above, as I expected this rebuttal, but you're missing the point I'm making:

if 160 bit ECC is not secure in the long term, then 128 bit ECC is not secure in the REALLY REALLY short term. So this argument backfires.
Note that I'm totally aware that any public key cryptographic system is *potentially* easier to attack crypt analytically than the symmetric-key mixers that are used in things like hash functions.  But that doesn't solve the issue on the contrary.

Again: if you need a symmetric-key hash algorithm to keep your public key of 320 bits (160 bit security) safe from a quantum computer (I don't believe in them, but that's another matter), then using a 128 bit public key is going to be cracked before it got included in the block chain.

If a 160 bit secure public key cannot survive 50 years of attack, a 128 bit secure public key cannot stand a second of attacks.

This is what I tried to explain to you: if you think that ECC is going to be fundamentally broken, by quantum computers, DON'T USE IT AT ALL.  And if you use it, assume that a certain security level is going to be secure, and apply it.  But don't "protect" the broken system with another system ; because you are going to use the broken system at a certain point, and then you're done and that's what happening here.

Again, if 160 bits security ECC won't do where bitcoin is hiding it with a hash, 128 bits security won't do openly in the very short term where bitcoin needs it.


No, you don't seem to understand that if you can crack an ECC of 160 bits security in the long term (say, 50 years of computing), you can crack an ECC of 128 bits security in a single second *with the same equipment*.  There's a factor of 2^32 = 4 billion between them.  I was only taking 16 bits, this is why I arrived at an afternoon but between 160 bits and 128 bits there are 32 bits.

Look: 50 years = 50 * 365 * 24 * 3600 = 1.57 billion seconds.  If your quantum computer can crack a 160 bit security ECC in 50 years, it can do that 4 billion times faster for a 128 bit ECC, because the search space is 4 billion times smaller.  ==> 0.4 seconds.

This is why I tell you that it doesn't make any sense to have (strong hash) 160 bit security in the long term, and (weak ECC) 128 bit security in the short term.  


My point is that if you assume this to work one day, then you shouldn't use ECC.  And I just showed you why.


I'm perfectly aware of that.  But that's not the point I am making.  The 160 bit hash security is USELESS if the 128 bit ECC is not secure.  I'm perfectly aware that ECC has a higher chance of being broken than a hash function.  I'm not believing in quantum computers, though.  I have my own reasons to think so on which I will not digress.  But that's not even the point.  If you THINK that they will exist, simply don't use ECC (nor any known form of discrete log public key crypto) because it is TOTALLY BROKEN in that case.

There's no point in having 300 years of a secure hashed public key on the chain, which is then broken the second after you propagate your transaction and the node you send it to modifies it.  

You seem to be focussed on the long term security, but what fails utterly in the consistency of the system is the *short term security* under the assumptions made.  (and yes, I also made that error in the beginning of this discussion)

It is not the 160 bits that is insecure: it is the 128 bits after propagating one's signature and public key IF ever one makes the assumption that 160 bits ECC is not long-term secure.

There's no point discussing the rest as long as you didn't see my point here, so I state it once more:

If ever you have a doubt about the security of ECC in the long term with 160 bits, then 128 bits ECC security is gone essentially IMMEDIATELY upon broadcasting your public key and signature, making the entire concept broken.  This is why one should never use a crypto primitive of which one has a doubt over its security.

Unfortunately it is a true statement that it is impossible for someone to argue with a person who is incapable of comprehending.

@dinofelis, you should be smart enough to understand what I already wrote. You have repeated your argument, which I already refuted. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an incorrect logic.

I see no benefit of repeating my argument. You are capable of re-reading and thinking until you get it.

I will quote what Satoshi wrote to @bytemaster (Daniel Larimer):





Folks, I can see @dinofelis undergoing cognitive dissonance due to the shock of not wanting to admit that Satoshi was really a genius. It changes his whole interpretation of everything, so it is very impossible for him to accept it immediately. Give it some time for it to sink in and he will slowly realize or become more obstinate and dig in irrational heels as Jorge Stolfi hath done (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0).

---

Edit: I decided to throw him a couple more hints:


Incorrect. And I already explained why.


Whether your disbelief of the likelihood is correct or not, Satoshi had a fiduciary and marketing obligation to design as if many people do want such prudence.

No one is going to come up with any proof and from what i understand he was good at math and not a programmer who is capable of coding this complex puzzle,it is a good try to come up with this name. It is not necessary that even Satoshi could provide any proof that he really did code the bitcoin at this juncture as any proof he comes up with could target against him,so he would keep quite rather than providing any proof.

Well, my main problem is that I haven't seen any rationally built-up argument that breaks down mine.  A statement "you are wrong" is not a rational argument, BTW.


Well, it would be nice to line it out at least once :)

I repeat my arguments that bitcoin is built on inconsistent cryptographical bases.   I have outlined several arguments for that, and they still stand, as no logical argument is countering them (statements that I'm wrong, yes, but no arguments as far as I see).  Maybe I'm missing them.

Here is a summary of my arguments.

A) the 160 bit hash of the P key vs the 256 bit key in ECDS
B) the transaction hash of 256 bit

A is flawed because:
1) In the light of classical security levels as of now, A is contradictory.  256 bit ECDS is 128-bit secure (exposed in the short term), and 160 bit hash is 160 bits secure.  The 32 bits security gap between both is too large to bridge "short term" (10 minutes - days/weeks) and "long term" (centuries).  If long term = centuries, then 32 bits less is "seconds".  So or the long term is overprotected, or the short term is underprotected.   In fact, for about the same room and LESS computation hassle, you get FULL 160 bit security with 320 bit ECDS.

--> if long term needs 160 bits security, then 128 bit security is TOO LOW in the short term.

2) If you fear quantum computers, and you need to "protect" ECDS long term then first you are making a fatal crypto design error by designing with a primitive you expect not to be secure BUT on top of that, the situation becomes worse.

While classically, in the current scheme you get 160 bits security long term, and 128 bits security short term which is already too short, with quantum computing, the latter becomes essentially 0 bits security.  A full quantum computer FULLY BREAKS ECDS if it has enough qubits.  To crack a 256 bit ECDS scheme, you only need a few thousand clock iterations on a quantum computer, that is to say, essentially instantaneously.

But moreover, Grover's algorithm most probably can reduce the hash function to 80 bits security, which is not secure enough.

==> the 160 bit choice of the hash, leading to only 80 bits of quantum security, and the total failure of ECDS with a quantum computer, make the bitcoin scheme TOTALLY INSECURE.  

So the argument that Satoshi put in the hash to protect against quantum attacks:
1) fails totally when the key is exposed, but moreover
2) the 160 bit hash is simply too short, while he had a 256 bit hash available that would have been good enough.

In other words, A is classically flawed because for the same room and less computational hassle, one could have better short term security (160 bits security overall) ; it is quantum-mechanically totally flawed because the short term security is *totally* gone, and the long term security has been brought down too much with the 160 bit hash.

I haven't seen any argument countering this.  Hashing the public key was a faux good idea, because it used the space that could have improved the ECDS security if it held up, and if it didn't hold up it was "trying to protect broken crypto" which is a no-go.

B is also quite silly, because a 256 bit hash to recognize an earlier transaction is quite a silly idea, if bits are expensive on the chain.  In fact, the very idea of having to refer to a previous transaction is a silly idea, and the transaction malleability bug that comes with it even worse.  Addresses should have been single-use only from the start, and be their own lookup.  That would have been way, way simpler to implement, to look up and everything.  

There is a serious inconsistency in how UTXO are referred.
On one hand, there is all the work of having a totally ordered consensus of transactions: the block chain.  It would have been extremely simple to refer to a transaction output in a block chain: the block number, the transaction number in the block, and the output number in the transaction uniquely specify the UTXO.  No need for a hash, no need for 256 bit !

But Satoshi wanted to be able to indicate transactions that AREN'T in the block chain, in order to allow for micro-payments.  That, however, defeats the whole idea, because transactions are accepted or not based upon the *unspend nature* of a transaction in the block chain, so he didn't want to use the ordering that is naturally offered to us for normal payments, but replaced this by a hash (that could be modified before inclusion in the block chain, transaction malleability).  As I lined out, there's no need for such a big hash.  There's no need for 256 bits of hash, but on top of that, the uniqueness of that hash wasn't even guaranteed.  So that simply didn't make sense.

If it had been specified in the protocol that not only inputs can only be used once, but also addresses can occur only in one single output, then there wasn't any need to refer to the transaction (with a hash), nor to a specific output of that transaction: the address itself would be unique, and easily found, in the consensus chain, or in "floating" transactions.  In the current scheme, as the public key is part of the spending input, the address corresponding to it would be computed from it, so the whole 256 bits + 32 bits of order number could be left out ; in the scheme with the public key in the UTXO, you can in fact, derive the public key from the signature and the message signed.

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/18105/how-does-recovering-the-public-key-from-an-ecdsa-signature-work

So you do not even have to publish any hash of the public key.

==> in both cases, you don't need to refer to the transaction, you win 288 bits for every input.

As Satoshi always insisted to only use addresses once, he could have imposed it in the protocol, and reduced the input size significantly.

==> the referencing of UTXO with 256 crypto hashes is clunky and wasteful.

A and B together make no coherent sense.  It works, but is clunky, and security compromises on one hand were made to "win a few bits" while almost 300 bits were wasted elsewhere, and on top of that, made the lookup of UTXO harder than needed.


I am not the one suffering from cognitive dissonance, because I have nothing at stake.  I just point out glaring problems in bitcoin as it was designed, which make me suspect that it wasn't done by a guy called Nash - or that that guy called Nash made more mistakes than one would have expected from him.   You, on the other hand, have a whole world view based on the belief that Satoshi had to be an (evil) genius.  I don't.  I would have liked bitcoin to be better designed than the clunky thing it really is.  It is quite a failure, wasteful, speculative and erroneous monetary theory behind it, transparent, slow and limited.  That said, it is nevertheless a feat to have put together this thing and it is always easy to throw stones with hindsight.  But that hindsight tells us it is clunky and contains severe design errors.


I already quoted Satoshi saying about the same from one of the first e-mails.  So he foresaw the current situation of an oligarchy of a few miners, and all the arguments of decentralization of nodes and so on, which is clear bullshit anyways, is something I've myself tried to hammer into the head of bitcoin maximalists.  But I consider that as a design error.  Visibly he didn't realize the amount of wasted power that would go into his system.


Nope, I'm quite indifferent to whether Satoshi was Nash, another genius, or just a relatively smart guy but designing a prototype that contained quite a lot of "features" which, with hindsight, turned out to be design errors.  

Ask yourself whose world view is hurt most:
- mine if ever it turned out that Nash was Satoshi (making me conclude that Nash's genius was probably having a bad day - can happen, given bitcoin's clunky design)
- yours if ever it turned out that Satoshi was just a guy in his basement

I'm not invested in this stuff at all.  I find it interesting because it teaches us how a non-governed trustless system behaves.  If anything, it shows us how easily it is to fuck it up with innocently-looking features.

Yes, I consider bitcoin, unfortunately, totally fucked up - which doesn't mean I think it won't rise in price for the next few years or even decades - but as "money that makes free" it failed utterly as of now, 95% or more of its market cap sustained by greater fool theory, and probably less than 5% used as money in one way or another.  And the last few months, I realized that this is mostly due to its design.  

I'm sorry about that.  I used to like bitcoin, and I used to believe that it could have been good money.  It turns out it isn't.  But it is a great gambler's token, and it is a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user, only for the big sleazy guys).  This is why I don't like it.  I think Satoshi created a monster, and that, together with a lot of technical clumsiness of the design, makes my have some doubts about him being Nash. But I'm not emotionally invested into this.  In other words, when I see the work, I think it cannot be the work of a genius, or at most of a genius in a bad day. Simply because the result doesn't look very well constructed, not because it has something to do with my "world view".  Bitcoin turned out to be clunky and quite ugly.  If you think that a genius created something clunky and quite ugly, be my guest.  I'm just pointing out that for a math genius, things don't add up, and I haven't seen any explanation of why it doesn't add up.  Your "you are wrong" are not arguments, but just expressions of your un-argumented opinion.

I can write a letter to Pythagoras, saying "you are wrong, but you are suffering from cognitive dissonance".  That doesn't disprove Pythagoras' theorem.

If the elements I bring up WERE truly well-thought over, I'm sure that one could explain them clearly to me, or refer to Satoshi explaining them which would even be better.  I haven't looked through all of the documentation, but I have never seen (so maybe I missed it) a convincing analysis countering the indications of clumsy design I mention here *especially on the math and crypto side* which is where we could expect a guy like Nash to be top-level.

The design looks rather like someone having some notions of cryptography, having read some elements of security (like double hashing, which is also used when useful and when not useful), being selectively paranoid (using RIPEM-160 and SHA-256 because of different designs so that back doors in them would not be simultaneously open), adhering to erroneous concepts like "the more the merrier" ("if one thing breaks, another will save it") and not able to count bits or coherently defining security, sometimes doing things to protect against quantum computers, not realizing that the rest of his design is broken under the same assumption.

Now you are disingenuous. I can't help you with that.


You are. And the onus on you is to read my prior text and contemplate/assimilate all the factors. I am not going to enumerate every permutation of the facts I laid out. You are capable of doing that if you put effort into it.

The clumsiness and the monster that you describe as a great reserve currency for unregulated sleazy big business (but not for the normal user....is EXACTLY what Nash describes:




You simply do not understand the role of money in this world, and are a perfect example of why Satoshi never explained what bitcoin truly was.

Agreed. It is actually pointless (and counter-productive) to tell a man something he doesn't want to know.

SEPA stands for Single Euro Payments Area. For countries that honor SEPA and are included in it, it allows them to easily transfer money including bitcoin. I think the problem it solves is the otherwise difficult time one would have because of country borders and transfer costs.

In regards to John Nash creating Bitcoin I think I could just as well say someone else created it. I don’t think we will ever know for sure.

Absolutely true and intelligent point!  Although on other hand, how many people do you know spent the last 20 years explaining how an international e-currency with a stable supply and asymptotically stabilizing inflation rate would cause a currency war that would eventually end the monopoly on central banks and government ability to issue money?

Everything in Bitcoin was calculated for a reason.

Remember Bitcoin is made by the elite for the elite.

And I had already refuted your excessive hashrate cost argument in another thread. You are quite disingenuous because you continue to claim issues that had already been refuted.

You disingenuously continue to pretend they weren't disproved.

So frankly we are reaching the point where we can't continue to have any dialogue because I don't waste my time with people who are disingenuous.

https://i.imgur.com/cSqSpLd.gif



You continue to repeat that lie (opinion) about Bitcoin having clunky design. Bitcoin has a perfect design for what the elite want.

You will suffer the most because you are not preparing for the fact that Bitcoin is a 666 tool of the elite. And you are not preparing for the fact that the EU totalitarianism where you are will get horrifically worse. You think the crisis is over in Europe. Lol.

For me it doesn't matter who coded Bitcoin, but rather whose design principles Bitcoin was modeled on. And what is the outcome of Bitcoin going to be and its impact on the world.

You think Bitcoin is a silly toy that will fade away. I think Bitcoin will become a key part of the new financial system after the global monetary reset coming in the horrific sovereign debt totalitarianism collapse underway.


Why are you sorry? I hate Bitcoin too (long-term, its okay for my uses short-term). But I know Bitcoin is unstoppable although I wish it could be stopped.


You were disproven. You might be blind or disingenuous and unwilling to figure it out, but that is not my responsibility to fix.


So is the entire fiat system. Have you not seen the $quadrillion in global derivatives holding up the fiat system.

You don't understand what money is. Finance is primary user of money, not the masses.

Bitcoin is the high powered reserve currency money of decentralized finance for $billionaires. You have no clue as to what is really going on. You are totally lost.


Which is 95% of all business.

You don't seem to grasp that Bitcoin is how the banksters-gangsters will carry forward their wealth from the collapsing nation-state monetary system to the new one coming after 2024.


I don't like it either, but neither of us can stop it. You are highly underestimating the evil rise of Bitcoin.


Consider the genius is evil. Then you realize Bitcoin could have been designed by an evil genius. The reason you think it is not designed by  genius, because you don't understand the real goal of Bitcoin. Thus you misattribute clumsiness where the truth is it was cleverly designed that way to serve an evil purpose.

I didn't know that SEPA can transfer BTC. Is it off chain?

Can you refer me to a document about that?

Seriously you need to stop pretending you know anything about blockchain design.

This is beginners' egregious error.

Lol you just flunked the most fundamental issue of decentralized systems, which is there is no total order.

I can agree with you on certain point, but I would still be more nuanced about it, it's why I said to me there are contradictory aspect to btc.

Cause on one side there are these clumpsyness ,  can be seen on many points.

But on the other side, still, only the fact it was by far the first working crypto currency, that it's still #1 after 8 years, and it integrate many aspect like distributed database, the sig scripts, and the whole concept still involve good design thinking. Not something pulled out in a sunday afternoon by a student .

But yeah after indexing tx on 256 bits is quite a waste. No data base system would ever do this. The only interest is maybe for separate storing of the tx, where the whole prev tx integrity can be checked by the hash, and another form of index could get wrong tx or block. But in the context of database indexing and transmission  over network, clearly huge waste. Nothing use 256 bit hash of the data as index ! lol

It's why for me there are contradictory aspect making me think either it's a guy who was splinter gift in one area, and just average on others, or the concept and design from a guy, and the whole btc project made by a company to exploit it.

Either it's like work of genius where he doesnt need to put much care into things because he know exactly where he want to get at, and make the choice with a specific life time in mind with enough security for the use case in that time frame.

And sometime, the impression of security is more important than actual security, specially when talking to investors or the masses, since I saw the movie equity im not the same lol :D

It's why to me most of decision seem to have Been taken more in the context of startup thinking from a company, rather than by some nerds math genius.

But still the overall design is still smart, even if it contain  lots of things that "look secure and good" for average and investor, but clumpsy and not optimal from expert analysis.

But I cant get out of my mind that there is still a brain behind the concept. Either the btc dev copied the base  from something else, or he developped it iteratively, and left some things designed for something else.

But it still contain too much new things and mathematically /  economically sound concept, still #1 after 8 years for me to think it's just a student in his basement.


For me the clumsiness can be explained by :

Complex math theories implemented in cheap code

Targeted more to investor traders and gamblers rather than to developpers or expert

Severe time constraint on the development



But again maybe maybe not, it's hard to be sure of anything, neither about the original intention or if it evolved as planned.

Nonsense + garbage.

Well deep down blockchain are still a decentralized database, who preserve total order :)

Even if the way the chain will be constructed is not ordered, the system make in sort to garantee total order consistent across the network.

It's this principle that took me to blockchain originally because they solve lot of pb inherent to distributed / decentralized system.

Care to elaborate ? Or just a little hate burp in the morning ? :)

But I said it's just a possibility, if you have more element to disprove it, go ahead,  otherwise you are the one posting garbage ;)

But from japanese these kanji can also have meaning, and they are not very common name.

Just an opinion... I believe bitcoin was made by the elite for the digital tracking of the sheeps.

I believe the money of the shadow elites is gold, and they are hoarding over 90% of it in subterranean safes.

The elites are most proficient in persuading us in exchanging fake wealth for real wealth.

It started with paper claim/paper money for gold.

Soon it will be digital money for gold.

I have origin in taoism.

Trying to interpret the meaning of "satoshi" is like looking at the clouds and say the clouds look like a rabbit, without realizing that from another perspective it could look unlike a rabbit at all.

Unless the originator of bitcoin states the true meaning of "satoshi", whatever meaning we put to it is just based on assumption.

And it is quite disrespectful to associate "satoshi" to Taoist teaching without 100% assurance and certainty.

You won't be able to transact in BTC on chain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1863278.msg18546883#msg18546883). I explained that to you before.

There will be digital currencies and they will be regulated like 666, and you won't be able to transact on chain in Bitcoin which won't be regulated.

Satoshi designed it this way and even @dinofelis admits he did, but somehow @dinofelis can't see that such a design forces the masses off chain into the totalitarianism of 666 regulated currencies.


The global elite designed multiple meanings into the choice of "Satoshi Nakamoto". And all of those meanings are intended to point out something important about Bitcoin.

You understand that it is not in my interest to accept 100% of what anyone says without due diligence.

Whether you (and I) are right or wrong will be revealed so in the future.
Let us just hope we don't need to wait long for it.

Satoshi Nakamoto will be Satoshi Nakamoto. He let his discovery be used by the people and the people are happy to it. I don't really care who Satoshi Nakamoto is, but the thing that he created bitcoin without having any credits to it is really amazing.

I am correct about the technological points. Thus I am correct about the ramifications of those technological points.

I am not afraid if you're correct.
I am only afraid if you're wrong.
Because money earned from years of sweat and toil is at stake, and must not be simply/casually wasted away on something just because someone says that's the one.

I don't care how genius or smart or intelligent you are.
I only care if I will suffer total loss if I listen to you, because if I do, there is no insurance and no guarantee of compensation.
100% confidence is 100% overconfidence.
I learned this many times from trading.

Bear in mind, a lot of things can change.

How will you suffer an investment valuation loss if I am correct?

What have I stated which could cause you to make a decision which could potentially cause any loss for you  ???

Well I am not sure about John nash creared bitcoin because there are not really know who make bitcoin
the informations about creater of bitcoin is called Satoshi Nakamoto,
there are some people said that creared bitcoin is Craig Wright and there are some people
said Craig Wright is not creater of bitcoin.

What I mean is if you're wrong, then I will suffer investment loss if I listen to you.


What you have stated about transaction fee that gets too high that it locks us out of the blockchain.
What you may not realize is that if that will be the case, then many still holding bitcoin (but is not $billionaire) by that time will have useless bitcoin because they can't spend them as they will never get confirmed.
If that will be so, then why not shift away to the alts soon?
Your comment about that transaction fee gives the wrong impression.

To me still from the day I sensed bitcoin was not really moral or good currency in my standard lol

Only because it's based on reward and probability, and game theory, it's the kind of stuff to dance with the devil, and no matter how you think it's going to work out, it always lead to amorality .

Actually I hate the principle of game theory and probability math lol

I remember I read about this before, but i didn't make the connection before lol

But all the mathematics and economic theories always stem from philosophy or sociology deep down.

Game theories come from dumb philosophy theories. It's known since plato and the very inception of rationalism,idealism, mathematics,  and republic / democracy that people who only fit on this model of reward and greed are opposite to idealism, intelectualism, and often are very short sighted regarding consequences. And will be anti law, anti morality, anti gov, anti anything that prevent them from maximum personal reward. Morality is always a constraint.

Now Nash was very aware of this, and I think his thinking is that it's possible to "game the game" , specially by exploiting this short sighted view and ignorance of long term to design system in sort to do some kind of jiu-jitsu with short sighted greed to trap them into acting in  a certain manner for short sighted seek of reward, but the law if the game have other implications who turn the system into some equilibrium, even if all individuals are only thinking for themselves in short sighted view.

And there are things that can lead me to think btc is this kind of jiu-jitsu to game the game theory based on proba and tieing two logic together through the system of pow/reward/coin emission all tied together.

But to be sure, would need to do the maths lol need to find someone good with proba and algebra and market economy to put the equation together to see if some prectible behavior is supposed to emerge through some factor who is made to be kept constant in the equation, even if it's seemingly random and clumpsy.

Well satoshis still mean wisdom , and the other central origin of. Path of the middle to reach wisdom , it's still plain budhism/taoism .

And yes either we assume it's name or not is assumption. Just saying we already know it's not a real name, and so the assumption to assume it's a person name to begin with is moot.

Coïncidence or not, cant tell for sure.

I studied taoïsme too, not sure why you try to construct my point of view as a lack of respect. Specially calling me garbage in the same breath. It's not a lack of respect in taoist culture ?

I am not referring to you as garbage.

I am referring to the opinion given by your indonesian girlfriend as garbage.

"Satoshi" can mean anything that your imagination can conjure up, because there is no world outside the mind, and no mind outside the world.

So you think it's respectfull to answer with two trash words, without even constructing a sentence ?

And still there are meaning associated with the kanji, and it might not be a person name, but an immortal concept.

And yes we cant tell for sure if that's it or not, just a possibility ;)

Being disrespectful is part of the balance.

Ommmmm.........   ;D

@iamnotback: Do you have any thoughts on how to solve that dilemma?

;)

Yes but to me you see it's there that a connection with taoism can be made, even with the conclusion of Nash theories.

Again would need to do the maths to be sure, but im fairly convinced the whole design rely on tieing up two opposite for them to work together as a greater whole with a certain global order even if it's composed of two opposite forces.

The two sides are the market/trading/speculation, and the other side, the predictible nature supposed to emerge from it, from the Mining, to keep the chain coherent and secure the transactions.

Im pretty sure it would come out as butterfly shaped thing where the two side are kept together by the pinning of the two side on the block reward/inflation control/pow/proba.

Because it become obvious to me now there are two game playing together with the bitcoin, and each can have opposite interest, but it's kept together as a coherent whole because of a certain dynamic that take in account the two side and make them work together as a common interest emerge from the system even if each side only think about his interest.

In that it could be close to some taoist principle, add to this the kanji, it still make a lot of coïncidence,

But maybe it's not this at all, again just an idea that start to form in my mind ;)

The two opposing sides are just distractions.

The shadow elites neither understand Taoism nor are practicing Taoist wisdom.

Because they do not practice what they understand/preach, thus they are as good as not practicing any wisdom.

Besides, the shadow elites worship the money god.

Money, no matter how perfect we try to make it to be, will never be perfect.

My comment about transaction fee is correct.

But I told you that you don't need to sell BTC until you see the transaction fees rising too much. The fees won't rise overnight. It will be a slow process over the coming years.

Yes you will end up buying an altcoin eventually some years from (or cashing out to some fiat or other asset). You will have no choice.

We are mixing different things here.  Satoshi clearly stated that he intended to have VISA-like transaction volumes on-chain with bitcoin, but that bitcoin would become a semi-centralized served thing.

I already cited that:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/


From this, I clearly read that the original aim, as announced by Satoshi, was to have VISA like transaction amounts on chain.  100 GB of extra block chain a day didn't seem to scare him in 2008.

The way I understand what Nash is saying in what you put in bold, is not so much that most people should use another KIND of money, but rather that they would use *the same money* but not determine most VOLUME.

In other words, people pay in dollars - the same dollars - as a few rich entities, but the dollar flow between the few rich entities is much, much bigger than the dollar flow between most people.  He's talking about VOLUME, not about KIND.

I read from Satoshi also that he realized that his system would only be viable in the long term in the hands of an oligarchy of miners.

(from the same e-mail):


So much for the P2P nature of bitcoin, which was only intended as a bootstrap with useful idiots.  He clearly didn't care about a long-term P2P network, and the importance of decentralized nodes: he wanted a few big miner nodes, to which people would connect directly, without them even having the ability to download the block chain.  The block chain was just the ledger that a few oligarchs would share amongst them, hopefully keeping one another in check, to serve as the new centralized VISA backbone to which all users would connect.

However, the way bitcoin is evolving, and was actually designed with the 1 MB limit (and other practical limits), is that on chain transactions will be limited to a few big actors and will not reach large scale, but on the other hand, that most people will be able to download a chain with which they cannot do anything apart from contemplating how big guys are filling it with their expensive transactions.

Bitcoin is "rich sleasy business" OWN private money, NOT to be used by normal people, contrary to what Satoshi initially announced.   Bitcoin IS downloadable by anybody, but not usable ; Satoshi announced bitcoin to be usable by anybody, but not downloadable except for a few miner oligarchs.

And why did it become a rich sleazy business money and not a VISA administered by a few miners ?  Because Satoshi put himself a 1MB limit on the block chain.  If he understood the game structure of bitcoin, he would have known that this limit would become immutable because it was needed to generate fees (which he needed for reasons of his diminishing coin creation scheme in the longer term) but then it couldn't turn into a VISA kind of money and he would deny what he had been proposing from the start  - and if he didn't understand the consequences of him introducing a "temporary" 1 MB limit, then he couldn't foresee that it was going to become a rich-business-only crypto either.

This is another reason why bitcoin is not corresponding to Nash's ideal money.  Bitcoin has a diminishing DEBASEMENT, and a huge DEFLATION (that is, value appreciation). 

For Nash, it was extremely important that this international currency had zero or low and fixed, inflation, that is VALUE DEPRECIATION.  He accused gold of not being ideal, exactly because it was too much of a collectible, and couldn't adapt supply to keep its value constant.  Bitcoin is based upon sound money doctrine, which is not what Nash considers ideal money, because it doesn't have a stable value, and can't because you cannot have inelastic supply, variable demand, and constant price.  Bitcoin has perfectly inelastic supply (it is programmed in advance), even a diminishing growth rate of his supply.  So this must be a value-appreciating asset, which cannot serve as ideal money with constant value AT ALL.

If it was meant to be a reserve ASSET (not money), then Satoshi has been lying through his teeth, and it doesn't correspond to what Nash called ideal money.

Are you aware there can be 2 scenario playing out?

Scenario A: Fee rises along with bitcoin price within a fixed percentage. So if the percentage is 0.1% and bitcoin price is at $100,000, then the fee will be $100. And if bitcoin price is at $1,000,000, then the fee will be $1,000.

Scenario B: Fee rises regardless of bitcoin price. So if fee is fixed at $1,000 minimum, it will remain at $1,000 (minimum) regardless of whether bitcoin price is at $100,000 or $1,000,000 (or even at $10,000, effectively meaning to say the fee is 10% of transaction value).

Which scenario do you mean will play out? Or is there a scenario C, if so, how will it play out?

Hello everyone, it's my first post here.

About the creation of bitcoin, I don't know who created bitcoin (I know who created Tor). But that talk about bitcoin will be just for billionaires, its a valid point, but I doubt it will happen the way you put it.

When I see new coins specialised in anonymity it kind of makes me laugh. There is no anonymity online, there never will be !

The only way for you to be (more) anonymous is to make it more difficult to track you.

That being said, do you really think billionaires will stick to bitcoin and not have a portfolio of at least tens of coins ?

I see the future using only crypto, its obvious for various reasons, whether is litecoin, eth, dash, or even googlecoin or applecoin, or all at the same time. Since blockchain, money will become 100% private and will have to compete with each other, in the market, like any other asset !

This is just the beginning of classic liberalism dream (the opposite of new liberalism), the one planned by former nobel prizes like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others from Chicago and Austrian School of economics. It will be fulfilled

https://youtu.be/QON_CobFPM0

I've first heard about John Nash is when I've watched the movie a beautiful mind. Of course the movie is not enough to tell whole of John Nash story but I think he has a paranoid schizophrenia, where he think that something or someone is real.

I don't know if John Nash created Bitcoin but I think he's field is more on game theory and partial differential equations.

From my deep study (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.0) of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.

However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff that value can't be financed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18505797#msg18505797) (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way that is not democracy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18408053#msg18408053) and is a crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1739268.msg18155310#msg18155310), then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.

The elite simply weren't aware of these concepts, because I invented them. Nash didn't know this.

And that is what I intend to launch with BitNet.

Depend on what you call "elite" :D

Originally elite is the same root than "elected" and are supposed to emerge as responsible to handle certain things for the other people better than what they would do themselves. Shadow elite in itself is bit an oxymoron.

But if you are talking about money worshiping,  if you study occidental philodophy, it's really classic. It's even the stuff in the first star war trilogy with the federation of trade against jedi council . Well just to say it's very classic abc of philosophy since the beginning and plato wrote many about this.

It's not really about elite, but psychology of the mass and pyramidal nature of society. With gauss curve etc you know very small fraction of person really study math or philosophy or care about law , justice, truth, good & all.

It's really a central question in occidental philosophy since the beginning.

And the idea is always the same that money worshiping or greed, materialism , doesnt lead to wisedom, or idealism. Actually materialism is the enmy of rationality and moral for plato. But majority of people are materialistic, and plato was very aware of this.

And it's just where you get Nash theories with proba and game theory who are made to model this "low end of the pyramid" psychology, and model it as a coherent whole with higher purpose even by taking in account all the economic game theory that animate trader and speculators.

And im not sure the whole demarch would be so coherent coming from plain dumb money worshiping greedy person. Those people just run mining hardware and play on bitrex. They dont design whole system like this in the shadow.

Bitcoin is basically two part, one of them is game theory, the other is decentralized transactional database.

Game theory is all about reward vs risk. Bitcoin pow is exactly this. Into maintaining a constant with the risk/reward thing for miner. The risk is the difficulty ( 1/rateof(good nonce)), and reward is the block reward associated with taking the risk associated with finding the good nonce.

The whole mining for reward thing totally fit within game theories.

The other aspect is speculative value, which is something Nash also studied.

Not saying it's Nash who made it, but the model could fit.

The movie contained many lies and misrepresentations of the facts. Read the biography book instead.

He lied by not mentioning that isn't his intended use case. He was just responding to a question about if Bitcoin could scale from a bandwidth consideration alone. You can find other cases where he lied by not pointing out how impractical something would be, such as how he claimed some nodes would still be willing to process a transaction for free:


Duplicity is exactly what you'd expect from secret agents working for the global elite.


So why can't you add 2+2?

He knows it will become centralized yet some how he thinks hobbyist nodes will still process for free. Satoshi was a liar.

Btw, John Nash was a prankster and deviant (https://www.quora.com/What-was-John-Nash-like-as-a-professor).

I was listening to him in an interview and he said he isn't concerned about helping the poor, because he said they are adjusted to their poverty.


Now you are starting to understand.

So why can't you add 2+2?


Yup. So why can't you admit the evil genius of Satoshi?


Btw, I think it was necessary to murder John Nash before the blockchain scaling debate reached its boiling point. Because by now even people such as yourself are starting to realize something smells funny.

Welcome aboard. You have a lot of reading to do. You would be well advised to read my entire archive.

You are mistaken. By the time Bitcoin reaches its intended use case phase after the global monetary reset 2024ish, Bitcoin's debasement will be winding down.

Also you are causing confusion with your incorrect use of the term deflation. Deflation is an economy-wide phenomenon so would only apply if Bitcoin was the unit-of-account widely employed in the economy. Although it is true that in a few more years, Bitcoin will be causing massive global deflation.

Also Nash specifically wrote that debasement was compatible with his ideal money, as long as the schedule of debasement was non-manipulable (which is the case for Bitcoin).

Eventually the speculative value of Bitcoin will become nil as it becomes the home of $billionaires-only (which btw is mathematically why all the speculative value in the economy will leech off into BTC), then the miners will not longer be able to do these manipulations of the speculative exchange price as they are currently doing with for example Litecoin.

Satoshi designed it that way BY ERROR (or by cheating and lying).  I simply don't think that bitcoin is going to fly so high.  It will find its niche, namely an unregulated reserve currency for big sleazy business, and as a highly speculative toy for gamblers/traders, and that's it.  Bitcoin, nor any other block chain type crypto, will be "the future of money" for most people, simply because it is too clunky, authorities won't let it happen, and in the end, people are material beings.

So, yes, I agree with you that the design of bitcoin is such that it will remain immutable, and that most of the current characteristics of bitcoin are understandable by game-theoretical arguments.

Where I don't agree with you is to think that bitcoin will become world-important - it will remain in a niche.  Like all crypto.  People will never pay their groceries with crypto.  Forget that.  Fiat systems will remain in place as long as humanity is still in command and states exist.

Where I sort of don't agree with you, but I don't care much, is that I have good reasons to think that bitcoin's design has too many clunky crypto design features to be the product of a mind like Nash.  But it could be ; but as, moreover, Bitcoin's monetary philosophy is ALSO not in agreement with Nash ideal money, I tend to reject the hypothesis that Satoshi was Nash.  I tend to think it was a guy with some bright ideas, and some limited crypto and math understanding, and some limited economic understanding, that made bitcoin in his basement.  But I could be wrong.   The "design features" that I find clunky in bitcoin, don't break it, but they are simply clunky.  There's nothing "brilliant" about them.

Where I don't agree with you is that bitcoin is designed by the "global elite" because apart from a gambler's token, it is not going to go anywhere that can interest the "global elite".  The sleazy business it is profiting is not the global elite, but second-hand maffioso.  And if it were, against all odds, designed by the global elite, it is a failure in any case.  Don't stare yourself blind on the "market cap" of bitcoin: that's nothing else but one big huge speculative bubble, driven by greater-fool games.  The economic value of bitcoin (the value creation it allows over its competition: fiat, in economic activity) is most probably 100 times smaller, and dominated by dark web markets, its main economic utility for the moment.  Bitcoin's economic value must at most be a few hundreds of millions of $$ worth ; that is, the value creation it helped create which wouldn't have been possible with fiat because of legal or other obstacles.  The 20 billions are nothing else but greater fool speculators waiting for still greater fools.  If they don't find greater fools after 10 years or 15 years, that bubble will collapse.  But there are still a lot of greater fools to be taken, so as long as the black tulips rise in price, you will find speculators flowing in.  But that is not economic value.  

Im quite in line with this idea :)

In fact my initial idea in seeing blockchain only as distributed ledger lead me to think the whole interest of pow is very limited in this context, and the same result could be achieved in way that are much simpler and less expansive risk, like "fault checking " even if the real pb is not exactly fault checking, but selecting one between two valid version , but even this could be achieved without pow. And the base cost / risk to operate distributed database is not that high.

Maybe there is something im missing.

But it could look as the whole pow thing was just inserted to put some game theory in it, and give it more speculative value or for purely economic reason  ( in the sense market economy) than to really be the most efficient way to keep à decentralized ledger consistent.

I don't believe in that "monetary reset".  There will be financial crises, as there always have been.  No big deal.  Crypto won't help.


I use deflation simply in terms of "monetary unit acquires value".  

From wiki:

When a monetary unit acquires value, there is deflation of that monetary unit.


You can't have it both ways.  You can't require the ideal money unit to keep a stable value (with respect to a large basket) and have its debasement *numerically* specified in advance.  What you can do, is to have strict target rules for debasement to act to reach an inflation target.  In as much as these rules are immutable, they are non-manipulable.

This is why Nash thought of the Euro as close to an asymptotic ideal money:

(from the wiki on ideal money).

So, the "schedule of debasement" as a non-manipulable rule to reach the inflation target, yes.  A pre-programmed, blind, debasement scheme: obviously not, because otherwise, the introduced inelasticity cannot guarantee price stability or price inflation stability, which is the defining characteristic of ideal money.  

It is why gold is not a possible ideal money:

exactly because one cannot apply a debasement (or destruction) to keep its value constant.

This is the other reason why I don't think it was Nash that created bitcoin: the economic model of ideal money of his hand, would never go for a collectible with DIMINISHING emission.  At best, Nash would have built in an emission curve that would follow predicted adoption (which is essentially impossible in advance): few emission in the beginning, and issuing MORE AND MORE bitcoins as time advances, so as to keep the price of bitcoin constant with growing adoption.

In fact, there would have been a way to do so: instead of increasing difficulty to have constant (and 4-year stepwise decreasing) emission rate, have constant difficulty, compensated by Moore's law.  As such, the price of a bitcoin would more or less remain constant, and equal the cost of the work spent on making them.  You would accept bitcoins against value if it would cost you more to make them, and you would make bitcoins if it would cost you less making them than buying them.

PoW at constant work cost, was a way to implement something much closer to ideal money, than bitcoin's sound money doctrine.

ftfy

You will eventually realize I am correct. Hopefully realize it before it is too late for you to escape the 666 totalitarianism coming.


All the $billionaires and $trillionaires will be doing their settlement in BTC.

It will be $500,000 per BTC.

That is obvious.

You don't seem to understand money very well. And I am not going to write a treatise here. It isn't my responsibility to fix your ignorance about money. I say this forcefully because it behooves you to do some learning so you stop spouting off incorrect judgments.


It isn't intended to be used by the masses. It is intended to be used by the $billionaires and they have the most wealth.


Because you don't understand money and what time it is. You don't even understand that your own EU is collapsing into abject totalitarianism.

You are far too smug and overconfident. A well fattened cow ready for the slaughter.

You have a high IQ but you aren't motivated to use it. Because you are too comfortable. The cows don't try to escape, because they have plenty of grass to eat and fields to roam. Yet they do get slaughtered one day.


Correct. But entirely irrelevant to what we are discussing. That you don't realize it is irrelevant is indicative of why you are blind to the reality of what is going on.


You don't care much because you are smug and comfortable. Lots of grass to eat.


You've been refuted upthread but you continue to repeat your errors instead of studying what I taught you and contemplating more deeply on the permutations of what I taught you.


I refuted that a few moments earlier upthread. You have so many errors.


You have entirely ignored everything. Amazing. It is like you have selective reading comprehension. You are clearly in a massive state of cognitive dissonance.


Look over the forest, not just at the bark on the trees.


No man. Most BTC is hodling (https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852389706956365824). MAJOR MISTAKE IN ANALYSIS!!

You are way off. Only a very small % of BTC supply is traded on exchanges. The same coins traded over and over again.


OMG you are really blind.

Well if you see this only through the prism of economy this is right.

But if you think more generally in term of propagating "stananist agenda", law of the jungle, irrationnal risk taking for greed, etc, it can still have interest in that view.

And on a bigger perspective it's easy to see how that could benefit "elite" in the sense illuminati/satanists .

I think one is reading too much in what isn't there.  This is how people invent religions, by seeing purpose when there wasn't any.  In my idea, the whole concept was rather simple: Satoshi wanted a non-centralized token transmission system, and needed to solve a few technical, and a few economical problems.  There were already several elements lying on the table and he put them together (which is the merit he really has).

1) He needed to get rid of the "central bank".  The block chain concept, where instead of tokens to be materialized, TRANSACTIONS were the fundamental element, was a great insight.  In as much as it is impossible to prove that transmitted digital tokens aren't double-spent, if everyone has a list of past transactions, that solves the double spending problem.  So the idea was to get all participants to get the full list of all transactions at a point.

2) he then realized that he needed to solve a consensus problem, because of the finite propagation delays on the network: what if some participants received valid transaction A, and other participants received valid transaction B, and A and B are spending the same tokens ?  How to come to a consensus ?

=> he needed a kind of decision game so that at any moment, only one decider was going to decide upon the consensus, that is, the full list of accepted past valid transactions.  As he didn't want (at first) a central authority, he needed a LOTTERY BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS.  However, in order to avoid a sybil attack, he proposed to do the lottery with Proof Of CPU work.  --> a lottery every 10 minutes.

3) he needed also to create coins, and he realized that creating coins was going to give seigniorage which was going to undermine the belief system in the money.  So he (though he had) a brilliant insight:

"the CPU work spent in winning the lottery to determine consensus, is going to be rewarded with new coins ; that looks fair, because 1) a priori everyone gets the belief that they could have won the coins and 2) people doing something useful get rewarded".

That's more or less it.  I don't think Satoshi's insight went beyond that, but that was already quite something.

The rest consisted in:

1) working out the details
2) thinking about the consequences of choices made when working out the details.

One of the things Satoshi was religious about, visibly, was the fact that there should only be a finite amount of coins in circulation.  He must have been influenced by the Austrian school and gold bugs.  In fact, if he could have put them into circulation right away, most probably he would have preferred that, but as he now needed to emit them by people finding consensus, he HAD A SERIOUS PROBLEM: how to reward people in the future when all coins are emitted ?

In order to obtain a finite amount of coins at the end of the universe, he needed to diminish rewards ---> simple solution of block reward halvings.  In order to reward them in the long term, he needed transaction fees. 

In order to limit the coin emission, he needed the lottery to take place only once every 10 minutes, and because he didn't want to rely on real time (in the end, he did!) he invented the scheme of increasing difficulty.

The logical consequence of this was that the economic cost of the PoW at the 10 minute reward was going to rise to be about equal to the market value of the emitted coins.  This would lead to totally crazy amounts of PoW, the rise of specialized hardware, and the killing of the original idea of just "a lottery between participants to decide who was going to decide upon consensus next with Sybil mitigation".

Satoshi's idea of having most payments done with bitcoin led him to understand that the block chain as he designed it, would have to grow at 100 GB a day.

However, as is often the case with inventions, when one sees the consequences that were orthogonal to the original design ideas, the right way is to discard the invention because it fails in implementing what one had in mind ; but most often, one perseveres in modifying the initial design goals so that the invention in which one has a lot of emotional and intellectual investment, ends up suiting the goals.  I think bitcoin has been created exactly that way: when Satoshi realized (partially) that his invention wasn't exactly what he set out to do, but not being able to think of anything better at the moment, he considered that it should go ahead and modified his initial ideas so that they suited the thing he invented.

This is why bitcoin is the clunky thing we see it is, and not the thing Satoshi set out to design, but failed to do so: a digital peer-to-peer trustless, decentralized money and payment system for all to use.

One can of course always think that this clunky thing is what he intended to make, but this is like explaining why God, in his perfection, allows man to make war and allows him to suffer unfairness.  Simply because there wasn't any god, there wasn't any masterplan, but things just happened, and they weren't designed this way or another way.

Of course not.  People are maybe buying bitcoin at $1000 because they think it may go up to, say, $10 000,-.  But who is going to buy a bitcoin at $500 000,- ?  You're not expecting it to reach $5 000 000,- do you ?  So if you buy at $500 000,- you must be buying near the all-time high for ever.  Who's going to do so ?  So bitcoin will still grow a while, until buyers realize that there's more downside than upside, not only in the short term, but also in the long term.  And then, the greater-fool game stops.  And we get the supernova, or the slow deflation of the bubble.  I have no idea if it will be in 5 years, 15 years, or 30 years.  


So those billionaires are going to put their fortunes in some funny crypto thing running by a few Chinese maffioso instead of owning companies, real estate, intellectual property and much more ?  Wake up.  Yes, sleazy business will.  Porn, hookers, drugs, gambling, arms deals, espionage, hackers, tax evaders and so on will.  But not really big billionaires.  They buy state power, not bitcoins.


Stating that I don't understand something is not an argument, I already told you.


The value of money, ultimately comes from what you can buy with it, or rather the belief of what you can buy with it.


No, you didn't.  You gave some arguments that I debunked, and then you only repeated that I was wrong, or that I didn't understand, or that I was suffering from cognitive dissonance, but these are not arguments that demonstrate anything.

The points I made about the technical clunkiness not only stand, you haven't even been able to find a single argument against it.  Bitcoin's crypto is working, but clunky, inconsistently designed with wasteful applications of inappropriate cryptographic primitives.  That doesn't stop it from working, but it illustrates the ineptness of the designer of the system.  And no, I don't buy the arguments that:
1) it is truly genial, so genial that we don't understand it but it must be genial because it was designed by a genius, and if we think it is clunky, that's because we aren't smart enough (circular proof of genius)
2) it is indeed clunky, but on purpose, only to mislead you to make you not see the design was done by a real genius (unfalsifiable argument: if it was brilliant, it was a genius, and if it was clunky, a genius wanted to make you think he wasn't a genius)

These two logical errors won't convince me.


Nope.  I argued why.  Your argument contains a contradiction, namely the impossibility to keep at the same time a pre-announced numerical debasement scheme, and a constant market value.  I indicated that you misunderstood the notion of non-manipulable debasement, not as meaning a pre-announced *numerical* emission scheme, but a pre-announced emission scheme with a value target (for instance, constant small inflation, or constant value), the only way to avoid the contradiction.


I already told you that I think it is you who are suffering from that, simply because you are too much invested in that view, without which most of what you do would run the risk to be reduced to something of lesser importance than you are willing to conceive.

I'm not designing something that has to stop the evil future masters of the world (bitcoin), and I'm not the one wanting to change the world.  You need bitcoin to be designed by an evil genius, in the hands of the world elite, with a mega evil master plan that you can outplay in order for your work to be of the importance you want it to be.  So you need bitcoin to be the evil future domination after fiat finance has collapsed, at the right time scale so that your design has had the time to have overcome that devil's plan.  I don't.  I couldn't care less.  I simply don't care about the world, and yes, one day I will be "slaughtered" and I couldn't care less, either.  That's part of life.

As such, the probability that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance is quite higher than the probability that it is me.  I am not invested into this.  I'm just putting elements on the table.  Yes, it might very well be that Nash was an evil genius working for the Rothschilds when he was 80 years old, has denied all his theories about money to build them a currency with which they would rule the world, has made a cryptographic design that violates about every rule of good design (because he wanted to convince knowledgeable people that he was clumsy and was at the same time far ahead of most cryptographers of his time, so that they don't even realize it), announced future visions of his decentralized oligarchic money that would take over VISA, and then killed it by introducing a 1 MB block limit, is going to use 10% of the world's electricity to use a stupid security mechanism PoW, and...
has enabled you to be the hero that will save the world by outsmarting that mathematical and economical genius, John Forbes Nash, and building a system that will kill his devil's machine.

Maybe.  I just bring in elements that make me believe that such is not the case, but if it is the case, I don't care: you will save us and bitcoin is done anyway.  I'll pay you a beer if you were right (and I won't pay it in bitcoin) in 2025 and if both of us are still alive.

But you see that your stake in this is way way higher than mine.  This is why I think that I can be more open-minded about these things that you are.  I'm not saying that I know better.  But the fact that you reply with judgements of my sayings, person and intelligence, rather than with rational arguments, which is the only reason I'm here, makes me think that if one of us is emotionally attached to a position, it is you rather than me.


That is exactly the same analysis.  The only reason people hodl, is because they wait for greater fools.  Hodling stuff doesn't give it economic value, because no value is created by doing so.  This is also exactly the reason why bitcoin's market cap is fake if you see it as an illustration of the total amount of value stored in it.  The day the bubble bursts, this deflates to almost zero.


--> this is not a rational argument.

Why hashing a public key could have been brilliant, and how bitcoin's design totally missed it.
=========================================================

I outlined before that hashing the public key as a bitcoin address was a faux good idea, but now I realize that it could have been a good idea.

The reasons I stated that it was a faux good idea were:
1) if you need the hash to protect a broken crypto system (elliptic curve crypto), you are making a fundamental mistake.  In as much as hashes can protect better against quantum computers and elliptic crypto is essentially TOTALLY DEAD, you can't use your private key any more because one can change your transaction on the fly if one has a quantum computer.  So instead of "protecting a broken system", one should have used one that isn't broken ; and in as much as one thinks that elliptic curve crypto isn't broken, there's no need to protect it.

2) I indicated that introducing the hash was wasting room on the chain, because if you hash the public key in the output (the address), you have to provide the key in spending input (as is the case today) ; while if you provided directly the public key in the output, you didn't need to copy it again in the spending input.

--> now it turns out that this argument is wrong.  So YES, introducing the hashed key IS winning room on the block chain.  However, this feature IS NOT USED.
 
In ECDS, with a key of N bits (and a security of N/2 bits classically), the signature contains 2N bits.  Essentially, the first N bits are related to a chosen random number, and the second N bits are the actual signature.  However, it is possible to derive the public key (actually a small set of public keys) most of the time from the signed message and the signature.

As such, the publication of the public key is not necessary !

The verifier can derive it (up to a few candidates) from the signature and the message.  In fact, for the curve that Satoshi chose, with cofactor 1, there are only two candidate public keys.

It is explained here.
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/18105/how-does-recovering-the-public-key-from-an-ecdsa-signature-work

In this very case, there is no need, EVER, to publish the public key on the block chain: the signature gives you two candidates, and if one of them hashes to the public key hash, that's a proof that the signature came from that address owner.
And then you WIN by hashing the public key, because the hash can be half as short as the public key (given that the hash security is the length of the hash output - we are after pre-image security ; and the public key security is half of the key length classically).

So, yes, it is a good idea to hash the public key after all, if you don't publish the public key in the spending input !  But in bitcoin, one does, so one has totally wasted this advantage.  Moreover, there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits.

--> this indicates that the bitcoin designer wasn't aware of this economy of bits and hence, cannot have designed the crypto for that reason, given that he didn't use its potential.

So, the most economical design in bitcoin would:

1) have used a 128 bit hash of the public key in the output (instead of 160 bits), saving 32 bits
2) have imposed a single address usage in the protocol (eliminating the need for transaction references, saving  288 bits)
3) having used only the signature in the spending input, not the public key (saving 256 bits)

A transaction would hence have saved 576 bits, or 72 bytes, would have had consistent 128 bit security level, wouldn't have had the hassle of transaction hashes and malleability, and would not have exposed same address UTXO to different levels of security (once the first signature is out, the 160 bit long term hash security drops in any case to 128 bit key security).

Now, a full transaction in bitcoin (one output and one corresponding input) consist of the order of 24 + 8 = 32 bytes (output) and 32 + 4 + 36 + 36 + 4 =  112 bytes (input), so in total 144 bytes.

If we can save 72 bytes, we can reduce the volume of the block chain BY HALF, if we were using crypto correctly and consistently in the idea of optimizing consistent security (128 bit level) and maximum economy of room.

In fact, the original design even published the (x,y) coordinates in full of the public key, doubling the room used, but that was a total waste: you can recover y from x (and a single extra bit).  This is done now.

Well the only way to be sure it isnt there is still to admit the possibility :) it's a mark of open mind to consider all theory equally unless proven right or wrong. The opposite is mark of indoctrination :) and there are plenty of non religious form of indoctrination ;)


But it's where I want to get at is that in this particular context, the pow is totally over kill to solve this problem, and if the goal is only to reach consencus in the simplest / more efficient manner, it's not the good solution.

In the context, it's like the byzantine general all know the criteria for what is considered good attack time, and can just rely on this know when to attack.

The criteria to sélect good block and transaction are not that hard-core to require this giant pow lotery.

I entirely agree.  PoW is a total disaster.  Thanks to a lot of discussions with @iamnotback I realized HOW MUCH it is a disaster.


Indeed.  Moreover, as I recently saw, Satoshi even foresaw that this mining would become totally centralized, defeating the purpose !  It is totally ridiculous to introduce PoW to avoid a sybil attack, and then come to the conclusion that only a few big players will decide on the consensus as a consequence of his "solution".

This is why I think that Satoshi, after he finished the outline of his invention, accepted to modify the design criteria he put forward himself, because his design didn't fit it, but now that he made it, he didn't want to discard it.

That is like wanting to make an airplane, finding out it will not fly, but it will float very well, and declare in the end that your were actually designing a boat !

In the same way, Satoshi wanted "money for everyone to use" and then put in a 1 MB block limit, making it impossible for this to be used as money for more than a few geeks on a few obscure trading places.

Of course, all this can be the work of an evil genius.  But Occam's razor makes me believe that this is just a guy in his basement, doing the best he could, and the best he could, he realized, wasn't good enough for what he set out to do, but that wouldn't stop him.  Don't put on the shoulders of conspiracy, what can be explained by ignorance.

Scenario A: Fee rises along with bitcoin price within a fixed percentage. So if the percentage is 0.1% and bitcoin price is at $100,000, then the fee will be $100. And if bitcoin price is at $1,000,000, then the fee will be $1,000.

Scenario B: Fee rises regardless of bitcoin price. So if fee is fixed at $1,000 minimum, it will remain at $1,000 (minimum) regardless of whether bitcoin price is at $100,000 or $1,000,000 (or even at $10,000, effectively meaning to say the fee is 10% of transaction value).

Which scenario (do you think) will play out?
Or will there be scenario C?

Miners care about the absolute fee, not about a percentage.  If for one reason or another, a miner can take transaction A OR transaction B, but not both (for instance, limited block size, or other technical aspects that make that him taking on another transaction generates a cost: cost of missing a block, cost of infrastructure, cost of I don't know what), then that miner will pick the transaction with the highest ABSOLUTE fee. 

The fee market is about "transaction room" ; it doesn't care about what amount is transacted.  This is like driving a truck: the cost, and the fee of hiring a truck, depends on the load to be transported, not upon the value of the load.

So in an on-chain fee market, scenario B seems plausible.

However, in a lightning network banking, I guess it will be more like scenario A.  Because the "cost" of transacting on a LN (namely, the cost of having to settle on chain) depends on the amount transacted.  If that amount is small, it will easily go over many channels that have still provisions to do so.  If that amount is big, chances are bigger that it stresses the reserves in the channels used.

On the other hand, the bigger are the LN hubs, the more they can put into their channels, and the lower the fees they can ask for the same amount of transmitted value.  So a LN with limited block size will converge to very expensive block transactions between major LN hubs to settle their things, and a limited oligarchy of big LN hubs, being your bank, to which everybody is attached with a single expensive settlement on-chain (making it essentially impossible to "change bank") of your unique channel, which is entirely controlled by your bank, and which charges you proportionally to the transactions you want to make.
Like fiat banking, but without legal protection, and being bound to sleazy obscure bankers on the internet, without any recourse and to whose mercy you are delivered.  Unless you are wealthy enough to permit settling your channel on chain yourself, and go see one of their competitors (if they don't collude).

So if we take away power of the miners, will the possible scenario change?

But you see it's here I see something that still is weird.

If you are a guy in your basement, and that you want to find a solution to keep the chain coherent, and you choice between à simple well proven determinstic solution , or a solution that is completely off chart, super costly, and risky, why he would choose the second ? Why going through all this bother with pow and block reward who introduce huge complexity ? Why ?

Cause if it's too sélect between block header A and B, it doesnt even matter, any can be chosen arbitrarily as long as everyone agree.

Between tx A and B, same, anyway there is one that is a fraud, so any can be picked up.

That could be just be as simple as selecting block and tx based on which have the lowest hash. Period. No pow, no reward, no mining craze.

Why in the name of ocam razor to insert this  whole pow in the system ?

If it's not to introduce some kind of un certainty on purpose to encourage speculation. Toss a coin and watch the fools making bets.


If we had to deal with a stream of chaotic random data that make no sense in itself, ok for the pow. Because it need strong power to establish the good stream.

But in the case it doesnt make much sense in this perspective of consensus.  

The rule to make the decision could be 100% hard coded in the protocol and basta. The few case where there can be ambiguity are not really that hard to solve.

You said this in that other thread where the first Snapchat investor said it's going $500,000 by 2030, that you agree with that prediction.

2030 is 13 years from now

Current price: $1200

That's $498,800 to go in 13 years, which according to my third grade math means BTC should raise around $38369 per year if your theory is correct.

Isn't this a bit nuts? How can BTC grow so much in 13 years? It would need to go parabolic in an unprecedented way. It would redefine the meaning of going parabolic. Nothing ever has grown this much, not even Berkshire Hathaway Class A stock. We are looking at insane levels of growth in a parabolic way in the last 3 years before 2030 is hit and by the time the curve of coin release starts being flat:

https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/media_files/total_bitcoins_over_time_lg.jpg

So if this is of any guidance, by about 2025 we would need to start seeing some serious shit, like legit insanity of price growth. And I say parabolic, because I don't see anything near $38369 per year happening any time soon if the growth was more or less linear, so it must be next-level parabolic. We would need to be seeing gold whales, stock whales, fiat whales, everything, moving money onto bitcoin to hodl there (or transact within the blockchain but never leaving BTC).

We are talking about 5 figures of growth per day in the last period... this is insane and would cause heart attacks left and right from hodlers that become rich in such a extreme way.

We are looking at current mega whales (considering they don't sell along the way) becoming the richest men on earth, maybe surpassing Rotchilds? I don't know how many BTC the mega rpietila and MP tier whales have, but at $500,000 per BTC they would become stupid rich, maybe first trillionaires ever (as a single guy owning +trillion).

I don't know, the growth required for $500,000 in 13 years seems too much. It would be something never seen before, books would be written about it, kids would learn about it in schools. It would be all over the planet, minds would explode, people that didn't buy at $1000 would hang themselves with a belt.

If there are only 2 choices as said above. I will choose Plan A with an appropriate fee for this price but if there is a plan 3 which is  more suitable for fee and I will choose it.

What deterministic solution ?  There isn't any that isn't centralized or permitted.  Proof of Stake was a possibility, but Satoshi was facing the problem that he was the only stake holder in the beginning.  He would have had to sign all blocks by himself, and unless someone actually GOT COINS FROM HIM, there was no way to get a second stake holder.


The problem is, WHEN do you consider that transaction A is the valid one ?  How LATE can transaction B be propagated and WIN from transaction A ?

Suppose I pay you 100 BTC.  You observe transaction A on the network paying you.  How long do you wait before you consider that this payment is secure ?  Suppose I buy a car with that.  How long do you wait until you let me have the car ?

Suppose that the next day, I make a new double spend payment to myself.  I can modify my receiver addresses until I find a payment that has a smaller hash than transaction A.  I call that transaction: B.  I now transmit B on the network.  As B has a smaller hash than A, the consensus tells us one should take B over A, and finally, your transaction is eliminated.

Ok, but one day later, we don't accept this any more.  Ok, but how long do we have to wait ?  At what point do you consider that A is definitively the accepted transaction ?  After 30 minutes ?  But what if B comes in after 29 minutes for Joe and after 31 minutes for Jack ?  Joe and Jack will now disagree FOREVER over what was the right transaction ?  If you connect to Joe, you see your transaction reversed, while if you connect to Jack, you see your transaction not reversed ?

--> this is the consensus problem.  It is already difficult if most players want to play honestly.  It becomes very hard if you get a sybil possibility of 90% of the nodes conspiring to game the system (90% of nodes in the hands of one entity).

Suppose that I transmit transaction B almost immediately after transaction A, but I fire up 90% of nodes that "ignore" transaction B.  You will probably not see transaction B, and you think that after half an hour, you are safe.  Then I switch off my sybil nodes.  The rest of the network has preferred transaction B.  When you try to spend your coins a few months later, your right to spend doesn't exist on most nodes, because they had rejected A, and chosen B, and forgot about A.  You are the only one remembering A, thinking it was right.

Satoshi found a kind of solution with PoW.  It is a clunky solution, but he needed one.

Of course, but the consensus in bitcoin is determined by miners.  You'd have to make a fork of bitcoin (make a new coin) to get rid of the miners FROM THAT COIN, but you cannot stop them from continuing bitcoin as it is.  Will your new coin be "bitcoin" or will the coin they continue to handle, be "bitcoin" and you just made a measly altcoin ?

You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.

With the hash of previous block in the header including timestamp for me it's enough to prevent sybil attack. Checkpoint could be made every 100 blocks and hashed in the chain.

And selecting conflicting blocks/tx within a timeframe with deterministic algorithm.

You can only emit a new block based on the last good one, including a timestamp and still need to keep checking other nodes for better blocks based on deterministic algoritgm.

Well would need to cut some corner there with the timestamp of valid chain to avoid sybil attack.


Other than this, all remain the same without the whole competition for the reward.

In other words, the amount of computational resource required to solve double spent is much < to cost of mining the proof.

Same for the complexity and time of solving the problem of double spent with classic deterministic solution, and putting the whole pow in place.

Because blockchain are a very specific case of byzantine general, and a lot can be assumed from other nodes due to the protocol , there is lot of things that can be assumed about the valid chain, and it's not like just any data can fit and there is no way to say which one is good or wrong at all.

It's like all the generals know each other thinking from before the battle. And the plan cannot be just anything.

If 90% of node want to collude on a chain, then it's the good chain, cant really prevent it anyway lol if 90% of users are against the protocol, why would they use it to begin with ? :)


The thing is in most case , all the chains will still contain sensibly the same txs in an order or another, so there is nothing to loose or win in choosing one or the other, it's just reordering the tx to fit the block header hash, outside of double spent that are fraud and should be removed anyway.  And all non double spent tx made on a chain is also valid on the other.

So in the end, why twist it so much with the pow and reward, for me it's still someone who know well the world of investment start up and trading, and it's not too far stretched either to think there is some kind of financial plan with it, and it's never really clear what those plans are, and there are many shady area surrounding it's thinking and deployment.

Either it was planed as a boat, a space ship, a submarine, hard to even say.

But it's hard to think there no plan with it all, or that it was studied with good knowledge of economic theories, and the world of IT, and he knew at least a minimum where he wanted to get at.

But his idea seem quite oriented with free market and still thinking with buisness in mind , with some kind of philosophy or plan.

Your chart is convex.
I believe the move will be concave.

Edit:
Sorry, I think is opposite.

Segwit is taking power away from miner, right?

The more i think about it, the more it's sure it's someone who has good knowledge of it ( for the distributed ledger/p2p), of game theory for the reward/proba pow, and of financial world with the inflation rate, and of startup because of coming out from the shadow with a whitepapper and a fully working portable app in binary, and how fast it went with exchange etc, hard to think it was not planned.

And if you take all those part flat out alone or study only one aspect it doesnt make that much sense.

Hard to think it's made by a single guy in his basement.

But you know even when I talked about this with a guy who is head of software company who works with AMF, he told me for him bitcoin comes from goldman sachs, it's something to "disrupt" and destroy government institutions, that it's very liberal at hearth, even if he didn't understand much in blockchain themselves, he knew it was something anti establishment, based on liberal view and from goldman sachs.

Not saying he is necessarily right, but many people still see it this way, and it's hard to think there is not some deep planning behind.

Or that some forces didn't use it or create it for that purpose of destabilizing certain establishment or trigger some kind of new UBER model for currency itself. And someone wanting to do this must have something in mind. Especially considering all the different aspect that are involved to have something that even fly a bit. Not even saying topping #1 after 8 years at +1000$.

[/quote]

All the $billionaires and $trillionaires will be doing their settlement in BTC.

It will be $500,000 per BTC.

That is obvious.


[/quote]


Why would the elite want to create thousands of new trillionairs?

Why would trillionares need BTC when they own offshore banks?

Unless you've proved there could be no purpose, then your analogy is argumentation by saying nothing logical.

This is handwaving noise.

You'd be better served to stick to facts and stop trying to obfuscate that you're just handwaving.

You're filibustering, which is not what I expect from a scientist.

Write fewer (useless) words and more facts.

Please stop trying to pretend you know anything.

We can attain consensus without relying on only one decider. One decider happens to work well for the system Satoshi designed, but it isn't the only way to design a consensus system with probabilistic finality.

You are just making up handwaving noise to obfuscate that you haven't added anything substantive to my rebuttals.


Incorrect.

He would also need to deeply understand FLP impossibility theorem and the difference between probabilistic finality and the deterministic finality of Byzantine agreement.

Additionally the game theory economics and Nash equilibrium analysis is essential for understanding if the system will be stable or be a tragedy-of-the-commons. Also for understanding that the failure mode of the system is that it becomes completely centralized in one entity over the very long-term, if it becomes the paramount reserve currency in the world.

Also once you understand that, monetary systems, and finance, he would then understand how Bitcoin is ideal money until it becomes monopoly, then it shifts to 666 totalitarian.

You're not going to totally understand what I am writing because you haven't done the research and you are ignorant about blockchains. Really.


Nash's ideal money also qualifies. And Nash's ideal money fits better because Bitcoin is far superior to gold (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0) and thus is an ideal money.


No he needed a way to market the thing, as this was the first thing of its kind, which means no one would have a reason to invest in it, i.e. the hen and egg dilemma. The genius of distribution via PoW is it invests people and industries into Bitcoin, which creates network effects and who then evangelize it.

You're analysis is inadequate due to your tunnel vision.


You're trying to argue that these facts are contradictory or somehow clunky, but in fact they are a perfect design for what the global elite want from Bitcoin.

You keep trying to frame your argument under the assumption that Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to scale transactions for the masses and that he wanted it to remain decentralized for small miners. But in fact, that is not what the global elite want from Bitcoin.

If you have the wrong perspective, then you can't judge the facts.

Satoshi was paying lip service to things that the idealistic useful idiots and SJWs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc) wanted to hear, so that Bitcoin could be virally launched into the world. But of course Satoshi doesn't give a fuck about these useful idiots in the long-run. The modus operandi fingerprints of the elite (https://youtu.be/vLqHv0xgOlc?t=32) are right smack in front of your face and you can't even see it.

Billionaires are more concerned about stability (veracity) of their unit-of-account than the ROI. Billionaires have monopolistic businesses for making gains. For billionaires, money is a settlement and liquidity tool, not a speculative investment.

You do not understand (power) money. For your edification, read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0).

When everything else is collapsing and unreliable due to the $quadrillion in derivatives in the fiat monetary system, the billionaires will only have one stable (incorruptible, no 3rd party liability, privacy, etc) money available to them. Bitcoin.


If you want to throw (or kick) a football to a wide receiver, you need to aim several meters in front of where he is directed, because he will travel some meters before the ball will arrive at its destination.

Analogously if you want to know what Bitcoin will be, you must look forward and understand how Bitcoin's ecosystem is changing, maturing, and growing.

The Chinese ASIC manufacturers are totally at the mercy of the only two fabs that can manufacture 14/16mn ASICs, one in Hong Kong and the other in New York.

The whales of Bitcoin (who are already $billionaires btw) control the miners, not vice versa. I had already explained to you how that economics works, when I refuted your nonsense about hashrate growing unbounded or even as a percentage of transaction value.


@dinofelis, your entire world is going to get turned upside-down and you will be entirely unprepared because of your cognitive dissonance.


Yes it is, because all the refutations are in my archives. You're just lazy to read. You're stuck in your cognitive dissonance mode and lazy assumptions.

I am not going to repeat all the information in my archives just for you. It is your problem, not mine. It takes far too much time to debate with you, because you don't pay attention. Things I've stated, you fail to assimilate. It is a huge waste of time. And it is your problem.


You did not debunk. You were incorrect. I explained why. You are unable to comprehend. So you continue on making a Dunning-Kruger asshat for yourself.

What else can I say to when you either can't or won't read (and fully assimilate) what I wrote and comprehend your mistakes?

Of course you will continue to ignorantly insist that you are correct, and of course you will continue to be incorrect. And of course you will continue to reply and claim my reply does not constitute a logical argument. And I will continue to understand you are refusing to learn and you are filibustering instead of just admitting that you don't comprehend how I refuted you.


Continue lying and you will go on my permanent Ignore.

I never thought you would be disingenuous but I guess ignorance can do that even to someone who I used to think was rational. Sigh.


I am not trying to convince you. I am going to enjoy watching you eat your asshat as all obstinate idiots eventually do. That is the only way you will ever learn, because you refuse to be rational in this case.

I am providing information for readers who don't want to be misled by your failure to assimilate the information which has been provided to you.

1) You don't understand the design (and at least not in the correct context of its goal, but also you make other egregious technical blunders (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1767014.msg18579712#msg18579712) which indicate you are not expert enough in blockchains (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1767014.msg18578862#msg18578862)). I do understand it holistically (don't expect me to write it all!).
2) It is not clunky. The design is genius. Your circular logic rebuttal is indicative of your tunnel vision. That is your incorrect assumption because you attribute a design goal (mass scaling, etc.) which is not the design goal that Bitcoin meets perfectly (power money system for the global elite, launched virally by employing useful idiots so that resistance would not form in the nascent stages). John Nash's Ideal Money stated that to bring about ideal money it would have to be done evolutionarily in an incremental and naturally viral fashion. If you understand game theory, you would understand why the elite can't just announce a new monetary system and expect to not be attacked and undermined. Your entire thought process is so tunnel vision and simpleton. You don't assimilate and incorporate all the possibilities to arrive at the conclusion which makes the most sense. You instead lazily jump to the most convenient assumptions which fit your subjective and personal wishes. The design is genius on many different levels. For example for the n00bs who have no technical comprehension, the mass scaling and idealism lies are motivation. For those with some technical comprehension such as yourself, you become arrogant and see it as clunky, because you assume those mass scaling lies were sincere. Lol. Satoshi (the elite) brilliantly turned all different possible attackers into useful idiot assistants. You talk Bitcoin down while it continues to grow its tentacles virally, which is perfect and what the global elite want you to do. The more naysayers the better. Because viral things don't stop growing due to naysayers. The more naysayers, the more a viral thing spreads.

Incorrect. Chain reorganizations can happen at any time. PoW is probabilistically (i.e. never) final, not deterministically final.

Thus referencing by specific chains instead of by hash as @dinofelis suggested would be a DDoS security vulnerability at least and other cascading issues.

@IadixDev, that is why you leave the blockchain design work to me. I am expert. You are not.

I knew you were going to make that mistake.  You can't figure these things out for yourself. I have to spoon feed every little detail and permutation to you.

The market value will be stable when it reaches $5 trillion market cap and the high transaction fees have forced all the riff-raff off the blockchain and only the $billionaires are using it. Of course it is not 100% stable value ideal money when it is in the nascent viral launch phase as a small market cap and not yet a reserve currency for most billionaires (just a few billionaires already using BTC as their unit-of-account).


Lol, I didn't misunderstand. I even anticipated you would make the inconsistent logic which I explained above. See the bolded text below proving I anticipated your blunder. Lol.

You think you are smart, but really you are more of a bumbling idiot.

Here follows a copy of my original explanation.

You must have flunked economics or forgot the fundamental canons of capitalism.

Money is a transferable utility. Capital accumulation as a form of investment can increase the utility of economy. The winners and losers form an emergent order of fitness of capital accumulation.

Hodling BTC increases the utility of Bitcoin by increasing its market capitalization. Fungible money gains utility as it gains hodling because it means more people are willing to accept more of it (which has nothing to do with merchants accepting it ... the elite want to replace gold with a better gold (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864869.0) for their reserves).

The overall point is that all this speculation is preparing BTC's market cap to grow enough that more and more billionaires start using it for their unit-of-account.

Over time the small block size will (via exorbitant transaction fees) kick the riff-raff off of Bitcoin and so it will become the exclusive domain of the wealthy. And then the speculative noise that causes you to be a Bitcoin naysayer, will be gone.

The whales and dolphins that are hodling BTC are not the simpleton minnows and greater fool victims. They are very astute investors who understand the world is fundamentally changing.

I am sorry. I am weary of replying to your dumb posts. (that means if you write some more dumb shit, I might just put you on Ignore bcz its getting redundant)

I thought you had a university education.

Satoshi nakamoto is the real creator of bitcoin some say that satoshi isn't just an individual but actully a group of intelligent people. Many claimed to be satoshi, many were speculated to be satoshi but all of them lack the criteria to be The Creator of Bitcoin.

My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.

That is another example of your cognitive dissonance. You invent delusions that don't exist. You demonize things in your mind, because you said you want to not care. Not caring is your psychological defense mechanism because you've said you hate society-at-large.


You are not invested and thus not expert, as I have clearly shown by your numerous technical errors w.r.t. blockchain design.

I am invested and am more expert than you.

I have also shown I am more knowledgeable than you about economics.

And I don't have hate for society-at-large and have no need to protect myself psychologically by wanting to not care.

Thus you computed the probabilities incorrectly.


I've stated I don't think Nash was necessarily consciously working for the elite. Yet the fact is he was traveling around the world selling the concept of an IPCI which is precisely the weighted basket that has been floated by the elite for the SDRs of the NWO. I suspect he was unwittingly involved, or was outsmarting his handlers (in case you've forgotten, the theory would be in that case he would know that Bitcoin would enable altcoin experimentation).


You continue to write BS that just isn't true. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat lies, they are still lies.

You are damn close to being permanently ignored by me because I've refuted your allegations and you continue to repeat the lie after you've been informed as to your errors. So this is disingenuous crap.


Ah so the entire thing is jealousy. I got it now. Goodbye.

You're so jealous that you'd conflate my project which entirely independent of Bitcoin (except as an exchange for the token and the token is a minor aspect of the value).

No my project won't defeat Bitcoin. The knowledge age will eventually defeat fungible money, but my project is but one part of a natural evolution that was going to happen any way. I just want to be part of it.


I won't have time for your silly beer. Besides I don't drink alcohol.

And frankly I want nothing more to do with you.


You got that wrong. Lol.

My stake in my project is higher yes. But I don't have any particular need for Bitcoin to be flawed or evil. Much better if it wasn't a threat. I think it would be much better to do my project in a world where there isn't some potential conflict ahead.


How can you be open-minded when you are a lunatic who hates society-at-large and wants to not care about anything because that is the way you've been protecting your psychology and coping with your life.


You lie about my rational arguments.

Why is this thing still spread in this forum? Couple days ago iamnotback was created a thread about how jhon Nash created bitcoin and then locked. Then he created the same thread in another section, and now this happen again by someone who just paste a link of article that created by someone​ idk.

Yes he did. He's a friggin idiot and is a hired gun of Jihan Wu, along with Alex, and some others....

I believe any alt, no matter how good or bad, needs the support (financial and non-financial alike) of the shadow elites in order to have a lasting impression in the society (or else they will die out sooner or later).

Nonetheless, if your alt have the potential for some very lucrative monetary potential (either as a result of pump and dumb or otherwise), I am interested to know more.  ;D

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function" (https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2k6lcc/the_greatest_shortcoming_of_the_human_race_is_our/). Al Barlett on Growth and Sustainability

Compute: (500000÷1200)^(1÷13) = 1.59

Thus to reach $500,000 in 13 years from a starting price of $1200, a compounded rise in price of 59% per year is all that is required.

Do you understand now why I think @dinofelis is very mathematically near-sighted.

The chart you showed is not constant compounded growth, but rather logistic growth. Indeed we should expect Bitcoin to be logistic, because nothing can grow at a constant exponential rate forever. Since the $10 entry price in early 2013 to the recent $1300 price, Bitcoin has averaged 237% gain per year compounded. So we can see that Bitcoin's price is rising much faster than 59% per year right now and so by 2030 the price rise can slow down to much less than 59% per year and still reach $500,000. I believe @rpietila did some logistic models of potential BTC prices.

If we assume a 75% compounded rate (for the equivalent logistic model) from now until 2024, then the BTC price will rise 50X, thus $60,000 and the market cap will be $1.2 trillion.

Of course no one can surpass the elite in BTC wealth, because they mined most of the first 10.5 million Bitcoins.

Most of us won't have enough BTC to stay on chain that long so we will be kicked out to currencies (altcoins or what ever) which are regulated and many of us will have our wealth confiscated by governments gone bezerk with the severe sovereign debt collapse that Bitcoin is going to help cause and make severe.

You say you won't give your private keys, but the government can throw you in jail and torture you. Also I expect by 2024 or so, the elite will have control over the mining and can blacklist addresses they want to.


They aren't. See above.


Offshore banks aren't a reserve currency.

Can't you see the date on the OP of this thread was Jan 27. I started a different thread this week. I presume you know the difference between January and April.

What makes you think the elite want to be locked together in a mutual self-destruction of NWO and 666.

They think they have no choice (or let's say nature forces them to exist), because fungible money is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

My idea may change everything. If the knowledge age ameloriates the power vacuum of fungible money, then the shadow elites may gleefully attack each other and return their former power back to emergent chaos, because they would have no other choice.

Fundamental laws of physics can't be avoided.

I also have a Theory of Everything I hope to publish a summary maybe tomorrow in a blog on Steemit. I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!

I refuted that upthread.

I really never expected you would be a liar. Amazing.

You've lost all credibility in my eyes. I had a very high opinion of you. Really amazes me that you would ignore my refutation and continue a lie.


I refuted that also. I am beginning to think maybe you are just not that smart.


Given that the elite designed Bitcoin with 1MB blocks which can never be increased (and Satoshi never said he would definitely raise it, rather he just demurred so that everyone would not be alarmed) on purpose because it keeps the riff-raff off of Bitcoin once it reaches critical mass (which has already been attained), thus you are promulgating a ridiculous red-herring.

Obviously the elite are not at all concerned about running out of block size. Duh.

The main goal as I explained to you previously was heightened security and that it doesn't bloat the UTXO which must be stored in DRAM.

You're really wasting everyone's time trying to save your ego.


The is unwise, because the cryptanalysis attacker now has an additional degree-of-freedom to modify the message, since the public key recovery is dependent on both signature and the message signed.

Satoshi was not at all worried about the block size. Security was his #1 priority.

So once again we see if we had you let you design Bitcoin, you would have made it less secure.


We are not going to repeat that debate again. I already refuted that upthread.

I have no idea what you are trying to say about the elites.

And I have no idea which elite you are referring to.

The elite that I refer to are the rothschilds.

And I believe they have far more occult knowledge than most people.

I doubt you or most readers would understand where the elite derive their power and why they are forced to exist by a power vacuum.

The above is simply outside your capacity to comprehend. You'd need more knowledge about the relevant sciences involved.

My statement applied to Rothschild and all elite.

You mean they are trapped in a time loop that they cannot escape forward?

You can tell me where they derive their power.

In fact where i really want to get at with this is this :

Even if let say you find a system who can solve the double spent in a way or another,( and without block reward all version if chains are 99% interexchangeable, for all the non double spent there is zero need for PoW, and hard consensus is only really needed when there is two incompatible version of the same tx within a certain timeframe )


But ok let say all the double spent pb are solved and there is no pow and reward associated to the block emission.

Then you dont have coin emission, the problem of initial coin distribution, and zero appeal for speculation, because all is deterministic and planned so not much speculative value.

It could be useful in case chain assets are backed by real world assets and another way is found to reach the initial consensus , but still no speculative value.

If you add to this the whole thing of fixed block emission time associated with coin emission/fixed inflation rate, and pow reward, you see the pow main interest is not necessarily the consensus reaching over the double spent .


And you cant understand the full interest of something in bitcoin if you dont see the whole picture and hiw it influence also the other side of the "coin".

And you cant estimate the value of something without taking in account all its purpose, and it's not only though as flat out distributed ledger solving double spent, there is more to it,  and all sides have they own thinking .
 

How can they find out I own bitcoin? I have never bought it. Anyway, what's the point then? Might as well dump it all before the so called bitcoin confiscation begins.

Why doesn't rpietila and MP dump too? they are public figures so they will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation. It's basically free money for them.

It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

If you own bitcoin, and you don't want anyone to access it, it would be very hard for anyone to take it away, especially if it's in cold storage.

What Bitcoin confiscation exactly are you talking about?

What makes you guys think that there is going to be a worldwide dragnet on bitcoin? This sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Why would the transactions fees ever come anywhere remotely close to the value of bitcoin, if Bitcoin continues to grow as an asset?? That's just plain retarded.

I heard complaints about transaction fees. I have moved BTC from one place to another, and the transactions fees are not bad, and it's still by far the cheapest way to send money around the world today. I was charged $0.55 for transferring $200.00, and the transaction occurred in 10-15 minutes, which is normal nowadays. You guys really aren't that cheap are you???

no, john nash didn't create bitcoin

no, rothchild didn't create bitcoin

no, bitcoin will most likely not go to $500,000 in 2030

no, you will not be tortured if you own BTC

no, you will be able to move 1 BTC (we will never reach a point where fee is higher than 1 BTC, it would collapse before we get there, too many angry people will kill the project)

no, bitcoin will not be for billionaires only (devs allowing this will get killed by angry bitcoiners that holded for years only to find out their millions are stuck on the blockchain because the fees are millionaire in itselves)

iamnotback may be losing it, too much posting.

Chapter 6 Why Bitcoin Is a Big Deal in the book Bitcoin for the Befuddled addresses this very well. You can read it online for free with Google books.

Also chapter 7 The Cryptography Behind Bitcoin in the same book, is a very comprehensible explanation of ECC and the ECDSA algorithm employed in Bitcoin. With only knowledge of high school level math one could understand that.

I understand @dinofelis wasn't able to assimilate this information, so I think by putting it all organized concisely in one post will help him and readers to understand. And hopefully he will stop lying.

One last time, I will repeat the rebuttals I made to two of @dinofelis' incorrect claims (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1767014.msg18579236#msg18579236) that Bitcoin has a clunky design thus implying Satoshi's design was not genius. I made other rebuttals upthread, but I will not repeat all of them again.

1.

Quote from: dinofelis on April 13, 2017, 01:28:52 PM there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits @dinofelis claims that since it is known that the true security of Bitcoins 256-bit ECDSA (elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, i.e. a form of ECC aka elliptic curve cryptography) is only 128-bits, then if we hash the ECDSA public key, then we only need a 128-bit hash. Thus he claims that Satoshi was wasteful and not genius. Although Satoshi's long-term priorities were not prioritized on not consuming too much block size given 1 MB was deemed more than sufficient for Bitcoin's planned future as block chain for the $billionaires only, Satoshi did minimize the length of the hash function by choosing 160-bit RIPE160 instead of SHA256 for the final hash of Bitcoin addresses (as they appear on the blockchain, but note that publicly distributed addresses also have a checksum (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses#How_to_create_Bitcoin_Address) for eliminating user typos but afaik this checksum is or could be discarded from what is stored on the blockchain). He did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9202/why-does-bitcoin-use-two-hash-functions-sha-256-and-ripemd-160-to-create-an-ad/9216/#answer-9216). For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9202/why-does-bitcoin-use-two-hash-functions-sha-256-and-ripemd-160-to-create-an-ad/9203/#answer-9203) when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient. Quote from: iamnotback on April 10, 2017, 01:18:06 PM Agreed it is but collision attacks based on distinguishers, boomerang attacks, and other forms of cryptoanalysis which attempt to reduce the intractability are what concern us. ... You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. By frustrating crypt-analysis with the prehashing with SHA256, this RIPE160 is deemed to be a perfect balance of compression and brute force collision resistance. Yet @dinofelis is incorrect to claim that 128-bits would have been sufficient for the hash function, because of at least two reasons: a) Quote from: iamnotback on April 10, 2017, 01:18:06 PM Reducing 160-bits by 16 bits only saves 10%, and for that miniscule size reduction you are not factoring the exponential loss in randomized collision resistance (http://preshing.com/20110504/hash-collision-probabilities/). Insufficient collision resistance of 128-bits. Even if we assume that all attacks on collision resistance of SHA128 are intractable, even the equation for random chance (http://preshing.com/20110504/hash-collision-probabilities/) says that if we generation more than a trillion addresses then we have a near certainty of production one random collision. But that is for an idealized hash function. Whereas in fact hash functions always have more collisions than the perfect randomization of their bit length. Conservatively we would presume on the order of a few bits of redundancy in the permutation engine of the hash function, thus we would expect a random collision with only billions of address. Satohi was prescient in his prudence because since Bitcoin's launch in 2009, a collision attack against SHA128 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-1) has been discovered which reduces the collision security to 60-bits which is approaching the realm of tractability. Additionally since the attacker can control the message being signed, birthday attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack) generally can reduce collisions to half the bit-length of the hash, which is different from using the birthday problem to attack the ECDSA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack#Digital_signature_susceptibility). b) The hash is intended for long-term security (as it is public for a long time whereas the ECDSA signature and public key is only published for a short-time before it becomes recorded as final and not double-spendable in the blockchain), so it requires greater security. Notwithstanding the long-term security distinction, if the security of both the ECDSA and the hash are the same then cryptanalysis reduction of security in both might be levered in such a way that their weakening is compounded. Also the larger bit length of the hash may also provide competitive economic security compared with the block reward (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses#Collisions_.28lack_thereof.29) of using the SHA256 resources to mine the blockchain. And as I had pointed out upthread, the 160-bit reduces the collision attack space (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1272936.msg13127578#msg13127578) of the 256-bit ECDSA from 128 to  96 bits.

2.

@dinofelis claims that quantum computing resistance with the hash is futile because if the ECDSA is broken via Shor's algorithm, because he claims the attacker can crack the transaction signature and double-spend it when it is published before the bonafide signature becomes final in the blockchain. I already refuted this argument based on two reasons. Quote from: iamnotback on April 11, 2017, 10:52:04 AM If you argue that it doesn't matter if we have the hashes when ECC is broken by quantum computing, because the transactions can be intercepted and cracked by the attacker before they are confirmed in the network, you would not be thinking clearly. Because quantum computing would at its inception (nascent stages) likely be only able to break long-term security but not short-term. So there would be a period to transition as I already stated in the above quote from my prior post. Quote from: dinofelis on April 11, 2017, 08:36:00 AM So the day that one finds the "Euclidean division" in an ECC, it is COMPLETELY BROKEN. You are describing future cryptanalysis breakage of the math theoretic security of the intractability of the discrete logarithm over certain fields. But you're analogy does not apply, because Shor's algorithm (a form of cryptanalysis) is already known! It is not a future unknown. Also (and this is a minor point which isn't really necessary for my slamdunk) you are conflating the breakage of discrete logarithm math theoretic security with the security of permutation algorithms of hash functions. I repeat the distinction between the two which you have failed to assimilate: Quote from: iamnotback on April 10, 2017, 01:18:06 PM You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. Quote from: iamnotback on April 10, 2017, 10:24:31 AM As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage. Thus... Quote from: dinofelis on April 11, 2017, 08:36:00 AM --> if we assume that ECC will be broken one day, bitcoin's crypto scheme is IN ANY CASE not usable. Not only are you failing to assimilate the fact that Shor's breakage is already known (not a future thing not knowable as you are arguing) which is sufficient slamdunk on why you are incorrect, but you are also claiming that hash functions can typically be entirely broken in one swoop which afaik not the case (and I studied the cryptanalysis history on past SHA submissions from round 1 to final rounds). Quote from: dinofelis on April 11, 2017, 08:36:00 AM Now, what is the reason we can allow LOWER security for the exposed public key, than for the long-term address in an output ?  The reason is a priori (and I also fell into that trap - as I told you before, my reason for these discussions is only to improve my proper understanding and here it helped) that the public key needs only to secure the thing between broadcasting and inclusion in the chain.  But as you point out, that can take longer if blocks are full than 10 minutes.  This can be a matter of hours. Now, if we are on a security requirement of days or weeks, then there's essentially not much difference between days or weeks, and centuries.  The factor between them is 10000 or so.  That's 16 bits.  A scheme that is secure for days or weeks, only needs 16 bits of extra security, to be secure for centuries ====>  there is no reason to nitpick on 16 bits if we are talking about 128 bits or so. There is no reason to introduce "short term security" if this is only 16 bits less than the long term security level. You have incorrect conceptualization. The point of long-term security is not the difference in the time it takes to crack with a given level of technology, but rather that over the long-term we can't know when that moment comes that cracking has become sufficiently fast enough. The Bitcoin UTXO from 8 years ago that Satoshi has not spent, could have been under attack for the past 8 years. By having the hash for the long-term security, then we force all attacks to begin only when the UTXO are spent. This enables us to restrict damage to a very few number of transactions and the community will become alarmed and take corrective action. Quote from: iamnotback on April 11, 2017, 06:22:09 AM I already told you that if the public key were exposed for a longer (indefinite!) time, so you would need to increase the security of the public key.  But to what level given quantum computing may be coming? And 256-bit was about the upper limit of what was available and well accepted in 2008. I remember seeing that 256-bit was only expected to be recommended security for ECC for only another decade or so. https://www.keylength.com/en/3/ https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/ ... Another reason (in addition to the compression of UTXO) to hash the values on the block chain is because when the use of a quantum computer is detected, we have some protection against chaos and can map out a strategy for burning the values to a new design securely. Hashes are much more likely to be quantum computing resistant. Quote from: iamnotback on April 10, 2017, 01:18:06 PM You're advocating reducing to 80 bits, so that means in the future if someone has to computational capacity to break 128-bits in 2.814749767×10¹⁴ / 60*24*365.25 years, then then at your suggested 80 bits they could break it in 1 minute.

You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.


He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named The Most Serene Republic (http://trilema.com/2016/how-to-participate-in-the-affairs-of-the-most-serene-republic/).

Do you need the evidence (http://qntra.net/2017/03/wikileaks-hands-elected-trump-us-government-weapon-to-gut-careerist-deep-state-us-government/#comment-89063). MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).


They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.

Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.


You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a regulated exchange.

Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly. ;) Ethereum is also attempting (http://www.coindesk.com/inside-truebit-ethereum-scalability-effort/) to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...

As great a mathematician as John Nash was, he did not code bitcoin.  Some of his thinking may have influenced bitcoin's genesis, but he did not write the code....He was too busy chasing Harvey the Rabbit to find the time to code.

So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

And how do we know when we start losing money (aka when is the time to dump?)

You say now is too early because the price will go higher and the fees will still be affordable.

How does one calculate when you start losing money in relation to the amount of BTC you are holding, the price, and the fees so you know the ideal time to dump?

Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.
You paint a scary picture where there is an Illuminati elite of BTC holders. I am just a hard working poor guy hustling for BTCs, made a decent portfolio (not even yet 21 BTC group) and you are saying these guys will make my wealth useless because the fee will be so high by 2030 that even if you are holding something decent like 10-20 BTC, your wealth will be stuck, so you are forced to eventually sell before the fee is higher than your wealth. This is just nuts man, what the fuck? Fucking billionaires. Fuck all of you!! I only wanted to make a couple million dollars from my hard working and hustling and long term vision to hodl BTC and retire peacefully and now I will get fucked by insane fees. Fuck this trash, fuck their group, pussies. I was excited to see BTC at 6 figures in 10 years, but I will not be part of it even if i have 10 million worth of BTC because fees will be higher than 10 million BTC? this is insane. When the fuck do I dump this garbage? im too pissed, im going to the gym.