Title: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: EvilLizardApparel on March 07, 2014, 05:56:39 AM Well,
It's simple really. Everyone talks of the ever-changing writing style he had... Which makes sense, if he was part of a p2p/cryptography GROUP that worked on experimental e-payment systems. Plus, just read the bitcoin white paper. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Quote 12. Conclusion We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism. Last time I checked, whenever I do something I do not use to pronoun "we". When I take my garbage out, or finish an excel spreadsheet, I don't go to someone and say "we did it"....I say "I"... Thoughts? Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: HairyMaclairy on March 07, 2014, 05:59:28 AM Have you had tea with the Queen lately?
Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: cbutters on March 07, 2014, 06:05:42 AM also the use of "we" is common language when submitting a proposal, scientific journal or technical writing. See this technical writing style guide from MIT: http://web.mit.edu/me-ugoffice/communication/technical-writing.pdf
Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: podyx on March 07, 2014, 06:06:25 AM satoshi worked with early coders
70% of the code has been rewritten pretty much Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: EvilLizardApparel on March 07, 2014, 06:20:06 AM I can see using "we" if your part of a research team developing novel treatments to destroy L-forms of Borrelia Burgdorferi...but in this context?
Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: Mythul on March 07, 2014, 06:24:46 AM What if he really is Satoshi Nakamoto and the reporter was right ?
Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: Junko on March 07, 2014, 06:55:42 AM Title: Re: Satoshi is NOT one man--Proof in plain sight Post by: Rannasha on March 07, 2014, 07:10:01 AM I can see using "we" if your part of a research team developing novel treatments to destroy L-forms of Borrelia Burgdorferi...but in this context? "we" can be used in any context within a scientific publication. I've written texts about work that I did completely by myself and still used "we". People have speculated that Satoshi had a scientific background and the use of "we" instead of "I" is completely consistent with that and Satoshi being a single person. |