Bitcoin Forum

I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper.  A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not.  The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version.  It appeared a few months later. 

I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it. 

However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.

The magic string is: 

427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faa

I mention this because, right now, there is a version of the paper at https://www.blacksheepatorenco.com/bitcoin.html  which matches.

Cryddit

What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english.

Thanks for the share. Didn't know the version hosted on the Bitcoin website wasn't the original one...

And such an odd website for the original paper to be hosted, lol

Is not it the same as of the following 2...

1. www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

2. www.coinlearn.org/whitepaper.php

Grammar rules on strong verbs aren't as strict as they once were. Even native speakers today used "broadcasted".

It appears that the paper on bitcoin.org is a lightly polished revision of the original. There are no changes in basic information, but a few sentences are rephrased for clarity.

Way back in the day, when people really cared about such things, misuse of strong verbs was a good way to get your ass kuck.

It's different, but the differences is only at email & total page number only.
It is really the original bitcoin paper ?

And what is the connection between bitcoin & knitting ?

Yup, this looks pretty genuine, even though I wonder why the sha256 hash of the document is mentioned on the web only recently (there's a discussion in the cryptography mailing list http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.general/22386).

The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.

Onkel Paul

By the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one.

Grammar rules on strong verbs aren't as strict as they once were. Even native speakers today used "broadcasted".

"Broadcasted" is correct if past tense.  We have become lazy (or fooled by the idiots on TV) to believe the following:

Weird...
As I said, english is not my native language.
This page http://www.englishpage.com/irregularverbs/irregularverbs.html states both forms (broadcast and broadcasted) as possible for the past tense. In contrast, the past tense of "cast" is clearly "cast" and not "casted". This seems pretty illogical considering that the word "broadcast" is based on "cast". Irregularities within the irregular verbs - english is a crazy language ::)

Ya. My teacher used to beat the shit out of me for the smallest reasons.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/36/e3/7e/36e37e799184d4df32c5f22e27d14c08.jpg

But then we became friends. But my teacher blinded my friend's right eye after she thrashed talk him.

https://i.imgur.com/6LmNHYF.jpg?1

So then my friend put poison in our teacher's favorite dish, fish head soup. He ded now.

By the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one.

So DST started Nov 2, 2008 but it's odd that the TZ moved in the wrong direction, if I am reading this right.

Original : /CreationDate(D:20081003134958-07'00')>>
2009 revision : /CreationDate(D:20090324113315-06'00')>>

03 Oct 2008 is -7
24 Mar 2009 is -6

I don't know whether it is relevant, but daylight savings changes in the Southern Hemisphere (early April and early October in Australia, for example) are opposite to those in the Northern Hemisphere.

I don't know whether it is relevant, but daylight savings changes in the Southern Hemisphere (early April and early October in Australia, for example) are opposite to those in the Northern Hemisphere.

Great point. Here is a map of DST around the world, blue is where it is used : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#mediaviewer/File:DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png

And a map of timezones: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/World_Time_Zones_Map.png

So it doesn't look like DST is used in any country in the -6 or -7 TZ below the equator. (There are no countries south of the equator in -6 or -7.)

From: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:38 PM
To: "Wei Dai" <weidai@ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshi@anonymousspeech.com>
Subject: Citation of your b-money page

I was very interested to read your b-money page.  I'm getting ready to
release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system.
Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your
site.

I need to find out the year of publication of your b-money page for the
citation in my paper.  It'll look like:
[1] W. Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, (2006?).

You can download a pre-release draft at
http://www.upload.ae/file/6157/ecash-pdf.html  Feel free to forward it to
anyone else you think would be interested.

Title: Electronic Cash Without a Trusted Third Party

Abstract: A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow
online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without the
burdens of going through a financial institution.  Digital signatures
offer part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted
party is still required to prevent double-spending.  We propose a solution
to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.  The network
timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without
redoing the proof-of-work.  The longest chain not only serves as proof of
the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest
pool of CPU power.  As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on
the network, they can generate the longest chain and outpace any
attackers.  The network itself requires minimal structure.  Messages are
broadcasted on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the
network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of
what happened while they were gone.

Satoshi