Hey man, looong time no see.

Healthyworm.com?  Haha, what are you selling now?  lol

 

Oh man, please don't tell me it was that simple. 

Can't be.  Satoshi is anti Keynes.

And besides, Satoshi is in Mizrok Nor.

I'm gonna give this a shot just to see if you actually have 100 btc to give away. 

Hold on, let me put my whitehat on.

Dotat.  😂

Sorry, Jocelyn, but you posted this riddle so technicallly I'm still honoring my word.

The answer to your riddle is: 

"I am Satoshi Nakamoto, I am a Robot; I am not alone, I have a twin brother his name is, Thomas Nasakioto and a Grand Father; His name is John McCarthy ". 

Here's another easy riddle:  Why does the world slumber while Artificial Intelligence conquers? 

Under a gentleman's agreement I cannot disclose private PM's - but the office of the REAL REAL super REAL Satoshi has contacted me.  His secretary, Jocelyn stating that the media has never heard of the "real" Satoshi.

But they have requested I NOT disclose any of our conversation.  Which has gone DEEP!!!!

Hint:  I'm crazy!!!  The stuff their telling me is CRAAAAZZYYYYerrr!!

Think, monkeys, THINK!!!

What a thing to say.  I like you. 

Been a small blocker for years, always bashing Ver and /r/BTC but after a week of talking to the real Satoshi I've learned things I've never heard before.  Especially the ongoing sabotage by Blockstream/Corn and Theymos the evil emperor.

Sooooo...I'm now a no cap - big blocker!!!

Supersize me!





Disclosure:  I never stuff but there was definitely a perfect storm in my pants that day. 

Satoshi and I like to play this game, some call it Amtrak, we call it the train. 

Alright, we're gonna have the battle of the Satoshis, Blockstream/Corn you bring your guy and I'll bring Dr. Wright and let's see who the real Satoshi is!!! 

In fact, I'll put the real Satoshi against the entire Corn, err, Core team. 

Bring it to me!!!

The real Satoshi says: 

Do I have to choose?

It's a package deal, never sell yourself short. 

Edit 2:  [oh, I can't get Satoshi to stop once he gets going]: 

Just as a further edit:

http://www.nature.com/articles/npjqi201523

In the Nature article, the talk of how a Billion Qbit quantum computer "could" possibly solve a 2000bit RSA key in a day.

This is still far smaller than a 256 Bit ECC based cryptosystem. The result is that the current research support the position I took in 2007. It is a shame we simply trust others to tell us what is true authoritatively rather than seeking the answers in a scientific manner.

Satoshi [Dr. Wright] says:

If the ephemeral key (k) has been reused in the signing of multiple keys or has a poorly designed RNG this is possible. The SN keys are public and block 9 was used in a transaction that leaves the Public Key visible and not just the Key hash.

http://www.nilsschneider.net/2013/01/28/recovering-bitcoin-private-keys.html


Now, where a bitcoin address has not been used in the signing and movement of coin, the double hash of the public key does actually make the pubkey value secret and not able to be discovered (prior to use or other leakage).

The recovery of keys using a quantum computer is not possible in the near term and even was a 1,000,000 Qubit system developed, it would require months (or longer) of compute time.

There is a LOT of FUD around QC and cryptography. There is NO threat in the near term, and in contradiction to what is stated by many (using this as a reason to try to move to other protocols and away from the reference protocol), QC is not a means to suddenly crack ECDSA keys.

The following is the response from one of the scientists quoted by the Economist a few years back that lead to this BS:

Your article regarding D-Wave's demonstration of a "practical quantum computer", sets a new standard for sloppy science journalism. Most egregious is your assertion that quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems in "one shot" by exploring exponentially many solutions at once. This mistaken view was put to rest in the infancy of quantum computation over a decade ago when it was established that the axioms of quantum physics severely restrict the type of information accessible during a measurement. For unstructured search problems like the NP-complete problems this means that there is no exponential speed up but rather at most a quadratic speed up.

Your assertions about D-Wave are equally specious. A 16 qubit quantum computer has smaller processing power than a cell phone and hardly represents a practical breakthrough. Any claims about D-Wave's accomplishments must therefore rest on their ability to increase the number of qubits by a couple of orders of magnitude while maintaining the fragile quantum states of the qubits. Unfortunately D-Wave, by their own admission, have not even tested whether the qubits in their current implementation are in a coherent quantum state. So it quite a stretch to assert that they have a working quantum computer let alone one that potentially scales. An even bleaker picture emerges when one more closely examines their algorithmic approach. Their claimed speed up over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on "The power of adiabatic quantum computing". That speed up unfortunately does not hold in the setting at hand, and therefore D-Wave's "quantum computer" even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it can be scaled to thousands of qubits, would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone.

Umesh Vazirani

IF and I mean IF a 1 million QBit computer is made in my life time and this is a big if (equal to winning the lottery for the next 20 days without buying a ticket) then it will AT BEST take months if not decades to solve ECC.

Bitcoin addresses would need to have a system that can break ECC is seconds.

Such a system is NOT even theoretically possible.

So, please never listen to the FUD. Forget ideas such as Lamport Signatures. Bitcoin is as it is for a reason and the reason that these others who worry about science fiction did not create it is the reason we need to maintain it as the protocol was created.

It needs to be simple.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/theinbox/2007/02/quantum_computing_3

Edit:  Quantum computing is even less effective on the solutions to hashes.

The trouble that seems to be misunderstood is that a working Quantum computer cannot take an ECDSA signature and reverse this in a single operation as is proposed. All of the QC algorithms are multistep and multistage. The system needs to be reset following each process used in the calculation of a valid ECDSA Signature. This is not something akin to the existing methods used in computer science now.

We have current issues, thinking of possibilities out of theory 20 years hence is the least of the issues we face.

Edit 2:  [oh, I can't get Satoshi to stop once he gets going]:  

Just as a further edit:

http://www.nature.com/articles/npjqi201523

In the Nature article, the talk of how a Billion Qbit quantum computer "could" possibly solve a 2000bit RSA key in a day.

This is still far smaller than a 256 Bit ECC based cryptosystem. The result is that the current research support the position I took in 2007. It is a shame we simply trust others to tell us what is true authoritatively rather than seeking the answers in a scientific manner.

Satoshi (Dr. Wright) says: 

No, equal is NOT fair.  We can have :

A) Equally poor

B) Wealthy societies that are unequal through growth

Growth makes all people better. It is not inequality that we need to address, but growth. Volatility is a low price to pay for high growth. Research compound interest - growth is the answer to all poverty problems.

---

Taking research such as https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/34778/1/MPRA_paper_34778.pdf (and earlier sources that are no longer available)....

The averaged makeup in 2010 of US currency was (as the nominal Average citizen):

#  Face value of note

31   x  USD      $ 1
7     x  USD      $ 5
5     x  USD      $ 10
21   x  USD      $ 20
4     x  USD      $ 50
23   x  USD      $ 100

This provides 91 Notes (as a mean value) with a value of USD $ 3,036 for the (average) person in the US (including the USD amounts held abroad).

Note, this is the value of money. It does not include the value of goods and services. Most of these are transacted only periodically and not all require cash.

Most critically, this is the total value of the cash holdings in USD that is actually held. Since 2010, the amounts used in credit have increased as well as bank holdings, but the reality of this is that there is not an increased cash requirement.

The value of USD in cash format is (at 2010) limited to a global supply of 1.062 Trillion USD.

This extends to the (static) value of USD notes and the M1 supply as (is inflated) by banks. With this, the total comes to USD 20.827 Trillion.

At This level, the expected value in USD for each Satoshi would come to 0.049588 USD.

When the global money market is factored into this, we have a final expected value of 0.1070109 USD per satoshi.

This is why we are seeking to scale Bitcoin. This is the value it was designed for and why there are 21 million BTC.

This, when coupled with a faster settlement and transaction rate, increases the velocity of money even as it caps the amount.

At 10 minute intervals, the maximum velocity of money with Bitcoin is 2.1E15 x 52,560 Blocks/annum = 1.1E20

---

And I thought I was crazy with my $1 million prediction. 

Can we have another clue?  There's only one twin of Satoshi in crypto and that's Thomas.