That's an interesting read.

So at the end of the day, we do not know if a collision ever happened or not. It is a bit of a rabulism here. And as long as the involved two parties wouldn't reveal it, we would not know.

For example. If coins from an old wallet which was dormant for years suddenly move - we don't know if someone is "the lucky winner" of a collision or if the old owner all the sudden moved the coins.

We can, of course, assume that it is the old owner. But we just don't know.

I'm not talking about the chance of a collision, I'm well aware of the more than slim likelihood. I'm talking about ways how a possible collision could be detected. If I understand DannyHamilton correctly, there is almost no way to detect a collision unless:


So a pure theoretical scenario:

Someone used a wallet and produced tons of addresses long time ago, and then sent the Bitcoin to a new wallet, deleting or losing the old wallet.dat

At another point in time, a company creates a wallet for cold storage and (again: I know that this is close to impossible, it is a pure theoretical scenario) and creates a couple of addresses which never go online. In theory, it would be possible that there occurs a collision.

Not a theory seems that there is no way in such a scenario to detect the collision, right?

The following is from the Bitcoin wiki:
So the question is: Could it be possible that a collision already happened in the past, we just don't know it? And even the "victims" of a collision do not know?
Or, in other words: Is there any way to find out if a collision already happened in the past?

Every Bitcoin I spent, every Bitcoin I gave away, was a small contribution for the expanse of Bitcoin. So no. I do not regret it.

In banking, gambling, wallets etc., it makes sense.

Ermm... nothing would be replaced. Why do you think so? And if you look at the Bitcoin-Wiki, you'll see this:

I see your point. But on the other hand, there are use cases I could think of:
- there are a lot of apps where you can transfer or win Satoshis. Many of them use the Bitcoin-logo instead of a Satoshi-logo. This is often misleading, especially for newcomers. Using an established logo could make sense.
- In many wallets, you can chose how you want your assets to be shown. In Bitcoin Core, for example, you can chose between Bitcoin, Sats, bits and millibitcoin. If a wallet dev wants to use a graphic for the units: Here they are.

Design criteria
I developed the system according to the following criteria:

• Uniqueness
• Recognizability
• Related to the Bitcoin symbol
• Recognizable as currency symbol
• Simple
• Translate well to other fonts (like other currency symbols)
• Functionality with Unicode
• Must work extremely small and extremely large
• Must be expandable

First I designed the glyphs, starting with the small “b”. From this I developed the “n”, from this the “m” and finally the capital “S”. For “millibit” as well as for “milliSat” I constructed ligatures with the “mb” and the “mS”. The “m” and the “b” are lowercase letters, because they do not have a whole proper name, i.e. they are word combinations, whereas Bitcoin and Satoshi are proper nouns. That’s why I chose the capital letter for the “S” for Satoshi.
On the following posts, you see a documentation how I constructed them.



Bitcoin Logo



This is the original Bitcoin-logo. I wasn’t able to find it as a vector file, so I had vectorize it. When I was doing so, I found some design flaws, that really stressed me.

• The slim bow which goes from the serif to the upper and the lower B-bow weren‘t in a line (you can see the corner where the serif meets the first line of the vertical currency line) the line from the serif wasn‘t continuously and
  
• The two short currency lines weren‘t at the same high as the inner line from the inner space of the two empty spaces from the B.
• Also the radius where the serifs and the vertical line of the B meet weren‘t the same. I just corrected this here.

You find the corrected version of the Bitcoin-Sign also available for download.







Millibit Logo



This is how I constructed the ligature for the millibit logo:

• The “b” is the same as for the bit logo. I put the “m” in front of the “b” and connected it to the “b” so that it merges into one glyph.
• The oblique line at the serif, as well as the rounded corners have the same size and radius as for the “b”.
• The inner serifs of the “n” are 4/11 narrower so that the “m” does not appear heavier than the lowercase “b”.
• The upper curves of the “m” are the same height as the upper curve of the belly of the “b”.
• The upper serif has the same length as the outer serifs of the “m”.
• The lower serif, according to the concept that only the lowest left serif has a slanting section and because it is a serif within the letter, has the length of the inner “m” serifs.
• I left the corner of the belly of the “b” so that the white space remains the same and the “b” remains more recognizable. This way, two single letters form a complete ligature.
• In the finished character for the millibit logo, I used the same sizes and lengths for the two currency strokes as for the bit logo. Also here are the currency strokes without the rounded corners, which are used for the serifs, because they are additions and do not belong to the letter in that sense.

bit Logo



The lowercase “b” for the “bit” logo was the first letter, usually in type design you start with the lowercase “n”, but for me the lowercase “b” was somehow easier here.

• I took the slanting stroke at the serif from the capital “B”. The rounded corners at the transition of the serif to the letter are the same size at the top as at the bottom and run through all lowercase letters. They are smaller than in the capital letter “B” because it would have looked strange if the curves had the same size as in the capital “B”.
• The thickness of the lowest part of the belly of the “b” is the same as that of the serif, so that it looks like a line.
• The upper serif is less high, but has the same length as the lower serif (like the capital “B”).
• The baseline. Visually, the arcs must go a bit above it, so that they don’t look too small.
• The small “b” goes to the H-height and forms the upper end of the letter.
• The upper stroke of the currency strokes replaces the upper serif of the “b”. It is longer than the serif of the “b”, so that it is distinguished as a currency bar.

Satoshi Logo



The capital letter “S” was the last letter. It was the most difficult letter for me to construct. On the one hand, so that the “S” fits nicely into the font like the other letters, on the other hand, so that it then also became a nice independent sign as a currency sign and did not somehow fall out of line.

• The serifs on the S are “hidden” but still recognizable. Again, there is the same slanted drop as with the “B”.
• The lower serif is slightly higher than the upper one, so that the upper one doesn’t visually press on the lower one.
• The upper and lower outer curves of the “S” go further outward to accommodate the width of the “B” and create a balance. The upper bow, however, is slightly narrower in thickness.
• The upper serif ends a bit below the “H” height to make the letter look the same size.
• I had to trick a bit and make the upper bow of the “S” a bit higher, so that the bow is still recognizable when using the currency strokes even if the sign is only displayed in 12 pt, for example, and the currency strokes themselves had to hang at the top of the H-height, so that they were not lower than the currency strokes of the lowercase “b”. The outer axes of the “S” are exactly in the center, while the inner axes are each shifted in the other direction, which gives the letter a better balance.
• The length of the currency strokes on the left are at the same height as the outer edge of the lower serif, so that they do not appear optically too long and “pull” the character backwards.
• The height and length of the currency strokes is visually adapted to the Bitcoin character, but they are slightly narrower and smaller, because they would look too bold in exactly the same size. As with the large Bitcoin B, the currency bars do not go through the letter.

MilliSatoshi Logo




The ligature respectively the sign for Millisat was the last sign. Now you may think. Ah, a mistake, she used the capital letter “S” instead of taking a lower case letter, as in “bit” and “millibit”. However, this is not the case. There are two reasons why I used the upper case letter.
1. a smaller unit than Satoshi is not represented in the code.
2. “millibit” and “bit” do not come from the word “Bitcoin” but from the unit “bit”, “millisat” or “millisatoshi” does come from “Satoshi”.

• Again, as with millibit-sign, the “m” retains its serifs including the slanted downstroke and the rounded transition from the serif to the base of the letter. Also the serifs inside the “m”. And as in “millibit”, the “m” keeps the last inner serif, but loses the last serif, because of the connection to the “S”.
• The “S” is exactly the same as the “S” for Satoshi, also the two currency strokes hang from the H-height of the glyph and are exactly the same size as in the Satoshi sign, and as in the Satoshi sign, the currency strokes do not pass through the letter. This also makes the last character a unique, understandable symbol while keeping the recognition value of the Bitcoin symbol.

The full documentation can be downloaded here, as mentioned previously:
https://gallikerdesign.ch/documentation-btc-signs-v5.pdf

The downloadable fonts in several formats can be found here:
https://gallikerdesign.ch/btc-signs.html

Hope that helps

Wow, I can tell you that my girlfriend (she's not registered here) was blown away by some of the comments. Thanks (from her, too),

I realize that some do not like to click on links leading away, so I take the liberty to post her comments on the single signs in the following posts...

Hi all,

some few days ago, I opened this threat:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5461973.msg62647372#msg62647372

Actually, there were quite some discussions. The result: my girlfriend started anew and designed the following symbols for the subdivisions of Bitcoin.

If someone likes them, you can download them here:
https://gallikerdesign.ch/btc-signs.html

A documentation on how the symbols are constructed and the reasoning behind it can be found here:
https://gallikerdesign.ch/documentation-btc-signs-v5.pdf

As you may have seen, also here in the thread, BTC is for Bitcoin, the smaller b for the smaller units.

And please also read this here:

https://gallikerdesign.ch/satoshi/web-idea-and-documentation-satoshi-symbol.pdf

A lot of people - me included - believe that the value of one BTC will rise dramatically in the future. IF so, the use of sats will become more common.

If you look at the most used core banking systems in the world, we have the following four rows:

Currency - Currency Symbol - ISO Code - decimal places

Let's say we make now a transfer of 550 Sats, assuming that they would have a value significantly higher than today. This would look, today, like this:

Bitcoin - BTC - BTC¹ - 0.00000<sup>2

1</sup> Due to the fact that sats are a fraction of BTC, the BTC currency code would be used.
² Most core banking systems have a limited number of 0 they can display after the comma, usually it is 4 to 6 in currencies. This doesn't apply to all core banking systems, but to most of them. 550 Sats would not be displayed, i.e. not transferred.
A go-around-solution would be to enter Bitcoin as a commodity in a core banking system or with a stock symbol. As a commodity, it would need a definition according to ISO 4217 (900–998). However, this would then again be error-prone in other systems. A stock symbol would be the easiest way.

BIP 176 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki is a proposal which says that "Bits is presented here as the standard term for 100 (one hundred) satoshis or 1/1,000,000 (one one-millionth) of a bitcoin."

When Jimmy Song proposed this, I was in opposition. Today, I look a bit different at this and wouldn't oppose an ISO-code for Bits, the symbol as defined by Valentina. It would make it easier for core banking systems to use Bitcoin. And it would make it easier to use sats.

Uffa, hadn't seen this thread and opened another one with basically the same topic cause my gf made a new design:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5461973.new#new

Okay, I asked my girlfriend if she could write down her thoughts on why she created the Satoshi-symbol.

She delivered  as you can see here:

https://gallikerdesign.ch/satoshi/web-idea-and-documentation-satoshi-symbol.pdf

On this page, you can find the symbol in all different formats for free use:

https://gallikerdesign.ch/satoshi-symbol.html

I agree, that it may be difficult to establish a Sat-symbol, but on the other hand, I'm impressed about the process.

(Btw, and I hope mods are okay with this: On her page, you also find some T-shirts with Bitcoin-designs...)

It was created by bitboy back in 2010:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1631.msg19455#msg19455

I guess adaption was easy back then - only few people were really active in the Bitcoin world, and most just liked bitboy's proposals.

Well.. the first one is the Bitcoin sign, the second one the one she made for Sats.

Hi all,

there are several proposals for Sat/Satoshi-symbols.

My girlfriend - she's a graphic designer - just sent me this one:



Let me know your thoughts.

Bei dem Land handelt es sich um Frankreich, welches den digitalen Euro forcieren will.


Das mit den Alternativen ist immer so eine Sache. Man muss vieles Glauben. Es gibt natürlich zahlreiche Möglichkeiten, die Datenherkunft beim Mining zu verschleiern, Proxy, VPN - you name it. Dann muss man aber auch dem Pool glauben. Und den Exchanges. Und, und, und. Von daher macht es Sinn, auch als kleiner Miner, auf maximale Paranoia zu setzen. Denn es wird hier nicht anders laufen als im nicht-digitalen Leben: Auf die Kleinen wird zuerst losgegangen.



Es gab schon Studien, bei welchen eine Deep Packet Inspection vorgenommen wurde. Dabei wurde grundsätzlich nichts Auffälliges gefunden, das Stratum-Protokoll ist hier auch klar strukturiert. Aber meiner Meinung nach ist zusätzliche Software, die im Hintergrund arbeitet, gar nicht nötig. Antpool, zum Beispiel, hat Tausende User. Sie geben unglaublich viele Informationen preis, die von Bitmain via Sophon problemlos Menschen zugeordnet werden können.

Danke Und ja: Ich hab gleich mal im deutschen Mining-Forum losgelegt

Mal versuchen. Denke, der wurde von dem Nutzer meines Accounts irgendwie mal übers Ohr gehauen.

Es war ein heisser Tag, als ich frühmorgens in den Büros von Bitmain in Bejing wartete. Die Angestellten waren müde von einer langen, durchgearbeiteten Nacht, und so schlenderte ich durch die Büros. In einem waren die Reste einer Präsentation vom Vortag zu sehen. Auf dem Tisch standen dazu verschiedene Tafeln mit Chip-Bezeichnungen. Solche, welche fürs Mining verwendet werden. Sie alle waren mir geläufig. Und einer, den ich nicht verorten konnte: AI-SE3.

Als meine Gesprächspartner eintrafen, fragte ich sie. Stille. Dann emsiges Treiben, und alle Spuren, welche auf diesen Chip hinwiesen, wurden weggeräumt. Sie wussten nicht, dass ich zuvor ein Photo gemacht hatte.

Das ist jetzt schon einige Jahre her, und es ist klar, welchen Chip sie damals präsentierten: Das Herzstück ihres "AI Micro Server SE3", angeblich designt für "deep learning". Was er genau lernen sollte, liess sich in weiteren Gesprächen anlässlich einiger Abendessen erfahren: Gesichter.

Der Chip gehört der "Sophon Technology", einer Unterabteilung von Bitmain.  "Artificial Intelligence", "Self-Learning" - das sind die Buzz-Words, mit denen Sophon die Technologie anpreist. Ein aktuelles Gerät, der AI微服务器SE8-416-Server, erreicht heute 208 TFLOPs (der SE3: 3 TFLOPs) und kann praktisch in Echtzeit von 416 Video-Feeds Gesichter erkennen.

Das tönt nun zuerst nach einer harmlosen Spielerein. In Tat und Wahrheit bedeutet dies: Totale Überwachung. Wie die aussehen kann, zeigt die Ausschreibung der Provinz Henan: 3000 Kameras werden mit nationalen und regionalen Datenbanken verbunden. Ob sich eine Person im Hotel registriert, ein Flugticket kauft, die Provinz verlässt oder bei Rot über die Strassen geht: 2000 Polizisten, welche die analysierten Daten in Echtzeit begutachten, wissen über jeden Schritt aller Personen bescheid.

Bitmains Tochtergesellschaft Sophon lässt auch keinen Zweifel daran, wer denn die Kundschaft sei: "Intelligent Public Security" mit Fahrzeug- und Gesichts-Erkennung, Verhaltens-Analyse, Polizei-Aufgaben - Regierungen auf der ganzen Welt sind gute Kunden.

"Decrypt" vermutete schon 2018 in einem Artikel, dass China trotz damaligem Bitcoin-Bann Bitmain deswegen gewähren lasse, weil man gleichzeitig die Blockchain-Überwachung massiv ausbaue. Ich persönlich vermute, dass Bitmain mit seinen Pools eine hervorragende Nutzer-Analyse vornehmen kann, welche der Chinesischen Regierung und allen anderen Regierungen, welche gerne mal ihren Bürgern auf die - finanziellen - Finger schauen möchten, alle notwendigen Daten liefert.

Mein persönliches Fazit daraus: Nein. Ich nutze keine Bitmain-Produkte mehr. Nein. Ich weigere mich, irgend einen meiner Miner auf einen Bitmain-Pool zu leiten.

Bin ich einfach ein wenig paranoid?

Fast forward: Eine Firma, welche ich mitbegründet hatte, erhielt von der Zentralbank eines europäischen Landes den Auftrag, eine digitale Währung zu entwickeln. Die Firma ging - entgegen meiner Empfehlung - eine Kooperation mit Tencent ein. Ich musste mich deshalb durch deren Dokumente für ihren bereits bestehenden Coin wuseln, und je tiefer ich in die technischen Daten eintauchte, desto mehr sträubten sich mir die Haare: Es war einerseits eine Konzeption dahinter, die mit einem zentralisierten und einfachsten Mechanismus arbeitete, gleichzeitg aber eine vollständige Überwachung jeglichen Finanzverkehrs nicht nur erlaubte, sondern geradezu forcierte.

Fun Fact: Die besagte Zentralbank entschied sich für dieses Projekt. China wird in Zukunft in diesem Land an der finanziellen Überwachung europäischer Firmen und Bürger partizipieren können.

Not fun Fact: Ich verliess die Firma, die ich einst mitbegründet hatte.

"Privatsphäre ist notwendig für eine offene Gesellschaft im elektronischen Zeitalter", heisst es im Cypherpunk-Manifest. Ohne dieses gäbe es Bitcoin wahrscheinlich nicht.

Weiter heisst es dort: "Ein anonymes Überweisungssystem ist kein geheimes Überweisungssystem. Ein anonymes System gibt Personen die Macht ihre Identität preiszugeben, wenn dies gewünscht ist und nur wenn dies gewünscht ist; das ist die Kernaussage der Privatsphäre."

Vielleicht bin ich altmodisch. Aber meine Erkenntnisse aus meinen Jahren in der Bitcoin-Industrie sagen mir, dass Bitcoin, welche über Bitmain gemined werden, sei es mit deren Maschinen, sei es über deren Pools, allem widersprechen, was Bitcoin überhaupt erst ausmacht.

Proof me wrong.