Why did satoshi develop bitcoin in windows?

[cellard]

You are trying to create a decentralized, censorship resistant, open source form of money, and you build it on top of a closed source operating system which is known for it's ties with three letter agency, hidden exploits, and all sorts of these bad things.

I find it weird that he would develop on windows. As far as I know, his first release was for windows only, and from what I've read, some code analysts claimed that he was a windows guy.

What is your take on this?

[1715561920]

1715561920

[achow101]

He probably only had experience programming in windows and with GUIs. Bitcoin 0.1.0 was a Windows only, GUI only application.

[bitperson]

He probably only had experience programming in windows and with GUIs. Bitcoin 0.1.0 was a Windows only, GUI only application.

This sounds plausible to me. Back in the Flintstones age, I used Windows servers for years because Windows was used in the medialab where I trained as well as by my first ICT employer. Sometimes it’s more practical to use a crappy platform you know than a better one which you’re previously unfamiliar with

[khufuking]

To be honest it is not relevant ! . I am not a tech guy but if you build something like blockchain , Does it really matter on what platform you built it ! . You build something that can not be manipulated nor can it be  erased(without been exposed to the whole world ) . Maybe he meant  to build it on windows just to give them the finger !  .

[ruletheworld]

You are trying to create a decentralized, censorship resistant, open source form of money, and you build it on top of a closed source operating system which is known for it's ties with three letter agency, hidden exploits, and all sorts of these bad things.

I find it weird that he would develop on windows. As far as I know, his first release was for windows only, and from what I've read, some code analysts claimed that he was a windows guy.

What is your take on this?

Cypherpunks code. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to work right. If Satoshi had experience with programming on Windows, it seems like the best way forward for the project. Don't sit here and judge his decisions a decade from when they were made.

No one knew what Bitcoin might even become back then, and there was every chance it would just fade away or disappear. It's a project Satoshi worked on without knowing the outcome. The best way forward was to get a working client out there, which he did.

You can sit and analyze every small decision but it's of no use. Sometimes you just got to make a decision. People forget Satoshi was still only human.

[btcgreen63]

If the program code is open source, it can be reviewed for security and ported to other systems, regardless of the original operating system.

[ModGrip]

Windows used to be the macdaddy.

[nicosey]

Good question.
Bitcoin is a distributed system.  Back then no one would build a distributed system not on UNIX.

[DooMAD]

Bit of a far-flung theory, but I think it might have been a deliberate ploy to cover their tracks and keep their identity a mystery.  If it was someone closely connected to Unix development, but they didn't want people to connect the dots and discover they started Bitcoin, what better way to do it than to make the first version Windows-only?  Secure in the knowledge that if it was successful, it wouldn't take long for Bitcoin to migrate back to Unix, the spiritual home of open source.  Never underestimate Satoshi's brilliance and forward-thinking.

[vit05]

Maybe he wanted to create Bitcoin in a way that soon after its creation people could use it. Rather than being somewhat restricted those niches that only use Linux. His goal has always been to take his product to the common people and ordinary people like GUI interface.

[MkGregor]

Well, back than windows was at it's best - that's a very simple answer. If windows would not become that bad, I would not switch to Linux.
Now I'm on Linux for over two years and not even once looked back. But Back than - yea, Windows was the key.

[shield132]

Well, back than windows was at it's best - that's a very simple answer. If windows would not become that bad, I would not switch to Linux.
Now I'm on Linux for over two years and not even once looked back. But Back than - yea, Windows was the key.

Can you tell me what do you mean when saying windows was at it's best? Depends on what are you looking for. For games, graphics and for almost everything, windows was and is still the best. But here we talk about bitcoin which is known for it's decentralization (currently not decentralized for me as it has to be) and privacy. Windows isn't for privacy, only winner here is Linux.
Seems answer is his lack in knowledge of linux platform.

[cellard]

You are trying to create a decentralized, censorship resistant, open source form of money, and you build it on top of a closed source operating system which is known for it's ties with three letter agency, hidden exploits, and all sorts of these bad things.

I find it weird that he would develop on windows. As far as I know, his first release was for windows only, and from what I've read, some code analysts claimed that he was a windows guy.

What is your take on this?

Cypherpunks code. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to work right. If Satoshi had experience with programming on Windows, it seems like the best way forward for the project. Don't sit here and judge his decisions a decade from when they were made.

No one knew what Bitcoin might even become back then, and there was every chance it would just fade away or disappear. It's a project Satoshi worked on without knowing the outcome. The best way forward was to get a working client out there, which he did.

You can sit and analyze every small decision but it's of no use. Sometimes you just got to make a decision. People forget Satoshi was still only human.

Im not judging satoshi for using windows, im just curious about why. If you are developing something which is basically holding your own money, seems most convenient to do so under an OS that may not be filled with spyware (and today we know for a fact that windows has deep ties within NSA and co) so I would have started on linux since day 1, specially if you wanted to remain anonymous, since it would be easier for your computer to get infected with stuff on windows.

[ChefBoyardeez]

Bit of a far-flung theory, but I think it might have been a deliberate ploy to cover their tracks and keep their identity a mystery.  If it was someone closely connected to Unix development, but they didn't want people to connect the dots and discover they started Bitcoin, what better way to do it than to make the first version Windows-only?  Secure in the knowledge that if it was successful, it wouldn't take long for Bitcoin to migrate back to Unix, the spiritual home of open source.  Never underestimate Satoshi's brilliance and forward-thinking.

This seems to make sense.  If the person or persons responsible for BTC wanted to remain anonymous, or if they were part of an organization which was virtually all windows based this would be a great reason to use windows.   What groups use predominately windows, and if they did not use windows, would be easy to spot? 

The power of anonymity is being in the herd.  The windows herd is VERY large and easier to disappear into. 

[MkGregor]

Well, back than windows was at it's best - that's a very simple answer. If windows would not become that bad, I would not switch to Linux.
Now I'm on Linux for over two years and not even once looked back. But Back than - yea, Windows was the key.

Can you tell me what do you mean when saying windows was at it's best? Depends on what are you looking for. For games, graphics and for almost everything, windows was and is still the best. But here we talk about bitcoin which is known for it's decentralization (currently not decentralized for me as it has to be) and privacy. Windows isn't for privacy, only winner here is Linux.
Seems answer is his lack in knowledge of linux platform.

Windows had no real privacy issues until Vista upgrade, really. But you could be right, may be he did not know any better.

[AGD]

Well, back than windows was at it's best - that's a very simple answer. If windows would not become that bad, I would not switch to Linux.
Now I'm on Linux for over two years and not even once looked back. But Back than - yea, Windows was the key.

Can you tell me what do you mean when saying windows was at it's best? Depends on what are you looking for. For games, graphics and for almost everything, windows was and is still the best. But here we talk about bitcoin which is known for it's decentralization (currently not decentralized for me as it has to be) and privacy. Windows isn't for privacy, only winner here is Linux.
Seems answer is his lack in knowledge of linux platform.

Windows had no real privacy issues until Vista upgrade, really. But you could be right, may be he did not know any better.

LOL. Windows was an open hole ever and always and anyone with just little computer knowledge knew that.

[bitperson]

Well, back than windows was at it's best - that's a very simple answer. If windows would not become that bad, I would not switch to Linux.
Now I'm on Linux for over two years and not even once looked back. But Back than - yea, Windows was the key.

Can you tell me what do you mean when saying windows was at it's best? Depends on what are you looking for. For games, graphics and for almost everything, windows was and is still the best. But here we talk about bitcoin which is known for it's decentralization (currently not decentralized for me as it has to be) and privacy. Windows isn't for privacy, only winner here is Linux.
Seems answer is his lack in knowledge of linux platform.

Windows had no real privacy issues until Vista upgrade, really. But you could be right, may be he did not know any better.

Windows has an abysmal security record. There were versions that you couldn’t install on a network-connected box without being compromised before the installer had even finished. See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(computer_worm). Then at some point (I think it was XP SP2), Microsoft configured its installer to actually turn on the software firewall, which helped somewhat

[lingdusea]

just most people use windows

[Wind_FURY]

OP, hahahaha.

He probably only had experience programming in windows and with GUIs. Bitcoin 0.1.0 was a Windows only, GUI only application.

Or maybe Satoshi was smart enough to pretend to have programming experience only in Windows. I believe he was trying hard to hide the truth that he might be one of the original cypherpunks.

Good job, Nick, good job.

[buwaytress]

Bit of a far-flung theory, but I think it might have been a deliberate ploy to cover their tracks and keep their identity a mystery.  If it was someone closely connected to Unix development, but they didn't want people to connect the dots and discover they started Bitcoin, what better way to do it than to make the first version Windows-only?  Secure in the knowledge that if it was successful, it wouldn't take long for Bitcoin to migrate back to Unix, the spiritual home of open source.  Never underestimate Satoshi's brilliance and forward-thinking.

I don't think it's far flung at all and you're right, this to me is a perfect example of forward-thinking... that actually you might realise seems to remain with the bulk of Bitcoin core developers.

Satoshi were a group of highly intelligent people - near flawless communicational language, extremely sound coding. From the beginning, they were already keen to safeguard their identities and part of the strategy would have to include deliberate inconsistencies in character, to complicate any potential profiling they were sure to attract. I think using an OS more common for programmers is part of that obfuscation, and would have helped narrow down any such attempt.

It could also be practicality. If you wanted adoption beyond the confines of cypherpunkery you want Bob and Alice's PCs to be able to run the early clients.