Jeff Garzik = founder and creator of Bitcoin

[uchegod-21]

Joined Twitter in 2009 (date when BTC was created)
https://x.com/jgarzik

Purchased the bitcointalk domain name in 2011.

One of the central developers of LINUX and Bitcoin CORE.

Who better than him to seriously create bitcoin?

Wow!
This is a very nice discovery after so many years of being anonymous, finally Satoshi is uncovered. Even when many people made some efforts to discover him and all were futile. Recently HBO failed in this same mission. Little did we know that Satoshi can easily be uncovered on twitter.
Congratulations!
Op, what's next... What impact has this great discovery in bitcoin development?

[Abiky]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, let's say that Jeff Garzik is Satoshi. Now what?

Does it solve the scalability issues of Bitcoin? Does it solve the current problems of Bitcoin? Does it change the fact that many people see Bitcoin more of an asset rather than a currency? Does it solve the problem of high transaction fees? Answer me OP please.

I don't know if somebody here still care about who Satoshi is, but for me, I don't care anymore. I mean knowing who the real Satoshi is doesn't bother me at all. I might be excited FOR ABOUT 15 SECONDS and then I will be back to the reality. Many people claimed that they're Satoshi and that further makes the searching way difficult. Let's just not waste time finding who Satoshi is because knowing him/her/they will not change the current problems of Bitcoin. PLEASE!!!

It won't solve anything. In fact, it will make matters worse. The government will pursue Satoshi until he's forced to give up his private keys, or even shut down Bitcoin itself (although we know this is impossible). Then, they will either kill him or imprison him. It's best for things to remain as is. The less we know about who Satoshi is or ever was, the better. Otherwise, Bitcoin's image will be damaged far beyond repair.

Why not focus on what matters most? We should focus on scaling Bitcoin and making it an acceptable means of payment worldwide. Just because everyone knows who created ETH, doesn't mean Satoshi should give up his identity. He/she/they did it for the good of the project itself. All in the best interests to help protect decentralization. I'm glad Bitcoin is in the hands of the community. It will outlive other cryptocurrencies in the long run. Just you wait and see. At this point, it's safe to assume we're all Satoshi. Right?

[SamReomo]

Another topic that brings with it another conspiracy theory and nothing else. OP do you know who's Satoshi Nakamoto? If you really want to know that then you should learn in depth about Bitcoin first, and also if you have time then you may learn about cypherpunks. I

n the end you might learn something good rather then creating posts like this. Everyone who uses Bitcoin is Satoshi Nakamoto, as they're the ones keeping Satoshi's vision alive.

Satoshi Nakamoto is still alive in words of everyone who use Bitcoin, he's not a person now but someone who gave power to those who believe in decentralization, and that's more important then knowing who he/she was.

[Wind_FURY]

Because he didn't mention/cite Nick Szabo and BitGold in the white paper, many people started to put Szabo first in the list of people that might be Satoshi.

Nick Szabo had a completely different model in mind. If he would create Bitcoin, then you wouldn't have Script. You would have "DLL-like files", loaded by nodes, and executed directly.

There are similarities with Bitcoin and Bitgold though, like the utilization of Proof Of Work, which I believe Bitgold also references? Although, Satoshi implemented Proof Of Work in practice through a method that "solved" the invention of Decentralized Money. - To utilize Proof Of Work as a means to make it very difficult to make changes to the ledger.

But the context was about Satoshi and how he was taking extra measures to hide his identity. He probably changed his coding style, he's probably a Linux/UNIX user but he used Windows to build the first implementation, and he didn't mention/cite the most obvious person that should be mentioned/cited in the Bitcoin white paper.

[FortuneFollower]

Another topic that brings with it another conspiracy theory and nothing else. OP do you know who's Satoshi Nakamoto? If you really want to know that then you should learn in depth about Bitcoin first, and also if you have time then you may learn about cypherpunks. I

n the end you might learn something good rather then creating posts like this. Everyone who uses Bitcoin is Satoshi Nakamoto, as they're the ones keeping Satoshi's vision alive.

Satoshi Nakamoto is still alive in words of everyone who use Bitcoin, he's not a person now but someone who gave power to those who believe in decentralization, and that's more important then knowing who he/she was.

Yep, I do agree with you, it's better to invest the time and effort into something different than to unveil who Satoshi is, as a person or a group of people, it doesn't matter, because, in the end, it won't solve anything and just creates some buzz around this whole question.

[fikrett]

Joined Twitter in 2009 (date when BTC was created)
https://x.com/jgarzik

Purchased the bitcointalk domain name in 2011.

One of the central developers of LINUX and Bitcoin CORE.

Who better than him to seriously create bitcoin?

Wow!
This is a very nice discovery after so many years of being anonymous, finally Satoshi is uncovered. Even when many people made some efforts to discover him and all were futile. Recently HBO failed in this same mission. Little did we know that Satoshi can easily be uncovered on twitter.
Congratulations!
Op, what's next... What impact has this great discovery in bitcoin development?

Satoshi revealed => a bit of buzz coming right up => some years pass => repeat until getting rich (HBO in full swing)

[vjudeu]

There are similarities with Bitcoin and Bitgold though, like the utilization of Proof Of Work, which I believe Bitgold also references?

Yes, but it is completely different kind of Proof of Work. For example:

Code:

f: {0,1}* --> {0,1}* is called a strong k-benchmark function 
for machine model M and k>=1 if the following hold:

1. f is computable in O(p(n)) time on M, where p is a polynomial.
2. f does not shrink the input more than q(n,k), where q(n,k)
is a polynomial of degree k.
3. For every randomized algorithm A running on M in time
less than q(n,k)p(n), there exists an N such that for n > N
	Pr[A(f(x)) = f^-1(f(x))] < 1/q(n,k)p(n)

Code:

(a) a list of machine models which is comprehensive
of all physically realizable machines, in the sense
that any such machine can be simulated with a very small 
overhead, such as constant or O(log(n)), by some model on 
the list, and
(b) to prove lower bounds on a benchmark function for all 
models on the list

See? In case of SHA-256, or even SHA-1, those functions simply don't meet those requirements, for example "f does not shrink the input more than q(n,k)". In practice, SHA-1 and SHA-256 have constant output sizes, 160-bit and 256-bit respectively. Which means, that it doesn't meet the model, proposed by Nick Szabo.

he's probably a Linux/UNIX user

I don't think so. There are enough traces to conclude, that he was running Windows XP on a physical machine, without any kind of virtualization. Also note, that at this point in time, you had mainly software-based virtualization, so if he would use Linux on a daily basis, and run some node inside any virtual machine, then mining would be terribly slow. And if you compare it with the fact, that Satoshi considered 20-bit difficulty for prenet, and initially picked 40-bit difficulty for mainnet (and was able to easily produce a Genesis Block, meeting this difficulty), then it makes sense, that he used only one operating system at a time, to not slow down mining.

he didn't mention/cite the most obvious person that should be mentioned/cited in the Bitcoin white paper.

It is less obvious, that you may expect. If you read exactly, how Nick Szabo wanted to implement "bit gold", and if you compare it with "BitCoin", then you will see, that those models are completely different, if you dig in the details. In "bit gold", you wouldn't have SHA-256. You would have polynomial-based cryptography, with completely different assumptions, and with compression functions, which requires, that the input cannot be shrunk by more than X.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Nick Szabo had a completely different model in mind. If he would create Bitcoin, then you wouldn't have Script. You would have "DLL-like files", loaded by nodes, and executed directly.

I can't see where you get that conclusion. Nick talks about computer architecture when it comes to Proof-of-Work, not the scripting language. In fact, it perfectly describes Satoshi's Bitcoin in that quote from the unenumerated blog.

You can use some ARM or AVR. It doesn't matter. But in Nick Szabo's model, it would actually matter, because he was so focused, to create an architecture-specific design, because he thought, that Proof of Work can be measured only in a specific environment.

Nick was, indeed, obsessed with computer architecture when it came to bit gold. I believe the fact that Satoshi never mentioned "architecture" (IIRC) strengthens the argument that Nick isn't Satoshi. However, I still don't understand how Nick's model accounted for Proof-of-Work within an architecture-specific design.

I believe you're onto something, but haven't convinced me entirely.

[vjudeu]

Nick talks about computer architecture when it comes to Proof-of-Work, not the scripting language.

You can have Proof of Work inside the scripting language. By the way, if you want to run "bit gold" on top of Bitcoin, then you actually can, see address: https://mempool.space/testnet4/address/tb1qzsjnew5qcn75e4cqdsc6r9v8fjy5ensancqmv2l2n82p0q5f5tls758l9d

Here are the main steps of the bit gold system that I envision:

(1) A public string of bits, the "challenge string," is created (see step 5).

(2) Alice on her computer generates the proof of work string from the challenge bits using a benchmark function.

(3) The proof of work is securely timestamped. This should work in a distributed fashion, with several different timestamp services so that no particular timestamp service need be substantially relied on.

(4) Alice adds the challenge string and the timestamped proof of work string to a distributed property title registryfor bit gold. Here, too, no single server is substantially relied on to properly operate the registry.

(5) The last-created string of bit gold provides the challenge bits for the next-created string.

(6) To verify that Alice is the owner of a particular string of bit gold, Bob checks the unforgeable chain of title in the bit gold title registry.

(7) To assay the value of a string of bit gold, Bob checks and verifies the challenge bits, the proof of work string, and the timestamp.

See? If you want to deploy it on Bitcoin, then:

1) Example challenge is: "OP_SIZE 60 OP_LESSTHAN OP_VERIFY 0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798 OP_CHECKSIG"
2) You create a transaction, claiming your coins (similar to the coinbase transaction), where your input is not "out of thin air", but references this challenge from point one.
3) You can put a timestamp in the locktime field, so your transaction will be included at a given time/block, or later.
4) Then, a mined transaction is added to your registry. You don't have to rely on a single chain, because different miners can reference different inputs, with the same challenge, and they will have to create their Proof of Work separately, for each input individually, and it cannot be reused (assuming existing sighashes). No single server needed.
5) You can specify the next challenge, for example: "OP_SIZE 59 OP_LESSTHAN OP_VERIFY 0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798 OP_CHECKSIG". Here, you will get this address: https://mempool.space/testnet4/address/tb1qk3endeq6x0xj4pjt4zwag8wf3a629rzqr8jxd7jnmlac902wa5ysqxm9wt
6) You can fetch this chain of transactions from any node.
7) You can do this verification, when you just verify ECDSA signature. By checking the size, you can verify Proof of Work needed for grinding it. The timestamp can be placed in the locktime field, and the signature has to be valid, to pass OP_CHECKSIG.

All of this can be automated by software. The main limits to the security of the scheme are how well trust can be distributed in steps (3) and (4), and the problem of machine architecture which will be discussed below.

See? It is not even trustless. You can put any time in the locktime field, and different miners can report different times. Also, different nodes can provide you a different chain of coins. Because note one important thing: the system described by Nick Szabo does not assume a single, longest chain. You can put "the challenge string" anywhere you want, and Proof of Work is not counted globally, but locally, for a specific coin.

So, as you can see, you can even deploy Nick's model on top of Bitcoin. No soft-forks needed.

However, I still don't understand how Nick's model accounted for Proof-of-Work within an architecture-specific design.

If you have architecture-independent model, then you have Bitcoin. You can use any device to mine it, because it is not connected with a given architecture. Which means, that you can have CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, ASICs, just anything. And then, the work measured by the difficulty is different, for a different device. If you use ASICs, then for the same consumed energy, you can produce much more coins, than if you use CPUs.

However, if you create an algorithm, that is connected with a specific architecture, then there is much less room for any optimizations. If you pick for example x86, then all devices will be wired in a similar way. And if you design some minimal model, then you will have a lot of similar devices, used for mining.

Thus, bit gold will not be fungible based on a simple function of, for example, the length of the string. Instead, to create fungible units dealers will have to combine different-valued pieces of bit gold into larger units of approximately equal value. This is analogous to what many commodity dealers do today to make commodity markets possible. Trust is still distributed because the estimated values of such bundles can be independently verified by many other parties in a largely or entirely automated fashion.

If you read this particular paragraph, and you compare it with my model of "Proof of Work inside Script", then you can see, that it is compatible. You can have one coin with signature below 60 bytes, another coin with signature below 59 bytes, and so on. You can have many inputs, and a single transaction, combining all of them, will have a difficulty, which is a combination of each difficulty, inside each input. So, you can have "less than 60 bytes" as a difficulty "one", but "less than 59 bytes" as a difficulty "256". And if you want to set the difficulty into "257", then you combine those two inputs, in a single transaction (or, you can also require 2-of-2 multisig, where one signature will be below 60 bytes, and another below 59 bytes).

Thus, it might be possible to be a very low cost producer (by several orders of magnitude) and swamp the market with bit gold. However, since bit gold is timestamped, the time created as well as the mathematical difficulty of the work can be automatically proven. From this, it can usually be inferred what the cost of producing during that time period was.

Also, in general, if you read about "bit gold", then you note, that each coin is mined individually. Basically, you have a coin, where you have Alice's public key, and you simply say "to transfer it to Bob, you have to provide X amount of Proof of Work". And then, anyone can make initial coins in the first place, just by mining everything individually, even offline, and then sharing it with the nodes in the network (as long, as the locktime of the coin is in a given acceptable range).

Note the absence of a single chain, and the absence of a global difficulty. Here, in Nick's model, each coin simply has its own difficulty. And to transfer a coin to someone's else, you have to mine it individually, because it has to contain it (see: "The last-created string of bit gold provides the challenge bits for the next-created string", which means, that you cannot simply move a coin, without providing any kind of Proof of Work).

[Wind_FURY]

There are similarities with Bitcoin and Bitgold though, like the utilization of Proof Of Work, which I believe Bitgold also references?

Yes, but it is completely different kind of Proof of Work. For example:

Code:

f: {0,1}* --> {0,1}* is called a strong k-benchmark function 
for machine model M and k>=1 if the following hold:

1. f is computable in O(p(n)) time on M, where p is a polynomial.
2. f does not shrink the input more than q(n,k), where q(n,k)
is a polynomial of degree k.
3. For every randomized algorithm A running on M in time
less than q(n,k)p(n), there exists an N such that for n > N
	Pr[A(f(x)) = f^-1(f(x))] < 1/q(n,k)p(n)

Code:

(a) a list of machine models which is comprehensive
of all physically realizable machines, in the sense
that any such machine can be simulated with a very small 
overhead, such as constant or O(log(n)), by some model on 
the list, and
(b) to prove lower bounds on a benchmark function for all 
models on the list

See? In case of SHA-256, or even SHA-1, those functions simply don't meet those requirements, for example "f does not shrink the input more than q(n,k)". In practice, SHA-1 and SHA-256 have constant output sizes, 160-bit and 256-bit respectively. Which means, that it doesn't meet the model, proposed by Nick Szabo.

he's probably a Linux/UNIX user

I don't think so. There are enough traces to conclude, that he was running Windows XP on a physical machine, without any kind of virtualization. Also note, that at this point in time, you had mainly software-based virtualization, so if he would use Linux on a daily basis, and run some node inside any virtual machine, then mining would be terribly slow. And if you compare it with the fact, that Satoshi considered 20-bit difficulty for prenet, and initially picked 40-bit difficulty for mainnet (and was able to easily produce a Genesis Block, meeting this difficulty), then it makes sense, that he used only one operating system at a time, to not slow down mining.

he didn't mention/cite the most obvious person that should be mentioned/cited in the Bitcoin white paper.

It is less obvious, that you may expect. If you read exactly, how Nick Szabo wanted to implement "bit gold", and if you compare it with "BitCoin", then you will see, that those models are completely different, if you dig in the details. In "bit gold", you wouldn't have SHA-256. You would have polynomial-based cryptography, with completely different assumptions, and with compression functions, which requires, that the input cannot be shrunk by more than X.

I won't get into the entire technical details, because if you already noticed I'm merely a pleb and a non-technical person. Although I try to learn.

BUT if we look at it from a bird's eye-view/perspective, Nick Szabo did create a concept for a decentralized cryptocurrency too, no? Plus aren't there similarities between Bitcoin and the concept of Bitgold, like the concept of timestamped blocks and "mining"?

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

It is hard to imagine how Nick's bit gold would work without a chain. For example, how does the recipient of a coin verifies that it isn't already spent in the past? AFAIU, it's because bit gold is trust-requiring.

You seem to have done your research. Do you know if we have access to code written by Nick? I think this would serve as better proof that he is not Satoshi. Each person writes code in a pretty unique way; it is identifiable when it comes to large projects.

[ChiBitCTy]

[...]

It is hard to imagine how Nick's bit gold would work without a chain. For example, how does the recipient of a coin verifies that it isn't already spent in the past? AFAIU, it's because bit gold is trust-requiring.

You seem to have done your research. Do you know if we have access to code written by Nick? I think this would serve as better proof that he is not Satoshi. Each person writes code in a pretty unique way; it is identifiable when it comes to large projects.

That is definitely a very well thought out/presented bit of material on Nicks bitgold.  I have long thought that Nick is Satoshi, or part of.  He certainly fits the mold as well as anyone.  Satoshi was a bit brash, and though you can see it a bit here in his writings, I've been told internally he wasn't the nicest guy ever.  I know he never spoke about anything other than bitcoin stuff and would not talk about his personal life, but I've been told/read that just in general he wasn't the friendliest.  Nick, is an asshole.  Straight up.  He's "yelled" at me before.  I wrote back to him "Nick, we aren't all genius cypherpunks" something like that, he liked my comment and stopped "yelling" at me.  But overall he's very hateful and full of just negative energy.  (this is one reason I believe it's not Hal, or Satoshi was a group and Hal was involved..because Hal was a sweetheart of a man.  Much like Gavin I feel like.  I know Gavin gets lots of hate, but he really is a nice guy..I appreciate that about him).

[Nwada001]

Yep, I do agree with you, it's better to invest the time and effort into something different than to unveil who Satoshi is, as a person or a group of people, it doesn't matter, because, in the end, it won't solve anything and just creates some buzz around this whole question.

Those things they are doing, the time and resources they are investing to try to reveal who Satoshi is. If you check very well, it's either those resources are not fully from them; there could be someone who is paying for such research, or probably they could also be doing it themselves, but there is a possibility of high-underground sponsorship, and aside from that, this is already a career for them, so getting a convincing fact that will increase the traffic the news will carry is definitely going to help them earn something on the platform where it will be posted and the traffic it will generate.

[Cookdata]

Joined Twitter in 2009 (date when BTC was created)
https://x.com/jgarzik

Purchased the bitcointalk domain name in 2011.

One of the central developers of LINUX and Bitcoin CORE.

Who better than him to seriously create bitcoin?

Just because some developers decided to use some social platforms and micro blogging platforms shouldn't make you guys make unnecessary scenes and wrong assumptions. You can be sue for defaming a contributor but since this is a faceless forum, you guys just post nonsense like how HBO did. Had it been that guy sue the HBO company, I'm very sure others will learn from pointing fingers to who is Satoshi and who is not because I'm sick of this profiling.

Have yiu thought for a moment what it's going to look like if all the developers and Bitcoin contributors decide to put their profile and the things they have done for Bitcoin. Have you take a look at the Bitcoin proposal, don't you see the different people that are bringing different ideas to make Bitcoin better but because he created social accounts is enough proof for you guys. Get a life and don't feed news headlines who is Satoshi and faketoshi.

[vjudeu]

Nick Szabo did create a concept for a decentralized cryptocurrency too, no?

Kind of. If you consider a model, where every coin is handled separately, and covered by Proof of Work individually, and then you have a separate chain for each coin, then yes. But it is completely different model than Bitcoin. It can run on top of Bitcoin, yes. But it is different in so many aspects, that it is quite weird to draw conclusion, like "Nick=Satoshi", if you look at it from the technical side, and you try to actually implement it exactly as Nick described, without copy-pasting Bitcoin code, and starting from scratch, based on Nick's description.

Plus aren't there similarities between Bitcoin and the concept of Bitgold, like the concept of timestamped blocks and "mining"?

Sure, there are some similarities. But: people at that time, thought about digital cash in a way, as they think about physical cash. Which means, that if you can pass physical cash, without any central server, and completely offline, then note that people tried to replicate it, in a digital form. If you have a piece of data, you can mine it. Everything can be mined, that's how vanity addresses were invented in the first place: they are simply mined. And then, the whole concept of having a single, global chain, which is stored by all nodes, is so different, than anything, which was described before Bitcoin, that it is quite hard to conclude, that "hey, this person is Satoshi". You can find some matching things here and there, but the whole theory, that any candidate is Satoshi, is quickly falling apart, if you take ideas, presented by those candidates, and you try to implement them exactly, as they are described, assuming that you forget about Bitcoin's implementation for the time of this thought experiment.

It is hard to imagine how Nick's bit gold would work without a chain.

I guess it is very easy. If you are familiar with cash, based on fiat, then you can easily imagine a scenario, where Proof of Work is just applied on any data, and when you reach a given target, you have "a coin", which then can be sold at a current hashrate prices. It is not that difficult to imagine. On the other hand, requiring all nodes to store and process everything, is much harder to imagine in pre-Bitcoin times, because then, you lose some property of the cash, like offline transactions by design, offline mining by design, having easy analogies between minted coins, and hashed data, and so on.

For example, how does the recipient of a coin verifies that it isn't already spent in the past?

The coin is worth as much, as Proof of Work, which covers it. You have a free market of revealed coins, and you have some price per single hash. Then, you compute chainwork for your single coin, and then you know, how much it is worth. And if you transfer your coin anywhere, then someone has to mine it, to acknowledge the fact, that your coin is transferred properly.

Of course, you can potentially double-spend a coin by mining one coin, and giving from Alice to Bob, and mining another coin, and giving it from Alice to Charlie. But: mining is costly. And if enough coins are announced publicly, then you can properly estimate, how much coins are worth. It is similar to hashcash (which is also, why it is referenced by Nick), you can make some double-spends, but it requires a lot of hashing, and you don't want to reveal too many hashes publicly, because then, old coins will lose their value.

Do you know if we have access to code written by Nick?

I don't know. But: you can start from empty main(), try to implement it exactly as described, without looking at Bitcoin, and then compare it.

Each person writes code in a pretty unique way; it is identifiable when it comes to large projects.

Not that unique, as you may expect. For example, I think I know, why Satoshi put so many empty lines in source files, because I did the same thing in my own code, so I guess the reason is pretty much the same: to visually separate "work in progress" and "already stable code", when you don't use any version control system like GIT or SVN.

[Wind_FURY]

Nick Szabo did create a concept for a decentralized cryptocurrency too, no?

Kind of. If you consider a model, where every coin is handled separately, and covered by Proof of Work individually, and then you have a separate chain for each coin, then yes. But it is completely different model than Bitcoin. It can run on top of Bitcoin, yes. But it is different in so many aspects, that it is quite weird to draw conclusion, like "Nick=Satoshi", if you look at it from the technical side, and you try to actually implement it exactly as Nick described, without copy-pasting Bitcoin code, and starting from scratch, based on Nick's description.

Plus aren't there similarities between Bitcoin and the concept of Bitgold, like the concept of timestamped blocks and "mining"?

Sure, there are some similarities. But: people at that time, thought about digital cash in a way, as they think about physical cash. Which means, that if you can pass physical cash, without any central server, and completely offline, then note that people tried to replicate it, in a digital form. If you have a piece of data, you can mine it. Everything can be mined, that's how vanity addresses were invented in the first place: they are simply mined. And then, the whole concept of having a single, global chain, which is stored by all nodes, is so different, than anything, which was described before Bitcoin, that it is quite hard to conclude, that "hey, this person is Satoshi". You can find some matching things here and there, but the whole theory, that any candidate is Satoshi, is quickly falling apart, if you take ideas, presented by those candidates, and you try to implement them exactly, as they are described, assuming that you forget about Bitcoin's implementation for the time of this thought experiment.

I understand your viewpoint, but in the context of my posts, I was merely saying that Satoshi was very careful in hiding his own identity that he MIGHT have not cited or mentioned Nick Szabo's name on purpose to create a sort of "Red Herring" to make everyone go on a "Fool's Errand" on their search for the answer to the question, "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto"?

But OK, it's only a matter of personal opinion, and something amusing to discuss with my fellow plebs in the forum.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I guess it is very easy. If you are familiar with cash, based on fiat, then you can easily imagine a scenario, where Proof of Work is just applied on any data, and when you reach a given target, you have "a coin", which then can be sold at a current hashrate prices.

It is very hard to imagine it working in a decentralized fashion. In fiat, you trust the issuer. In bit gold, the same. It is also unclear to me why Proof-of-Work is needed if I still need to trust a mint.

The coin is worth as much, as Proof of Work, which covers it.

Then, it is safe to assume that the coin quickly diminishes in value, as hashrate increases. This makes the money really bad.

Of course, you can potentially double-spend a coin by mining one coin, and giving from Alice to Bob, and mining another coin, and giving it from Alice to Charlie. But: mining is costly.

No matter how costly it is, if you can double-spend a coin, you can do it enough times to cover the cost.

I don't know. But: you can start from empty main(), try to implement it exactly as described, without looking at Bitcoin, and then compare it.

I have thought of doing this. Sounds really fun, and maybe I set up some series of episodes, capturing myself writing it from scratch. Maybe people would like watching it. However, I was referring to this: https://x.com/Narodism/status/1844017533336142025.

[fikrett]

I have thought of doing this. Sounds really fun, and maybe I set up some series of episodes, capturing myself writing it from scratch. Maybe people would like watching it. However, I was referring to this: https://x.com/Narodism/status/1844017533336142025.

Never thought about this, now thank you very much for showing the post up, I do think it would be interesting to do a series like this for the community and as a whole. Keep it up!