nick szabo is not satoshi. it has been investigated and accused atleast a dozen times. the only evidence people find is that parts of bitcoin is made using nicks theoris. but if you actually look at conversation history you will see that satoshi mentions nicks theory aswell as hal finneys theory and a few other peoples theory.
Your statement is not necessarily correct, but you are correct about not enough proof to say it is 100% Szabo. A lot of history and education about Bitcoin can be learned by asking questions and researching where it came from. A person should be able to ask questions and research all things involving ones own life with being cencered. We should not discourage people from free thinking and using their minds to access history and make educated decisions for themselves.
2007 Szabo applies BitGold and his "Scarce Object" theory to Zookos p2p hard drive project.
"One possible answer to central mint vulnerability is bit gold -- a currency the value of which does not depend on any particular trusted third party. Another alternative is (an object barter economy"Scarce Objects")."
http://web.archive.org/web/20070625154046/http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070618142414/http://szabo.best.vwh.net/scarce.htmlScarce Objects = finite supply of coins(Like Bitcoin)
This is a lot more than 10%......
On the subject of conversations:
Hal had told Satoshi about Szabo and BitGold and even though Satoshi answered everything else in that email he ignored the Szabo/BitGold subject completely like Hal never stated it.
Hal:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09975.htmlSatoshi:
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09980.htmlIf Szabo=Satoshi, we have to be careful about taking anything in Satoshi sources at face value. However, I am still fairly
optimistic: Szabo's history indicates someone who practice information denial, but not disinformation. I haven't been able to find any instances where he actively lies or deceives on a major scale.
*Szabo’s post for assistance:
“Bitgold would greatly benefit from a demonstration, an experimental market (with e.g. a trusted third party substituted for the complex security that would be needed for a real system). Anybody want to help me code one up?”
https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09975.html*Ray Dillenger (Bear) quote: “Look, (Satoshi) was a construction made explicitly for the purpose of launching Bitcoin……That purpose is fulfilled. The person who created (Satoshi) has no further need for him. Thus ends the story”.
The reason Bitcoin had to be released anonymous:
Tim May: “Anyone contemplating building such a system, or entity, or cybercorporation, should think long and hard about the wisdom of ever having an identifiable nexus of attack. Money must be collected in untraceable ways. This is what I meant about it being time to rethink the theory of the corporation.”
"Where once a corporation existed to both protect the rights of shareholders (against lawsuits and partners having to pay for losses) and to enable the group participation of many workers, corporations for the things Cypherpunks think are interesting is just a bad idea. And given the growing trend toward trying to prosecute the V.P of Yahoo-Europe because some bit of Nazi history was sold to some German citizen, etc., corporations are becoming a liability in cyberspace”.
"The answer is to vanish into cyberspace. Not an easy task, maybe, given the state of today’s tools, but the long term trend".
The first credit to Bitcoin in the white paper was a citation for Wei Dai’s “bmoney”.
The first paragraph of “bmoney”: (read carefully)
“I am fascinated by Tim May’s crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word “anarchy”, in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It’s a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations”.
And yes he did use other people's ideas and theory:
Szabo, and apparently Satoshi, had figured out that Hal Finneys “RPOW” could be used to solve the Byzantine General’s Problem, a problem in ordinary computing that demonstrates through “game theory” how a group of potential co-operators can come to the best consensus even with the possibility of having malicious operators among them. This was the final piece to the BitGold/Bitcoin puzzle.
http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm * Ray Dillenger (Bear) quote: “Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be. Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply. Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world’s M1 money supply at that time was”.
"We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure".
Szabo “came up” with the technology that will become ethereum including smart contracts which was solely contingent on Satoshi’s work that Szabo never knew would be produced?
Smart contracts come about because Bitcoin is the beginning of the completion of a “Kula Ring”, a unifying solution that bridges among other things, game theory, encryption, economics, finance, programming, and law… there are not multiple random people capable of this…..
This still is not enough evidence. It never will be. It was designed that was a long time ago.
