Original November 2008 version of the Bitcoin paper

[Cryddit]

I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper.  A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not.  The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version.  It appeared a few months later. 

I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it. 

However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.

The magic string is: 

427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faa

I mention this because, right now, there is a version of the paper at https://www.blacksheepatorenco.com/bitcoin.html  which matches.

Cryddit

[RocketSingh]

Is not it the same as of the following 2...

1. www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

2. www.coinlearn.org/whitepaper.php

[Throwaway_Acc]

I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper.  A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not.  The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version.  It appeared a few months later. 

I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it. 

However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.

The magic string is: 

427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faa

I mention this because, right now, there is a version of the paper at https://www.blacksheepatorenco.com/bitcoin.html  which matches.

Cryddit

Has Satoshi retired and joined a knitting community?

[unamis76]

Thanks for the share. Didn't know the version hosted on the Bitcoin website wasn't the original one...

And such an odd website for the original paper to be hosted, lol

[OnkelPaul]

Yup, this looks pretty genuine, even though I wonder why the sha256 hash of the document is mentioned on the web only recently (there's a discussion in the cryptography mailing list http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.general/22386).

The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.

Onkel Paul

By the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one.

[OnkelPaul]

If someone is into sleuthing, he might try his skills on this approach at discovering some info not present in the PDF files:
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/how-you-will-not-uncover-satoshi/
Apparently, the document ID is a hash of some fields of the document. Only some of these fields are retained in the PDF file, and the article above indicates that you might be able to recover other field values by bruteforcing them.

Onkel Paul

[kdp747]

@OnkelPaul

I read the document. It was pretty good. Thanks for sharing.

[Throwaway_Acc]

What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english.

Grammar rules on strong verbs aren't as strict as they once were. Even native speakers today used "broadcasted".

[Cryddit]

Thanks for the share. Didn't know the version hosted on the Bitcoin website wasn't the original one...

And such an odd website for the original paper to be hosted, lol

Remember that one of the first merchants to accept Bitcoin for purchases was a spinner of yarn and maker of Alpaca socks....

Cryddit.

[Cryddit]

Is not it the same as of the following 2...

1. www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

2. www.coinlearn.org/whitepaper.php

It appears that the paper on bitcoin.org is a lightly polished revision of the original. There are no changes in basic information, but a few sentences are rephrased for clarity.

[hack_]

has anyone managed to find the unvarnished paper? there are rumors that a work-up paper exists as well.

[Minecache]

There must be a clue here in the choice of website to host such a paper. Is the company even petite?

[Cryddit]

Grammar rules on strong verbs aren't as strict as they once were. Even native speakers today used "broadcasted".

Way back in the day, when people really cared about such things, misuse of strong verbs was a good way to get your ass kuck.

[Billbags]

Is not it the same as of the following 2...

1. www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

2. www.coinlearn.org/whitepaper.php

It appears that the paper on bitcoin.org is a lightly polished revision of the original. There are no changes in basic information, but a few sentences are rephrased for clarity.

Thanks for the pdf.....here is a couple of Satoshi posts that used to link to the original. They link to new version now.


https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09959.html

https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

[Throwaway_Acc]

Grammar rules on strong verbs aren't as strict as they once were. Even native speakers today used "broadcasted".

Way back in the day, when people really cared about such things, misuse of strong verbs was a good way to get your ass kuck.

Ya. My teacher used to beat the shit out of me for the smallest reasons.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/36/e3/7e/36e37e799184d4df32c5f22e27d14c08.jpg

But then we became friends. But my teacher blinded my friend's right eye after she thrashed talk him.

https://i.imgur.com/6LmNHYF.jpg?1

So then my friend put poison in our teacher's favorite dish, fish head soup. He ded now.

[Gleb Gamow]

It's different, but the differences is only at email & total page number only.
It is really the original bitcoin paper ?

And what is the connection between bitcoin & knitting ?

I'm probably the only person in this thread that's well-versed in knitting and crocheting. I could easily crochet the granny square blanket on Amy's sofa or knit a dickey for Howard.

BTW, I'm the one who did this: https://twitter.com/FirstWhitePaper

[Gleb Gamow]

Yup, this looks pretty genuine, even though I wonder why the sha256 hash of the document is mentioned on the web only recently (there's a discussion in the cryptography mailing list http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.general/22386).

The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.

Onkel Paul

By the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one.

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/

Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-01 19:16:33 UTC


I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully
peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.

The paper is available at:
http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The main properties:
Double-spending is prevented with a peer-to-peer network.
No mint or other trusted parties.
Participants can be anonymous.
New coins are made from Hashcash style proof-of-work.
The proof-of-work for new coin generation also powers the
network to prevent double-spending.

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would
allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
without the burdens of going through a financial institution.
Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent
double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending
problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps
transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based
proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without
redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as
proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came
from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as honest nodes control
the most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longest
chain and outpace any attackers. The network itself requires
minimal structure. Messages are broadcasted on a best effort basis,
and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the
longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they
were gone.

Full paper at:
http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Satoshi Nakamoto

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[xDan]

wtf crazy things are happening in this thread

WHO IS THE BLACK SHEEP?

[gargantuar]

What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english.

Grammar rules on strong verbs aren't as strict as they once were. Even native speakers today used "broadcasted".

"Broadcasted" is correct if past tense.  We have become lazy (or fooled by the idiots on TV) to believe the following:

If it ends in "st" it sounds enough like it ends in "ed" so it is past tense without the extra syllable.  Try it on a few words in your head.

Data are plural.  Good luck hearing that correctly ever again.

Media are also plural.

Punctuation marks always go inside the quotation marks.

Troop is a unit of soldiers not a single soldier. We already had a word for that -- soldier.  Notice the plurality.  Dan Rather may have helped to start this degeneracy into pidginish.  Retard.

AND THE LIST GOES ON!

Lazy, sad, moronic schmucks. Is that what we are becoming?  What can we blame?  Electronics, crap media, wifi, GMOs?

[OnkelPaul]

"Broadcasted" is correct if past tense.  We have become lazy (or fooled by the idiots on TV) to believe the following:

Weird...
As I said, english is not my native language.
This page http://www.englishpage.com/irregularverbs/irregularverbs.html states both forms (broadcast and broadcasted) as possible for the past tense. In contrast, the past tense of "cast" is clearly "cast" and not "casted". This seems pretty illogical considering that the word "broadcast" is based on "cast". Irregularities within the irregular verbs - english is a crazy language

Onkel Paul