← Back to context

Comment by refulgentis

8 days ago

[flagged]

I remember having conversations with my brother about Hashcash at the time. There were plenty of nerds that followed that mailing list that had similar technical and political ideas, so I think you'd find a high number of coincidences within an audience that I'd guess was a small multiple of the number of people active on the cypherpunks list. There definitely were a lot of people at my brother's college discussing the same ideas.

FWIW my brother did his own bit of Satoshi hunting with coworkers at his hedge fund. They didn't come to a strong answer but my brother believed Nick Szabo was probably part of a group that helped edit the paper. He suspected Hal Finney was involved similarly at a minimum.

It's been extremely widely known that whoever created Bitcoin had a strong interest in Hashcash, and perhaps created that or worked on it, for years and years. If that's the only smoking gun, why didn't we identify Satoshi long ago?

  • You're right, "interested in Hashcash" describes dozens of people, and has been a known Satoshi filter for years.

    The new claim is more specific: between 1997-1999, Back proposed combining Hashcash with b-money, adding inflation adjustment via increasing computational difficulty, and using hash trees for public timestamping.

    That's most of Bitcoin's architecture in one package, a decade early.

    The number of people who proposed that particular combination of ideas is much smaller than the number who were merely interested in Hashcash.

    • In every parallel universe where a different person invents bitcoin, every single one is familiar with becks ideas from a decade earlier.

I agree with the parts worth engaging with. I hate when people weak-man arguments.

But interesting as this is, there are others who fit at least as well. That bit gold was the closest proposed scheme to Bitcoin is well known, and we know the proposer of bit gold (Szabo) was actively soliciting partners to help implement it as a real system right before Bitcoin appeared.

Also, people leave mailing lists and come back randomly months later all the time. Adam could have simply been unlucky, and busy with other projects at the time of the launch. Lots of people were, and kicked themselves for it (which honestly, it seems Adam did too!).

Adam Back is credited in the Bitcoin whitepaper as the inventor of Hashcash. W. Dai is credited as the inventor of b-money. But Nick Szabo is not credited as the inventor of bit gold, by far the most mature of these ideas floating around at the cipherpunks mailing list at the time. That's a conspicuous absence.

All of those similarities can be explained by Satoshi having read what Back wrote.

  • You need someone who read Back's obscure 1997-1999 cypherpunks posts about combining Hashcash and b-money, implemented exactly that system a decade later, independently came up with the same non-technical analogies and trivia, wrote with the same hyphenation errors, and then happened to be active during the exact window Back went silent. The more you flesh out the "someone who read Back" profile, the more it just sounds like Back.

    • Someone who has read his material would be likely to repeat the same analogies and trivia.

      As for the hyphen errors, they are common for people for whom English is their second language. I commit hyphen errors similar to what is described all the time because English hyphenation makes absolutely no sense. In fact, reading the list of examples, the mistakes listed makes more sense to me than the correct way of writing those.

      I also switch back and forth on a lot of the phrases the article mentions.

      I also switch back and forth between US and UK spelling, because I learned UK spelling at school, but was far more exposed to US spelling in practice.

      This seems to me to be exceedingly weak.

      5 replies →

This article is a great example of "strong + weak = weak".

I only made it to the interesting stuff because of Carreyou's name, otherwise I would have stopped.

The email timing and lack of email metadata were also strong, in my opinion. But all of this nonsense like "Wow, these guys both talk about PGP??" distracts from it.