Wisdom Engine

Bitcoin is an immutable evidence trail. It is not about taking down governments. It’s a peer-to-peer cash system with tracing built-in, so that criminals using Bitcoin should be afraid. We have just seen one of the largest child pornography rings in history being taken down because of Bitcoin. Such is the purpose of my invention — a system unlike e-gold, differing from DigiCash’s eCash, and unrelated to Liberty Reserve.

Bitcoin was first announced in 2008. After the software went live in early 2009 an announcement reinforcing the statements of the white paper was issued on the P2P forum. This announcement heralded the first true implementation of Peer to Peer currency.

It is a myth that all the posts on Bitcointalk (bitcointalk.org) from my account (Satoshi) are in fact mine and have not been edited or changed and that the login on the website belongs to me. Satoshi (I) never used Bitcointalk. My final post, in fact, links to a domain that does not exist.

As you encounter a link to one of my (supposed) final posts on Bitcointalk, what you see may seem innocuous. To the casual observer, it will look as if it’s a link to a post I made, yet, the supposed author never made it. I can say, in other words, the creator of Bitcoin didn’t make the post, because Satoshi didn’t. You see, the original forum was created as a subsite of the bitcoin.org website. It wasn’t a separate domain. It’s not too difficult to check what I’m saying. The Wayback Machine is not perfect, far from it, and it can be gamed, but the first time the Bitcointalk domain was checked happened to be in July 2011 (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://bitcointalk.org/). At the time, the website had not been created yet (https://bitcointalk.org/; https://bitcointalk.org). You will notice that the forum looks familiar very shortly afterwards.

Too many of us have been “Sheeple” too long. It is time that we started to take back what is ours. Today we are going to investigate some of the origins of bitcoin. Many of these have been subverted and even quotes by Satoshi himself are being deleted and censored from those who seek a different and more controlling path. In this, we will start at the beginning. This is not the first time that bitcoin was mentioned online, but it was when any of us took notice.

A merchant knows they will be paid, and the user can also ensure they are going to receive their goods. If a single 2-of-3 contract is used, a user can have a payment locked to a merchant that is released only when the goods are delivered. If the delivery is lost, the escrow comes into play based on what was negotiated in the contract.

One of the strangest things for me comes from the retrogression into things like proof of stake and the associated failed models of cryptocurrency. When I was working on Blacknet in 2005 and 2006, I stumbled upon what later became the solution to Bitcoin and the problems that I saw. DigiCash released eCash in the 1990s. It was a form of cryptocurrency that was more anonymous than Zcash or Monero, and it is nowhere to be found anymore. In part, the failure stems from an attack against the founding organisation, but it should also be noted that eCash continued even after the bankruptcy of David Chaum’s company. Creating a distributed group is not the solution people believe it to be. The problem is that they are not looking at the correct answer.

Satoshi Nakamoto is an amalgamation of 富永 仲基 (Tominaga Nakamoto) and Ash Ketchum (サトシ; Satoshi).

The genetic fallacy avoids an argument by shifting the focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in the sense that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

The book Satoshi’s Vision: The Art of Bitcoin is the product of a compilation of a selected number of Craig’s blog posts published on Medium and craigwright.net.

The name Satoshi signifies wise or intelligent history. The word and name simultaneously means clever or order, and implies a wise ancestry and a history that is connected. It is also the name of the Pokémon trainer, and has a few side connotations that I always loved. And it is also the name of one of the key characters in The House of Morgan. Primarily, it was always the juxtaposition that I liked.

As the creator of Bitcoin, I maintain the sui generis rights to any copy of the database created from Genesis in January 2009. I shall not be relinquishing the ownership. I will be licensing it, and have already engaged in a process so that the original Bitcoin protocol, that I created, known as Bitcoin SV today, will continue no matter what happens to me.

When the Covid-19 outbreak first began, Sweden decided to take a more laissez-faire approach to handle the spread of the virus. The result was a hue and cry of pandemonic proportions. The Independent (Goddard, 2020) ran a series of articles recording that Sweden had its highest death toll in over a century, ending with a claim that Sweden was going to end up wholly decimated because of their response. The Guardian (Reuters, 2020), discussing how Sweden’s economy was going to crash and that the more draconian measures implemented by Finland and other Nordic neighbours were proving to be viable and would end the spread of the virus by July, followed suit. The fear that was promoted through toxic social media led to countries being closed for the first time in history. The reaction and response are made worse because society has become more risk-averse and untrusting (Neuberger, 2009).

The proof-of-work definition that I used in describing how Bitcoin solved the Byzantine generals problem [1], when questioned by James A. Donald, derives from the SANS testing process, which I’d been going through in the USA.

Ironically, one aspect of my writing that has not been picked up on is that my description of how Bitcoin solved the Byzantine generals problem was taken from the SANS exercises. The requirement was that the exercise would work in a group; we all needed to configure our machines using wireless cracking tools to capture the Wi-Fi and attack the wireless network managed by the SANS/GIAC examiners before the time would run out. So, a few weeks later, when I had returned from the US and released the white paper, Mr Donald asked me about the problem [1] that Bitcoin solved.

In today’s post, I shall endeavour to explain some of the reasoning behind how I created Bitcoin and why I released it in the manner I did. Unfortunately, innumerable false myths have been created around Bitcoin and blockchain technology. They exist to promote concepts that have nothing to do with the system and that are antithetical to the concepts that I envisioned. For example, few people seem to recognise that even the widely promoted concept of “censorship resistance” was never a component of Bitcoin’s design. Such terminology started in 2011, when a journalist and writer associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) falsely described Bitcoin.

Even a large mining pool with a million clients, if something ever existed at such scale, would be but a single node. Such a commercial entity would form the server farm I talked about when I was ready to launch Bitcoin in 2008. Yet, as misleadingly and fraudulently put on both the bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Core (or, BTC Core) sites, people are promoting the misleading and deceptive term “full node” [2]. The call for people to run full nodes is merely a part of the deception.

This information and the investigations and testing by other researchers suggest that S139 is genuine and contemporary with the grant.[[14]](#_ftn14) The document is known to survivors as a single-sheet original, with a copy held in Worcester’s early 11th-century cartulary, Liber Wigorniensis. King Offa issued the document during a synod that is noted to be held at Clofesho. The dating of between 793-6 was established by analysing the witnesses present, and it is believed that the synod occurred in 794.[[15]](#_ftn15) Details of the copy are available and discussed by Stephen Baxter in more detail.[[16]](#_ftn16)

Edgeworth set Castle Rackrent in a period where the Irish were under English rule. Unfortunately, most English people failed to understand the underlying tensions within Irish politics during the eighteenth century (Garvin). The grammar used by Edgeworth and the local terminologies deployed within her work capture some of the disparities in grammar and language that had been used, in part, as a cultural battlefield (Mitchell) by the English aristocracy in the oppression of the Irish. Castle Rackrent (Edgeworth) uses non-standardised grammar. As Mitchell noted, grammar was utilised by the English to mark social groups, and the standardisation of English grammar being taught within schools differentiated marginal groups and provided a means to distinguish social groups such as those with an Anglican origin from those of Irish descent.

In their argument, they have made the false assumption that Bitcoin and other related systems have developed through the creation of cypherpunk coding. This argument is false. I know; I created Bitcoin, so I know the history. Yet, despite the way Baran (1964) developed decentralisation in packet switching as a means to develop resilient systems for the U.S. Army, the current mantra has moved towards the notion of political decentralisation.

Melander (2009) presents a Machiavellian exploration of the use of fear in warfare. The author is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University. The work presented by the author includes multiple highly cited works on organized violence, gender inequality and intrastate conflict, low-intensity armed conflict, and problems of anarchy and the link to ethnic conflict. The prime areas of concern and writing for the researcher include peace research, causes of war, conflict resolution, and gender issues. The UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset (Sundberg & Melander, 2013) is referenced in over 1000 papers.

I remember reading that quote many years ago, and I have carried it with me uncomfortably ever since. However, after many years, and having experienced the ebb and flow of life those years have brought, I think I am finally at peace with what he meant. If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

In bitcoin, they see nothing special. They see that the cryptography has been available for many years and in some cases decades. They see code that they could have created. They see missed opportunities. They are asked, “if you were there from the beginning and saw the potential, why didn’t you start mining in 2009?”. They see nothing special and do not understand that bitcoin is not simply an aggregation of cryptographic techniques.

If we pull back the veil on the message, we see Satoshi quoting The Times. The date is an interesting point in itself. Satoshi used 3 January 2009 and this was written into the Blockchain directly in the format “03/Jan/2009”.

This format is a standard used within the Commonwealth. The UK, Australia, Canada and other countries with the Commonwealth use this format. In the US it is more common as month, day, year. So this in itself tells us a little. The mixed writing style favouring British English but occasionally reverting to the US style demonstrates that Satoshi is more likely Canadian or Australian. Both of these countries mix grammatical standards.

However, a Bitcoin can be “divided” into smaller units (currently up to 8 decimal points — a unit known as a “satoshi”) and those smaller units can be transferred between users.

The original code needed a lot of work. The following method of connecting to and exchanging details without users was frankly horrible, but the concept was good if the execution was off:

The scaling debate did not start in 2015. It started in 2008 before Bitcoin was even released. I should have realised at the beginning that the people who started to attack Bitcoin would seek to try and undermine everything I was doing. Way back in 2008, James Donald, a closet socialist seeking utopian society with the pretence of being a libertarian, started the attack that I should have realised and seen through at the time.

Hill’s criteria is the basis of good scientific research where we are seeking to establish a causal relationship amongst social phenomena and in particular ones where we cannot engage in controlled trials. In some instances, it is in fact better than a controlled trial, as the process of creating a controlled trial changes the environment and creates a bias in many of the results. Although it is true that a controlled trial may provide the best answer to a particular problem, it is not always true that we are investigating the same problem. One example would be looking at studies of irrationality. The university-controlled trials testing the reactions of students generally biased the results. In selecting risk trials, for instance, we take selective forms of risk that bias the results towards male or female risk takers in the study. Later studies have now shown that the original studies into irrationality have been the result of poor methodology with both women and men exhibiting similar levels of risk. What was demonstrated is that the forms of risk taking differ between men and women but overall the levels of risk are similar.

There was a secondary part of the name, Satoshi, that is Satoshi Sugiyama who was adopted by an American and given the name David Phillips. It comes from a book, The House of Morgan. David was adopted in both cases. David Kleiman was adopted, and so was Satoshi.

Steve was one of these silly buggers who would get up and go surfing in Bondi early in the morning. He is one of the reasons I originally had breakfasts over on Monday on the beach or at least across from it and quite a few drinking sessions at the Bondi Icebergs Club. Essentially, I invited people I knew and thought I could trust as a result.

The only relevant spelling error in the section is the typo in systm. The word elide is used to mean “to leave out of consideration” or “to strike out.” In saying so, I am leaving out some of James Donald’s notion; I was not agreeing with him where he wrote (see http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014819.html):

The reason why people attack server farms as a concept dates way back to 2008. It dates to when I first released the Bitcoin white paper and faced an argument from James Donald. His long-winded response was a rant about government being able to take over and implement monetary controls. I said way back, in the first set of posts, that the system would end in server farms. I did not say so once: I said it in 2008, I said it again in 2009, and I said it in 2010. It was not an accident or in error; Bitcoin ends as commercial server farms. Such is how it professionalises.

A FATF Report from the ’90s {[1]; at 15–16} noted that a couple of variations of electronic cash had emerged. Such where illustratively dubbed net-around money and walk-around money. Net-around money involves personal computers (and smart phones), and is designed to be used primarily with connection to online purchases. DigiCash’s digital coins (eCash) represented an early example of net-around money. Walk-around money is a system principally designed to be utilised in face-to-face trades. Mondex cards are an example of walk-around money [1].

In 2008 and 2009, a group of people mistakenly thought that the world would be better off without banking. The loosely aligned anarchist group Occupy Wall Street protested for many months, before falling apart due to a lack of coordination. One of the main problems with anarchy is a lack of leadership. Occupy Wall Street debated for months over a slogan and a goal. Unable to even determine a purpose, the group fell apart and ended up achieving nothing. The other alternative form of such a system lies in the introduction of a strong man; the “paramour” that always follows an anarchist group and does not fall apart is the totalitarian leader. What the anarchist fails to understand is that such a system either is totally useless or ends in what the anarchist despises the most.

It does not say “one-computer-one-vote”, as each CPU does not represent an individual. It doesn’t represent nodes running as users on the network. The confusion stems from a radically misaligned understanding of the Byzantine generals problem.

It’s funny that nobody talks about it; well, I guess it’s not so funny for them. There are plenty of people who remember the original website. Then again, most of the same people don’t want my version of Bitcoin, and think that they can do better. If you do your research properly, you’ll find that bitcoin.org had a forum that linked to SourceForge and one on the website that ran within the system. It didn’t run on a separate server outside of bitcoin.org. It matters as the account on Bitcointalk does not belong to Satoshi.

I had stopped posting long before Bitcointalk was created. The database was taken across in part. A new user signed up on 5th May, 2011, and helped with things. The person behind the new user was called Gregory Maxwell.

Martti and a few others migrated the web pages. But not everything corresponds 100%. You see, when you control the database, you can edit what other people have said. There are a couple of posts that have been changed from the original. The secret of such people lies in making very minor changes, ones they don’t think other people will notice.

Then, the server was replicated on Bitcointalk. There is nothing stopping the current administrators of Bitcointalk from posting as satoshi, which would prove nothing, because it isn’t my account and it never was. Satoshi (I) never posted on Bitcointalk.

On November 13th, Mr Donald sent me a rather long, rambling message, saying that the Byzantine generals problem was a classical hard computer science problem, one that would not be solved easily. James Donald said I could not model the system under attack. I had done so many times. The entire purpose of my PhD thesis evolved around The Quantification of Information Systems Risk. I used economic processes in econometrics in the modelling of risk.

For all the benefits, the Constitution of the United States was developed in haste and through various compromises that could have been constructed in a way that better governed the ongoing processes within the United States of America [1]. Since the Constitution was created, several changes have occurred that have eroded the original intention. Notably, the Constitution of the United States was designed to create a republic [2]. The system was not designed to be democratic in the traditional sense of direct democracy, but instead acted as a proportional system that balanced the capital classes or aristocratic elements with the people’s wishes. As such, the system was designed as a compromise between both the people and vested capital interests [3].

It has been demonstrated that Bitcoin forms a small-world network in all its forms (Javarone & Wright, 2018). The same concept includes any copied instantiation of the Bitcoin system, such as the BTC system or even an altered system such as Litecoin. While some scholars have claimed to have discovered up to 359 mining nodes (Saad et al., 2021), the reality is that each of the systems would be owned by the same network operator or company. Here, the original definition of a Bitcoin mining node or farm, as provided in 2008, must apply, and although there are multiple systems comprising the node, the node is controlled by a single entity. The node structure of multiple systems also demonstrates the problems with claims that thousands of nodes would exist.

Across many forms of electronic payment that worked over peer-to-peer systems, the networks would be referred to as observers (Nambiar & Lu, 2005). Most of the observers acted without adequate incentivisation (Weber, 1998). The lack of incentives leads to free-riding (Feldman & Chuang, 2005) and whitewashing (Feldman et al., 2006) in peer-to-peer systems. While researchers have promoted alternative methodologies to track and trace free riders in peer-to-peer networks (Karakaya et al., 2008), and noted how “the free rider problem poses a serious threat to their proper operation” (Karakaya et al., 2009), none of them separated the observer function from the functioning of the payment system.

The song We Gotta Get out of This Place by The Animals was released twice, with some slight differences. It was included in the album House of the Rising Sun. While it was not written for the Vietnam War, it became the catchcry and anthem of the soldiers, vets, and protesters who remained home. At first glance, the song captured much of the spirit of the anti-war sentiment in America. At the same time, it was not about the American war, and it was not about American youth.

The Wolverine of the cartoons is probably best summed up in the statement by Cyclops: ‘Wolverine. You can probably stop doing that now’ (#113). Such an attitude is reflected in both the Wolverine: Origin (Jemas et al.) series and the Wolverine: Old Man Logan (Fazekas) series. In the graphic novels, we see Logan engaged in the constant re-enactment of trauma documented by Flores in describing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Logan and his violent reactions that result from reliving his past.

At this point, the traumatic damage of Logan’s past described within the Wolverine: Origin (Jemas et al.) series exhibits continual anger and psychological pain that drives Logan into a berserk animalistic fury where all logical and rational thought is expunged. In such a state, Wolverine exhibits the deep level “of human suffering, heartbreak, and redemption” (Flores, 27) that exceeds the depth of emotion experienced by any other superhero character. In their work, the authors have transferred Wolverine’s struggle into one that emotionally bonds with the reader and in a way that hopefully allows us to learn from Logan’s pain.

The question of how to protect aboriginal culture, country, and language first needs to be addressed as against why (Karez, 2009). In doing this, proposing concepts and values must be placed against an open, rational evaluative framework and weighed against the alternatives. If we are to treat people equally, this requires treating them as individuals. To do this requires that we do not look at the distant past or imagined communities (Anderson, 1983) and fabricated realities but rather judge and compare people equally based on their individual talents and performance (Havender, 1980). Assuming that indigenous poverty reflects prejudice and societal difficulties, ignore cultural value systems that lead to poverty (Dalrymple, 2003 p. 134-43)

Helen Hackett (2009) and other researchers have forwarded the claim that the dark lady was Elizabeth I. And the flower symbolism throughout the series of sonnets, both the dark lady and the fair youth, derived from Petrarch’s Sonnet 42, inform linking the Rose and the Lily as an endearing pattern of flower symbolism.

Britain was not always Britain. With the United Kingdom sometimes seeming less United, and while the separatist movement in Scotland may become less than it is, it has already seen the separation of Ireland. Yet, the history of the country is far more factious. Before the Roman conquest in the first century, the various British Iron Age communities existed as tribal groups (Cunliffe, 2004). These groups, including the Iceni, Durotriges, and Corieltauvi, are referenced as the Britons, but each had different civilizations and community structures. With the introduction of the Roman order, these groups became more homogenized and started to become the people that would populate a unified England (Hall, 2008).