Summary: Author: Weisha Zhu Wu: Nick Sabo is one of the inventors of the Bitcoin idea defined by Satoshi Nakamoto, and he is an important party. But Nick Szabo never said he was Satoshi Nakamoto, nor did he say who Satoshi Nakamoto was. And said to protect the privacy of Satoshi Nakamoto. So how did you ...
Author: Weisha Zhu
Wu: Nick Sabo is one of the inventors of the Bitcoin idea defined by Satoshi Nakamoto, and he is an important party. But Nick Szabo never said he was Satoshi Nakamoto, nor did he say who Satoshi Nakamoto was. And said to protect the privacy of Satoshi Nakamoto. So how did you know he knew Wei Dai was Satoshi Nakamoto?
In the study of Satoshi Nakamoto, I feel full respect for this circle; they know who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Nick knew Hal knew. Even Adam should know. The junior Ethereum Vitalik knows, and even MekerDao Rune Christensen knows him. The smallest unit of Ethereum is WEI, and the stablecoin of MakerDao is DAI.
Wu: Yes, the units of Ethereum and Maker Dao are all related to Wei Dai. What does Nick think?
Why do they say they know who Satoshi Nakamoto is? Nick's point of view is representative. When did Adrian Chen ask Nick on Twitter who is Satoshi Nakamoto? He said:
"I'm not going to comment any further on this, as I think he has made a great contribution and so I want to respect his desire for privacy.” (1)
Combined with the question in reference (1), Nick's "he" here represents Satoshi Nakamoto, and the word "respect" implies that he knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is. So what is "respecting his desire to retain privacy"? That is,Satoshi Nakamoto didn't say it; why did I say it? It is a great thing that people in this circle have not talked about it for more than ten years.
Wu: Right. From this, it can be seen that Nick knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is.
After further research, it was found that Nick still intentionally or unintentionally said who Satoshi Nakamoto was. On May 28, 2011, Satoshi Nakamoto was invisible and could not speak. The great Nick stepped up and selflessly wrote an article defending Bitcoin: " Bitcoin, what took ye so long?" The following discussion is from that article.
At that time, there were a lot of technical debates about Bitcoin, and Nick didn't think it was a big deal. He believes that Bitcoin is a very narrow field, and the biggest thing is that not many people understand the truth, "why" Bitcoin is designed in this way. No one understands the financial principles and the greatness of the currency issuance method. I selected a short section of the article, analyzed it sentence by sentence, and finally explained who Satoshi Nakamoto is in Nick's mind.
"While the security technology is very far from trivial, the "why" was by far the biggest stumbling block -- nearly everybody who heard the general idea thought it was a very bad idea.” (2)
Wu: You marked the whole idea in red; what is the mystery here?
From the context, The "general idea thought" refers to Bitcoin and Bit Gold. Nick sees Bitcoin and Bit Gold as the same general idea.In a circle, everyone knows each other. Nick knew who did it at a glance. How much was used in his thing, and what improvements were made by the latter.
The following statement is the essence. Because it is not easy to say unreasonable things, and the contradictions cannot stand scrutiny.
There are only 108 Chinese characters or 56 English words, and I found five unreasonable places.
First, notice why the field is very narrow.
（1）”Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea”(2)
Through Nick's mouth, we know that very few people understand; only three people are in the world. Is it true that only three people understand? Who is the person Nick doesn't know? From the perspective of years of development, no project issues currency good than Bitcoin. We have reason to believe that the person Nick "pretends" not to know refers to Satoshi Nakamoto. There is also reason to think that this is a narrow field and reason to believe in Nick's expertise and professionalism.
Wu: Right; Nick thinks he only knows three people. Another unknown is Satoshi Nakamoto. What did Wei Dai say?
But wait, I'll quote Wei Dai later. Analyze this sentence first. Satoshi Nakamoto said that Bitcoin is the realization of Wei Dai and Nick's ideas, confirming what Nick said. It's like an endorsement for Nick. Then Nick's statement has a high level of evidence.
Let's go down to this analysis:
（2）Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people, (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai)（2）
Note that Nick said: "Myself, Wei Dai and Hal" and "Assuming Satoshi Nakamoto is not the real Hal or Wei Dai," the order of Wei Dai and Hal is switched and can not be written following sentence if the position is not changed. Why didn't Nick start by saying: Myself, Hal, and Wei Dai? Writing an article is having time to adjust where it doesn't make sense. So why not adjust the order? Is this unreasonable intentional reservation, or accidental? Which are possible. But there is a contradiction in the expression of the sentence. It is true.
It is the first unreasonable thing.
Wu: In Nick's heart, Wei Dai is higher than Hal.
The core problem is that Hal ranks higher in Cypherpunk than Satoshi Nakamoto, Nick, and Wei Dai. It is because the market sees it differently than Nick sees it. The market is based on contribution. And Nick's views are based on inner thoughts. So who is right when an expert disagrees with the market? At least to raise doubts.
（3）Only Finney (RPOW) and Nakamoto were motivated enough to actually implement such a scheme.（2）
This sentence can only be written by transposing the word order of Wei Dai and Hal. Also, is Wei Dai not motivated?
The question is where Hal and Nakamoto does the "motivated enough" come from? According to Nick, because of liking it and pursuing it. How could Nick know that Satoshi likes and pursues it without knowing Satoshi Nakamoto? If Nick doesn't know if Satoshi Nakamoto likes and pursues it, why would he say that Nakamoto has enough motivation? The whole sentence is contradictory and illogical. It is the second unreasonable thing.
Wu: Nick knows Satoshi Nakamoto and knows that Satoshi likes it.
Yes. It is the only reasonable explanation. Nick knew the natural body of Satoshi Nakamoto, so he respected privacy.
This sentence is also very strange,
(4) (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai)（2）
Also, the sentence "Assuming Satoshi Nakamoto is not the real Hal or Wei Dai " is also weird; An odd use of the word "really", assuming what? What does the meaning of the sentence mean? Satoshi Nakamoto is anonymous, and the whole world admits he is a fake, the sentence mean Satoshi Nakamoto is a fake Hal or Wei Dai. Remove "assuming" and "really", and "Satoshi Nakamoto is not Hal or David" is in line with the logic of the expression. Why such a big bend? There must be something hidden. The expression of these people's habits is encrypted; it's up to you to guess. It is the third irrationality.
Wu: Nick is telling people Satoshi is fake Hal or Wei Dai.
Yes. It would be best if you guessed; they didn't say anything. Nick still felt that the expression was unclear and added:
(5) "or in Dai's case his related idea"(2)
What are Wei Dai's considerations? How does Nick know that Wei Dai has his considerations? This sentence means that Nick knows Wei Dai's considerations and Bitgold differences. Wei Dai's B-money most ideas are integrated into Bitgold, and Wei Dai's bitcoin idea does not include in Nick's Bitgold. If you don't understand the history, you don't understand this sentence. It is the fourth irrationality.
Translating the unspoken words behind this sentence: Although Wei Dai likes my idea, Bitcoin still has his stuff.
Wu: That's right. If you don't tell me, I can't know it. Nick believes that Wei Dai's different points are the ideas of Bitcoin, which are not included in Bitcoin Gold.
Post (3) again. Pay attention:
(3) "Only Hal (RPOW) and Satoshi Nakamoto have enough motivation to actually implement such a plan.” (2)
So, where has Wei Dai gone? If Wei Dai replaces Satoshi Nakamoto, the logic of the above statement is correct. It is the fifth unreasonable.
Wu: Yes. It is reasonable to replace Satoshi Nakamoto with Wei Dai.
I left a homework here.
(5) Until Satoshi (assuming Satoshi is not the real Hal or David) (2)
There is something wrong with this sentence. I leave an assignment to test deep thinking ability. If you can't figure it out, combine the following sentence.
Below is Nick's complete sentence.
“While the security technology is very far from trivial, the "why" was by far the biggest stumbling block -- nearly everybody who heard the general idea thought it was a very bad idea. Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai). Only Finney (RPOW) and Nakamoto were motivated enough to actually implement such a scheme.”(2)
Wu: After reading the entire sentence, I still have a question. Will Nick judge that Satoshi Nakamoto likes Bitcoin based on Satoshi Nakamoto's realization of Bitcoin and thus his motivation?
It is not unreasonable to analyze from the sentence alone, but it is a superficial analysis because you are an outsider and do not understand the background. Nick is talking about why it took so long for Bitcoin to come out because it is very difficult and it is a very narrow field. It was realized when an outsider jumped in, slapping the overall judgment of this great expert. In order to ensure the strength of expert evidence, I even get Satoshi Nakamoto's sentence to endorse Nick. Wei Dai said that if Satoshi Nakamoto did not develop Bitcoin, others could not create it in ten years. (3) We will analyze this sentence later. Wei Dai also echoed that it is a very narrow field. Not only did Nick know Satoshi Nakamoto, he told Satoshi Nakamoto (Wei Dai) in this text; I didn't say you copied mine, and I affirmed your contribution; you are better than me (motivated). Of course, this passage is the last step after my deep thinking.
The logical way to write this sentence is:
Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal are the only people I know who like the idea enough to pursue it to any significant extent; only Wei Dai (B-Money) and Hal (RPOW) are motivated enough to go Actual implementation of such a plan.
Does this go smoothly? Wei Dai's motivation also came out. Does it echo what Nick said before and after? The word "motivation" here means ability. Both Wei Dai and Hal have enough programming skills. It is reflected in Satoshi Nakamoto's publication of the Bitcoin program, which Hal immediately downloaded and discussed with Satoshi Nakamoto. Hal was acting perfectly normal, acting as Nick's judgment. Nick rates Wei Dai higher than Hal, and Hal ranks higher than Wei Dai in the Wikipedia entry for cypherpunk. Wei Dai's early performance on Bitcoin is also too bad, so far from experts' estimates. Satoshi Nakamoto is ranked very high in the Wikipedia Cypherpunk entry, where Wei Dai should be. If Satoshi Nakamoto shows up, Satoshi Nakamoto's name will rise further in the ranking.
Wu: Has Nick downloaded it?
Have no idea. There are no reports about Nick's early participation in mining. Because his programming ability is insufficient, it is not to download is expected.
Wu: What was Wei Dai doing now?
Wei Dai downloaded. The question is, why didn't he advise Satoshi Nakamoto like Hal? abnormal? Downloading this event from Wei Dai shows Nick accurately judges Hal and Wei Dai's abilities. Another person has the ability, and Satoshi Nakamoto also told him the download URL, which is Adam. He stated that he regretted not participating in the early mining. (4) Adam participated in David Chaum's eCash project early on, and it failed. The shadow of failure made him not interested in cryptocurrency projects, so he did not understand it and would not be interested in downloading. At this point, Nick did not mention that Adam is also accurate because he cannot like the Bitcoin system. Experts are valuable because of their ability to judge professional issues.
Nick and Satoshi Nakamoto are the world's top masters and love playing dumb puzzles. Only 56 words start from "Myself," and I found five outrageous things. I leave homework also contains unreasonable. Nick is a world-class expert, and he accurately judges Wei Dai, Hal, and Adam's abilities. Of course, Nick's irrational statements can be interpreted as charades. Tell it to a few experts in the industry. I know I won't say who is and what you should do. Indeed, Hal echoed Nick's code words.
Wu: This is the power of deep thinking.
Yes, find the illogical part of the article to analyze and give a reasonable explanation. If you don't have a basis on all sweeping, you won't be able to understand the background between the article and the characters, and you won't be able to find faults. We are not native speakers of English, but it is an advantage when reading articles because we need to understand each word.
Wu: What you said above makes sense; isolated evidence is not evidence. Hal is also involved, and he is also one of the great founders of Bitcoin. I remember Hal saying that Satoshi Nakamoto was a young man; how do you explain that?
Let's see what Hal thinks in the next episode. Watch how I find something.
his is what Nick Szabo wrote when I asked him about Satoshi in 2011:
2. Bitcoin, what took ye so long?
Nike Szabo 2011年5月28日
While the security technology is very far from trivial, the "why" was by far the biggest stumbling block -- nearly everybody who heard the general idea thought it was a very bad idea. Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai). Only Finney (RPOW) and Nakamoto were motivated enough to actually implement such a scheme.
4. Bitcoin Forum
April 18, 2013, 11:27:49 AM
in China link
Here is our article link: https://chainless.hk/
English link: https://en.bitpush.news/?s=Weisha+Zhu
Sun TV's link is as follows: