Hacker News Reader

Comment by NelsonMinar | Hacker News Reader

So this article is six years old. Any update on the supposition? I guess no one's figured out yet whether the recommended magic number is a back door or not. My money is definitely on corrupted.

Odd the article doesn't mention the obvious conclusion; that Bitcoin was designed by NSA, or folks with intimate knowledge of NSA's back doors. I've long maintained that a US government agency is the most likely developer of Bitcoin (mostly because no one else could sit on that kind of $$$ forever). NSA is the most obvious agency. The question is.. why? I can speculate on lots of reasons.

View on HN

Bitcoin was designed by an individual with intimate knowledge of the state of the art in suspicions of NSA backdoors.

You are assuming Satoshi is sitting on money. Satoshi took care to hide it’s identity, and thus would have switched mining to different addresses very early in bitcoins history.

It would have been obvious to Satoshi that spending from a known address would blow it’s identity, so only did so for testing.

Satoshi may well be a billionaire and spending bitcoin every day.

People seem to take comfort in this idea that bitcoin was created by a government... because bitcoin seems radical when you first learn about it. However the attempts to create it date back a couple decades before it was created. Satoshi combined existing inventions with just the new element of his time chain.

But even if the NSA were behind it, what could they do? Anything they could do could also be done by someone with a math breakthrough. So whether the attacker is the NSA or not bitcoin has to be robust against it.

So where is bitcoin vulnerable?

It’s easy to imagine vulnerabilities in the cryptography, but hard to produce them.

Further, if you did, it doesn’t necessarily affect bitcoin. This is bitcoin’s genius. It’s not software, it’s a set of incentives. Show an error in the software, it will be patched and bitcoin will carry on. Worst case is a hard fork.

> Bitcoin was designed by an individual with intimate knowledge of the state of the art in suspicions of NSA backdoors.

Insiders at the NSA (or any other TLA, foreign or domestic) also fit this description. The strongest position is to know both the truth, and the most compelling misconceptions.

I think it is a mistake for me to fight the “NSA created bitcoin” narrative. I am gleeful at Nelson not owning any bitcoin and want all like him who reject it for ideological reasons to continue to misunderstand it.

Freedom and human rights need financial backing, and bitcoin does that.

Nothing like personalized comments coming from a brand new pseudonym.

It took quite awhile to understand what narcissists are and to recognize that attempting to talk to them is pointless.

They are simply incapable of valuing any other human being, let alone comprehending that such human being might have superior knowledge in any area.

After all, the narcissist is the supreme being. At least in their reality.

To be fair, “Unabashedly elitist” was a confession — if one were wise enough to recognize it.

That crosses into personal attack. We ban accounts that do that on HN. No more of this, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My thoughts exactly regarding the NSA creating Bitcoin. My theory is the blockchain gives them a way to do analysis on dirty money. Instead of having to hack or compel the next dirty bank they can look at the open ledger and figure it out. At first I thought it could be the CIA as a way to fund off the books ops but NSA makes more sense.

Either way there’s no way a single person holds on to a wallet that size. It’s also less likely someone/some group in China or Russia could hold on to wallet that size without it being pilfered.

You’re projecting your temptation into people based on your values, as is Nelson. But you are not Satoshi. Satoshi faces risk worse than Edward Snowden. The central bankers are far more formidable.

And the solution is easy: Satoshi mined initially to bootstrap bitcoin. He was the only one mining in the early days.

But then once there were enough other miners, all he had to do was destroy his private key.

If he’s greedy he just waited until he had enough bitcoin mined in other addresses that were never associated with him, before doing so.

Zero temptation. And hard to feel much regret... because he had opportunity to mine a great deal in those early years.

> He was the only one mining in the early days.

This is untrue-- we know other people who mined in the first days.

The way the initial released software worked, it wouldn't mine unless another peer was connected. So it's possible that there has never been a moment when there was only one party mining.

I know nothing of the Bitcoin structure now or then, but there’s a logic flaw there...

1) At some point during development he would have absolutely been the only one mining because the code only existed on his machine. 2) Requiring that another peer be available doesn’t mean that both peers couldn’t be run by the same person, even if they were run with different sets of keys. A peer in this case is a software construct, not a physical one.

> 1) At some point during development he would have absolutely been the only one mining because the code only existed on his machine.

Block 1 was created about 7 after the software was publicly released.

Whatever he did in development was thrown away, block 0 is an unspendable placeholder.

erp. 7 hours.

Bitcoin is not a risk to the bankers. It’s just another vessel they can use to make money. It’s been 10 years and all bitcoin has done is make people think they can get rich by investing in it.

It the early 2010s it was billed as the Next Big Thing that was going to change the world. I’d argue Facebook has changed the world more than bitcoin, for better or worse.

Bankers make money via The Cantillion effect.

Frankly, your response shows how revolutionary bitcoin is- it’s been ten years and you haven’t learned enough about it to understand it. That’s fine, most people haven’t, and bitcoin isn’t ready for the world to adopt it.

But not meeting your timeline expectations is not it’s fault. It doesn’t care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com