There were many funny things about Leah Goodman’s claim in Newsweek that a California engineer invented bitcoin. One was her observation that he put two spaces after a period — just like the inventor of bitcoin. Another was her observation that his relatives said he was “brilliant”, without giving any examples. His brilliance had remained perfectly hidden — until now. A third was her conclusion that he was obsessed with secrecy and distrusted government — just like the inventor of bitcoin (according to her). Felix Salmon was quite wrong when he said there are some very strange coincidences and the pieces of her argument “fit elegantly together”. Actually, her argument is worthless from top to bottom. Salmon was right, however, when he said that the engineer’s English shows he couldn’t possibly have invented bitcoin. As Salmon says, Goodman ignored this itty-bitty problem.
Who is the inventor of bitcoin? I’m sure it’s Nick Szabo, a former law professor at George Washington University. This idea first surfaced a few months ago in an anonymous blog post based on textual analysis. Szabo used certain phrases in the original bitcoin description far more than a bunch of other possible candidates. That is real evidence. The hypothesis that Szabo is the inventor passes several other tests as well:
1. Right time zone. The original bitcoin postings appeared to come from the Eastern (United States) time zone. Szabo lives near Washington, D. C.
2. Prior to bitcoin, he had similar ideas. As far as I can tell, his previous ideas were the closest of anyone’s.
3. Yet the original bitcoin proposal didn’t reference his work. The usual reason for not mentioning a predecessor’s work is that you want more credit. Yet the creator of bitcoin didn’t want credit. Failure to mention Szabo’s work is so strange it may have been Szabo’s way of telling insiders he’s the inventor. In other words, this fact makes sense if Szabo is the inventor. It remains unexplained if anyone else is.
4. Szabo failed to get excited when bitcoin emerged. It was based on his work (more or less). Like everyone, including me, Szabo had been told countless times that his ideas were worthless, crazy, stupid and so on. (“Money just doesn’t work like that, I was told fervently and often.”) Because of that treatment, I greatly enjoy pointing out confirmation of my ideas. It’s such a fundamental pleasure there’s a word for it: glee. If he wasn’t the inventor of bitcoin, Szabo should have gleefully followed its progress, pointing out over and over how this showed his original ideas were right. He didn’t do this. Again, this makes sense if he was the inventor — he didn’t want to draw attention to how close bitcoin is to his published ideas. It remains unexplained if anyone else is.
5. The clincher, for me, is that he wrote an article about the emergence of money that is compatible with my theory of human evolution. His article says money emerged from collectibles. Collectibles are an important part of my theory. I say they emerged because they helped skilled artisans, who were innovators, make a living. For most people, collectibles are trivial, whereas I’ve written often about the Willat Effect, which I believe is the psychological rule that created them. It isn’t easy to be consistent with my theory. I’ve read dozens of theories about human evolution. Whenever they explain the same things as mine (e.g., evolution of language), they have been inconsistent with my theory. Two examples are Jared Diamond’s ideas and Daniel Dennett’s ideas. Szabo’s essay is the only the second example I have seen of ideas that fit mine. The aquatic ape theory, which is about what happened before the events of my theory, also fits; Szabo’s ideas are about what happened after the events of my theory. Szabo’s ideas about the emergence of money are very non-obvious (especially because you have to realize the centrality of collectibles) and are compatible with a theory he cannot have heard of. I doubt anyone agrees with me that compatibility with my theory is a great plus but it is obvious that if you understand how money began, you are in a much better position to invent a new form of money than if you don’t. The difficulty of mining bitcoins corresponds to the difficulty of making collectibles. You could randomly pick anyone, including cryptographic experts, and the probability would be extremely low they have a good theory of how money began. Yet Szabo does.
I ignore the coincidence of initials: NS and SN (or NS).
Szabo’s achievement is good news for me because we have a similarity. He was a law professor. They are not supposed to invent new and useful things. No law professor before Szabo invented anything remotely as new and potentially important as bitcoin. I am a psychology professor. They are not supposed to make useful discoveries about health. I have made discoveries/inventions about health that are certainly new and might some day be important, such as the Shangri-La Diet and the underlying theory, the effect of morning faces on mood and daily brain testing.
13 Replies to “Nick Szabo is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Inventor of Bitcoin”
You are right. He is on my list on the top. I think the same.
> This idea first surfaced a few months ago in an anonymous blog post based on textual analysis. Szabo used certain phrases in the original bitcoin description far more than a bunch of other possible candidates. That is real evidence.
No, it’s bullplop. I criticized it at the time: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ruluz/satoshi_nakamoto_is_probably_nick_szabo/cdr2vgu
My criticism has been trapped in moderation since 1 December 2013. Oddly enough, the author has had time to approve 4 or 5 other comments, but *not* mine. I wonder why?
> The original bitcoin postings appeared to come from the Eastern (United States) time zone.
You should check the timezone metadata on the SVN repo & original whitepaper, and look at the location of the IPs in Finney’s debug dump of the first Bitcoin transactions…
> Szabo lives near Washington, D. C.
Really? The address I have for Szabo is in Minnesota. Just because he’s affiliated with GWU doesn’t mean he lives in DC.
> Yet the original bitcoin proposal didn’t reference his work.
This also ‘proves’ Wei Dai wrote Bitcoin, among others.
> If he wasn’t the inventor of bitcoin, Szabo should have gleefully followed its progress, pointing out over and over how this showed his original ideas were right. He didn’t do this.
Most of the Cryptography mailing list thought it was a questionable idea at best, and Szabo has many projects, just look at his homepage.
> Szabo’s achievement is good news for me because we have a similarity. He was a law professor.
He was a cryptopunk decades before he went into lawschool.
> 5. The clincher, for me, is that he wrote an article about the emergence of money that is compatible with my theory of human evolution.
Once one has a theory, anything fits it. You are listing confirmatory evidence for Szabo, but where’s your *disconfirmatory* evidence?
For example, the _Sunday Times_ just posted an article on Satoshi where Wei Dai pans the Szabo theory for the simple reason that no one has seen Szabo write C++ code, much less code dealing with cryptography & IRC & P2P networking. Coding is not a skill you pick up overnight! So, where is the evidence – any evidence – that Szabo knows C++? This is important. This is really really important, given that literally the only thing we know *for certain* about Satoshi is that he knows how to write C++ & English. If one’s favored candidate can’t be shown to be an experienced C++ coder, that’s a fatal problem for one’s theory.
Seth: Szabo asked for help coding his ideas. No one disputes that.
Lively discussion of this post over on Reddit:
Szabo is the author of the paper. Finney is the author of the code.
I am Spartacus. 🙂
gwern, if Szabo could write C++ code, what do you think the probability is that you wouldnt have found any evidence of it? i know you’re just making up a number, but i trust your judgment.
> Seth: Szabo asked for help coding his ideas. No one disputes that.
That evidence has already been explained and screened off: he still needs that help. Interesting as Bitcoin is, if you’ve read Szabo’s papers (and not third-hand summaries), Bitcoin can still only be shoe-horned in as a very limited and partial implementation.
Incidentally, does that reply mean you concede all of my other points?
> Finney is the author of the code.
Alphageek, have you compared the bitcoin-0.1.0 code to some of Finney’s code like the RPOW server?
> gwern, if Szabo could write C++ code, what do you think the probability is that you wouldnt have found any evidence of it?
I don’t know. I have not finished looking into the matter to my own satisfaction. My point here is that ability to write C++ is the single most important piece of evidence in favor of being Satoshi, and yet, almost every Satoshi speculator ignores it or dismisses it in a sentence. I’m reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/35d/inherited_improbabilities_transferring_the_burden/ and http://www.gwern.net/Death%20Note%20Anonymity
What do you think about the utility of gold and other collectibles in the modern times where you can trade with currency.
Why do very rich people buy rare works of arts for huge amounts?
I am Spartacus
Agree 100%. I read Szabo’s website before reading Nakamoto’s white paper and the frame of mind is the same, and it’s a singular one; nobody else I have encountered had the same angle on it
About the initials: Szabo is a hungarian name and in hungary you always start with the last name, thus it’s Szabo Nick (SN)
Comments are closed.