"Bitcoin Banks will never work. Saylor shouldn't let $MSTR do this."

Hal Finney envisioned Bitcoin Banks all the way back in 2010.

The user ‎@durjanbhai failed to resolve the captcha. The "user" was kicked out.

_Hal Finney has implemented a variant of bit gold called RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work). This relies on publishing the computer code for the "mint," which runs on a remote tamper-evident computer. The purchaser of of bit gold can then use remote attestation, which Finney calls the transparent server technique, to verify that a particular number of cycles were actually performed._

https://web.archive.org/web/20060329122942/https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

I wonder if anyone's ever noticed that Nick Szabo's so-called idea is just ecash ?

It's an ecash methodology selling Adam Backs hashcash. That is, not a set of competing systems but rather a bank or other entity who sells a solution of a particular depth. For instance, you could have different levels of coin based on the number of zeros in the useful proof of work. It doesn't actually satisfy double spends at all. More importantly, it is literally just an ecash based system with a central bank offering tokenised coins.

There is no distributed peer network here. In fact he never understood that concept. The concept is one where a shadow bank issues tokens of a particular level of difficulty. To these guys, Moore's law was actually a problem because the difficulty changed over time. This is why bit gold failed. The plan had been to create something along the lines of EGold. The central body would be able to issue a bit gold token. That would then be tradable.

The EGold all Liberty reserve type platform would be the central party dictating which particular spend had happened first in the same way that digicash did this with Banks. Effectively, the entire plan was to replicate the existing banking system without involving banks. That is, they would create a shadow bank system. Different levels of token would have been tied to different monetary amounts. The problem they had was that they could not set the value of each token so that it could be stable. No idea of economics in these guys.

It utterly fails because they fail to understand the basics of how firms develop. The concept of nobody having a specialisation and everybody doing everything is the foundation of communism. It is directly taken from Marx and the Communist manifesto. These guys are not in any way libertarian. Stalin and Lennin and Mao together a 1000 times closer to being libertarian than any of the cyberpunks.

*The one thing that they are all trying to remove in creating bit gold is a blockchain *

The argument here was that the string of zeros and ones is scarce and therefore it has value. That was literally Szabo's response to the concept of inflation. The nature of decentralisation as they saw it was that anybody could construct a proof of work token and sell it and anybody could have their own tokens. This dates back to Tim May's idea of every single person on earth having their own money. It is one of the most asinine, collectivist/Communist backward ideas demonstrating just how little knowledge of economics these guys have.

This is where lightning and other things come into it. This is why Greg Maxwell said that bitcoin was broken. To them, bitcoin is broken. It is designed as the opposite of all they sought to create. It is designed to be the anti-bit gold, not they even knew what the hell bit gold was until well into 2011. Wei Dai had pointed me towards Nick Szabo, but I still saw nothing interesting and didn't even read about it.

I only finally read about it because people kept telling me how similar it was to bitcoin. And then I started realising just how little they understood about bitcoin and how much they wanted something else.

This is where this concept of trust being distributed came from as well. It is not the trust model noted in the bitcoin White Paper. That is this sort of model :
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/1147/

CSW
Nov 1, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572607388248500

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2089

Hello Dave…. Hal Finney was an amazing man in many… | by Craig Wright (Bitcoin SV is Bitcoin.) | Medium
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/hello-dave-330c164a4aad

Hal Finney's first Bitcoin transaction happened 16 years ago today
https://coingeek.com/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction-happened-16-years-ago-today/

NEW: 🟠 Never-before-seen video of Hal Finney, revealing his diagnosis with ALS, exactly 15 years ago. Absolutely heartbreaking 💔

Thanks to Pete Rizzo for sharing this and his follower for sending this to him.

HISTORY: 🟠 Bitcoin pioneer Hal Finney lecturing on cryptography, 27 years ago.

CSW
Sep 16, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1568585154447100?thread_ts=1568573893.428900&cid=C5131HKFX

There is no group

Hal came in on 12 Jan. He helped on code after that

Dave reviewed my paper and code, I wanted him to run nodes earlier

He was my friend
He helped wipe (not as well as I wanted) my identity as Satoshi

But Satoshi is one person

The Law degree is me
The Stats degree is me
The Comp Sci/Economics is me
The Game Theory is me
The Windows code. Me... though it got better when others came in
The security and network me

CSW
Sep 16, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1568585154447100?thread_ts=1568573893.428900&cid=C5131HKFX

The user ‎@Armindru failed to resolve the captcha. The "user" was kicked out.

HISTORY: 🟠 On this day in 2014, Hal Finney passed away 🕊

One of the first to run Bitcoin, the very first to receive BTC from Satoshi. A true cypherpunk.

Thank you and rest in peace legend 🙏

S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Nov. 20, 2025
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1991353652414672929?t=BSpTNhGxYD7tta96LhRZ-Q&s=19

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5034

El espectáculo resulta casi entrañable, como cuando uno observa con cariño a un niño intentando encajar una clavija cuadrada en un agujero redondo por septuagésima tercera vez consecutiva.

Aquí tenemos a otro acólito de la hagiografía digital que invoca a un programador informático —competente en su particular oficio— como un oráculo de la macroeconomía global, la teoría monetaria y la distribución de la riqueza. Es el equivalente intelectual a consultar a un físico galardonado con el Premio Nobel sobre las propiedades curativas de los cítricos y luego dar el asunto por zanjado simplemente porque el hombre resolvió una ecuación diferencial.

El absurdo sería encantador si no fuera tan catastróficamente representativo de la época.

Hal Finney, cuyo conocimiento de la economía era tan limitado como el de un barbero medieval sobre la teoría de los gérmenes, es exaltado como un sabio de las finanzas únicamente porque podía manejar un compilador sin quemarse la cabeza. La multitud, siempre ávida de una narrativa sacrosanta, confiere obedientemente su conocimiento por ósmosis: escribió código, por lo tanto, debe entender los mercados de capitales, los agregados de riqueza global y la dinámica de la valoración monetaria.

Según esta lógica, un herrero habilidoso está a un solo golpe de martillo de convertirse en neurocirujano.

Resulta, por supuesto, una cierta tragicomedia ver a los devotos aferrarse a estas afirmaciones como si estuvieran grabadas en las tablas del Sinaí. La aritmética es pueril. El razonamiento es inexistente. La conclusión —que dividir la riqueza planetaria por la oferta arbitraria de un token especulativo produce una valoración significativa— es la clase de sofisma que haría estremecer a un estudiante de primer año de economía. Pero estos discípulos la absorben como un dogma precisamente porque halaga sus ilusiones.

Lo que presenciamos no es análisis, sino aspiración disfrazada de profecía. Es el triunfo de la apropiación indebida de credenciales, la bendición de una autoridad tomada de una disciplina ajena y aplicada a una afirmación que no resiste el menor análisis. Y aun así, la pregonan como si citaran al Oráculo de Delfos, completamente ajenos a que no hacen más que repetir como loros a un hombre que habla sin fundamento.

Si el culto moderno a la infalibilidad tecnológica nos ha enseñado algo, es que la forma más segura de crear un mito es atribuirle a alguien una pericia que nunca poseyó ni habría reclamado. Pero los mitos, a diferencia de los mercados, son inmunes a la aritmética. Y así, los fieles seguirán blandiendo esta fantasía numerológica, convencidos de que la riqueza mundial se doblegará obedientemente para justificar sus delirios especulativos.

Mientras tanto, el resto de nosotros nos quedamos maravillados ante el espectáculo: una lección magistral de cómo la pereza intelectual, envuelta en el ostentoso disfraz de reverencia, se vuelve indistinguible de la farsa.

S. Tominaga, alias CSW

20 de noviembre de 2025
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1991353652414672929?t=BSpTNhGxYD7tta96LhRZ-Q&s=19

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5034