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
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
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/hello-dave-330c164a4aad
Medium
Hello Dave…
Hal Finney was an amazing man in many ways. Without him, Bitcoin would not exist today. Hal is a far better coder than I will ever hope...
Hal Finney's first Bitcoin transaction happened 16 years ago today
https://coingeek.com/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction-happened-16-years-ago-today/
https://coingeek.com/hal-finney-first-bitcoin-transaction-happened-16-years-ago-today/
CoinGeek
Hal Finney's first Bitcoin transaction happened 16 years ago today
Hal Finney's 10-coin receipt from Satoshi was just "a test," but it marked another early leap of faith that helped spark the Bitcoin revolution and cemented Finney's place in Bitcoin history.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
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.
Thanks to Pete Rizzo for sharing this and his follower for sending this to him.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
HISTORY: 🟠 Bitcoin pioneer Hal Finney lecturing on cryptography, 27 years ago.
❤2
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
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.
S. Tominaga, AKA CSW
Nov. 20, 2025
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1991353652414672929?t=BSpTNhGxYD7tta96LhRZ-Q&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/5034
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
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
X (formerly Twitter)
S Tominaga (@CsTominaga) on X
The spectacle is almost endearing, in the way one might fondly observe a child attempting to jam a square peg into a circular hole for the seventy-third consecutive time.
Here we have yet another acolyte of digital hagiography invoking a computer programmer—competent…
Here we have yet another acolyte of digital hagiography invoking a computer programmer—competent…
The user @danrai88 failed to resolve the captcha. The "user" was kicked out.
Why Hal Finney Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto - by Dominic Frisby
https://www.theflyingfrisby.com/p/why-hal-finney-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto
https://www.theflyingfrisby.com/p/why-hal-finney-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto
Theflyingfrisby
Why Hal Finney Is Not Satoshi Nakamoto
Public Correspondence, Private Correspondence and Coding Language: Evidence of Two Minds. Your Sunday thought piece.
Forwarded from @RamonQuesada †🌷🙏
Audio
Dave Kleiman SHA-256
2 fuentes
15 jun 2026
(Audio 25:23 min)
El documento técnico RFC 4880 establece el estándar oficial para el formato de mensajes de OpenPGP, detallando los protocolos de criptografía, firmas digitales y gestión de claves. Esta normativa técnica define cómo se estructuran los paquetes de datos para garantizar la confidencialidad y la integridad de la información en entornos digitales.
Entre sus autores destaca Hal Finney, una figura fundamental en el desarrollo de tecnologías de cifrado y sistemas descentralizados. Un dato relevante vincula este estándar con los orígenes de Bitcoin, señalando que Dave Kleiman utilizó el algoritmo de hash SHA-256 poco después de su adopción oficial en este protocolo..
Fuentes
Ira Kleiman
https://x.com/i/status/2066156887347798133
rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880
Cuaderno
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/703a7bd7-fd29-4d62-ac27-d038bf49ad9c
2 fuentes
15 jun 2026
(Audio 25:23 min)
El documento técnico RFC 4880 establece el estándar oficial para el formato de mensajes de OpenPGP, detallando los protocolos de criptografía, firmas digitales y gestión de claves. Esta normativa técnica define cómo se estructuran los paquetes de datos para garantizar la confidencialidad y la integridad de la información en entornos digitales.
Entre sus autores destaca Hal Finney, una figura fundamental en el desarrollo de tecnologías de cifrado y sistemas descentralizados. Un dato relevante vincula este estándar con los orígenes de Bitcoin, señalando que Dave Kleiman utilizó el algoritmo de hash SHA-256 poco después de su adopción oficial en este protocolo..
Fuentes
Ira Kleiman
https://x.com/i/status/2066156887347798133
rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880
Cuaderno
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/703a7bd7-fd29-4d62-ac27-d038bf49ad9c