" Those machines are gone now. I replaced them every 12 to 18 months. Servers were donated to a number of churches and ran email means for such organisations. A couple ran web servers. During the year I started installing machines that ran Windows XP and nodes. There weren’t a lot of machines running Bitcoin in 2009. To my knowledge, Dave ran one machine, that’s full-time, and he ran three or four on or off. Hal Finney ran a machine. Bear ran one or two."

Two steps forward, one step back
by Craig Wright (Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin.) https://medium.com/p/two-steps-forward-one-step-back-1ef6e60ccd8e

Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney)
March 19, 2013,

Cada cierto tiempo tengo la costumbre de releer ciertos documentos, para comparar lo que comprendo hoy, con relación a lo que entendí la última vez que lo leí, evidentemente deben ser documentos originales de gente original, este es uno de esos casos, donde hoy lo que voy leyendo de Hal y las explicaciones que voy recibiendo de Craig, hacen que muchas piezas encajen.

Para evitar, que por algún motivo pueda desaparecer, dejo una copia del documento original y una traducción al castellano en la blockchain.
Buena lectura!!!!!!!
https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/3c2c260b60d6959d4654520dab868279dc3d84ffadf168403aa723c2b5110f28

HAL FINNEY: EL PRIMER BITCOINER
Publicado por Javier Bastardo |
Abr 14, 2019 |

Nacido en California, el 4 de mayo de 1956, Finney estudió en el California Institute of Technology (CalTech), graduándose como ingeniero en 1979. Sus primeros trabajos estuvieron relacionados con los videojuegos, siendo parte del equipo de desarrollo de juegos como Astroblast o Space Attack.

Durante su carrera profesional llegó a ser desarrollador de PGP Corporation, convirtiéndose en el segundo miembro de la plantilla de desarrolladores del proyecto luego de su creador, Phil Zimmerman. Fue parte fundamental de la versión 2.0 de esta herramienta.

https://www.criptonoticias.com/colecciones/hal-finney-primer-bitcoiner/

Who created Bitcoin?
Craig Wright reveals alleged contributors for the first time
| Full Interview
Crypto Finder
Publicado el 27 abr. 2019
https://youtu.be/8_SoIXUBIhw

44:30 How Hal Finney & Ray Dillinger helped

Acabo de traducir otro artículo de los que considero, "reliquias" de la comunidad, esta vez de Ray Dillinger, un total desconocido para mí, hasta hoy, pero de una importantísima labor en los primeros momentos de la creación del software de Bitcoin, trabajando de la mano con Satoshi Nakamoto y Hal Finney a finales del 2008.

Me complace ver que no solo tenía los conocimientos, como para contribuir en el proyecto, sino los valores que siempre le he reconocido a los pioneros de la comunidad.


Si hubiera sabido lo que estábamos empezando.
Publicado el 20 de septiembre de 2017
Ray Dillinger

https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/028b2d8183d8bcf4662974dbe1c7eadf5c4700b339c3429e8aaae77256382cbe

On p. 7 they write:

By the time he released the paper, he had already coded the entire system. In his own words, “I had to write all the code before I could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I wrote the paper.” Based on historical estimates, Satoshi likely started formalizing the Bitcoin concept sometime in late 2006 and started coding around May 2007.

Worth pointing out that Hal Finney and Ray Dillinger — and likely several others – helped audit the code and paper before any of it was publicly released. https://www.ofnumbers.com/category/bitcoin/

"Hashcash was also used by Hal Finney's bitcoin precursor RPOW as a way to mine coins. Wei Dai's B-money Proposal, and Nick Szabo's similar Bit Gold proposalbitcoin precursors, also were proposed in the context of hashcash mining."

https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Hashcash&type=revision&diff=66429&oldid=66369

RPOW - Reusable Proofs of Work
2004
Archived Website

GitHub

Original Announcement

Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPOW) was an invention by Hal Finney intended as a prototype for a digital cash based on Nick Szabo's theory of collectibles. RPOW was a significant early step in the history of digital cash and was a precursor to Bitcoin. Although never intended to be more than a prototype, RPOW was a very sophisticated piece of software that would have been capable of serving a huge network, had it caught on.


https://nakamotoinstitute.org/finney/rpow/

RPOW - Reusable Proofs of Work
Hal Finney
August 15, 2004
Archived website
GitHub

To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net
Subject: RPOW - Reusable Proofs of Work
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: hal at finney dot org ("Hal Finney")

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/rpow/

"Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

published by Hal Finney 31/12/2008

Sometimes we consider here the nature of consciousness, whether observer moments need to be linked to one another, the role of causality in consciousness, etc. I thought of an interesting puzzle about Boltzmann Brains which offers a new twist to these questions. As most readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of Boltzmann on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be time symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas would undergo fluctuations to regions of lower entropy. Sometimes, purely at random, clumps of molecules would happen to form. Even more rarely, these clumps might be large and ordered. Given infinite time, one could even have an entire visible-universe worth of matter clump together in an ordered fashion, from which state it would then decay into higher entropy conditions. Life could evolve during this decay, observe the universe around it, and find itself in conditions much like our own.

The Boltzmann Brain is a counter-argument, suggesting that the universe and everything else is redundant; all you need is a brain to form via a spontaneous random fluctuation, and to hold together long enough to engage in a few moments of conscious thought. Such a Boltzmann Brain is far more likely to form than an entire universe, hence the vast majority of conscious thoughts in such a model will be in Boltzmann Brains and not in brains in large universes. If we were tempted to explain the arrow of time in this way, we must accept that the universe is an illusion and that we are actually Boltzmann Brains, a conclusion which most people don't like.

Now this scenario can be criticized in many ways, but I want to emphasize a couple of points which aren't always appreciated. The first is that the Boltzmann scenario, whether a whole universe or just a Brain is forming, is basically time symmetric. That means that if you saw a movie of a Boltzmann universe forming and then decaying back to random entropy, you would not be able to tell which way the movie was running, if it were to be reversed. (This is an unavoidable consequence of the time symmetry of the underlying physics.) It follows that while the universe is moving into the low-entropy state, it must be evolving backwards. That is, an observer from outside would see time appearing to run backwards. Eggs would un-scramble themselves, objects would fall upwards from the ground, ripples would converge on spots in lakes from which rocks would then leap from the water, and so on.

At some point this time reversal effect would stop, and the universe would then proceed to evolve back into a high entropy state, now with time going "forwards". Now, the forward phase will not in general be an exact mirror image of the reverse, because of slight random fluctuations and the like, but it will be an alternate path that essentially starts with the same initial conditions. So we will see one path backwards into the minimum-entropy state, and another path forwards from that state. Both paths are fully plausible histories and neither is distinguishable from the other as far as which was reversed and which was forward, if you ran a recording of the whole process backwards.

One might ask, what causes time to run backwards during the first half of the Boltzmann scenario? The answer is, nothing but very, very odd luck. Time is no more likely to continue to run backwards, or to run backwards the same everywhere in the local fluctuation-area, than it is to start running backwards right now in the universe around you. Nothing stops eggs from unscrambling themselves except the unlikelihood, and the same principle is at work during the Boltzmann time-reversal phase. It is merely that we select, out of the infinity of time, ..."
http://ohmysatoshi.com/2008

"Prof Wrightson knew of Wei Dai, and pointed me towards a paper titled “Knowledge-Based Communication Processes in Building Design” that he knew of because of his work in machine learning. Both Adam Back and Prof Wrightson directed me to Wei Dai. 戴维 turned out to be another cypherpunk, and he was an incredibly helpful one. I used some of his code in the original release of Bitcoin — with his permission. Andreas Furche knew of Hal Finney and Adam Back. So I emailed people. I was researching in 2005, and came to the conclusion that I could build something. By 2007, I was ready to start".
https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/fully-peer-to-peer/

The following are a series of emails from Satoshi Nakamoto to Hal Finney, written in January 2009 as the
two were working on early versions of the bitcoin software. Mr. Finney supplied these emails to The Wall
Street Journal in the spring of 2014.
Since these emails were all coming from Nakamoto to Mr. Finney, they are Nakamoto’s responses to Mr.
Finney’s emails, the body of which is marked by the > symbol. The exchange begins on Jan. 10, 2009, and
ends on Jan. 24, 2009, and comprises the time they were working on versions 0.1.0 through 0.1.3 of the
bitcoin software.

-------- Forwarded message -------
From: Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshi@vistomail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Subject: RE:Crash in bitcoin 0.1.0
To: hal.finney@gmail.com

Normally I would keep the symbols in, but they increased the size of the EXE from 6.5MB to 50MB so I
just couldn't justify not stripping them. I guess I made the wrong decision, at least for this early version. I'm kind of surprised there was a crash, I've tested heavily and haven't had an outright exception for a while. Come to think of it, there isn't even an exception print at the end of debug.log. I've been testing on XP SP2, maybe SP3 is something.

I've attached bitcoin.exe with symbols. (gcc symbols for gdb, if you're using MSVC I can send you an MSVC build with symbols)

Thanks for your help!

>Hi Satoshi
- I tried running bitcoin.exe from the 0.1.0 package, and it crashed. I am running on an up to date version of XP, SP3. The debug.log output is attached. There was also a file db.log but it was empty.

>The crash allowed me to start up a debugger, but there were no symbols. The exception was at address 00930AF7. The displayed call stack was 942316 called by 508936.
>
>When I have a chance, I'll try building it, although it looks like it would take me a while to acquire all the dependencies.
>
>Hal


From: Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshi@vistomail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Crash in bitcoin 0.1.0
To: hal.finney@gmail.com

I was temporarily able to reproduce the bug and narrowed it down to the "mapAddresses.count" in the
following code. It was absolutely the last piece of code to go in and mainly only got tested with the MSVC build. It's not essential and I'm inclined to turn off optimization and delete the section of code
until I figure out what's going on.

I'm attaching a dbg exe you can try that deletes the line of code and turns off optimization. I'm not able to reproduce it anymore at the moment.
irc.cpp:
if (pszName[0] == 'u')
{
CAddress addr;
if (DecodeAddress(pszName, addr))
{
CAddrDB addrdb;
if (AddAddress(addrdb, addr))
printf("new ");
else
{
// make it try connecting sooner
CRITICAL_BLOCK(cs_mapAddresses)
if (mapAddresses.count(addr.GetKey()))
mapAddresses[addr.GetKey()].nLastFailed = 0;
}
addr.print();
}
else
{
printf("decode failed\n");

"In 2008 it was a ‘hodgepodge’, he said. I asked him if he felt the development of bitcoin was, at some level, a response to the financial crisis. ‘It was already in process. I saw [the crisis] coming though. It was a kind of perfect storm. During that year, I spoke to Wei Dai. So between him and Hal Finney there were a lot of really good ideas about making money work … [Finney] was the one who actually took what I said seriously. He received the first bitcoin.’"

The Satoshi Affair.
Andrew O’Hagan in the #LRB:
30 June 2016
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair

Lectura altamente recomendada para este verano, prepárate para lo que viene!!!

The Satoshi afaire.
Andrew O’Hagan
30 June 2016

"...The Genesis block is the one that didn’t crash.’ There from the beginning was Hal Finney, who would receive the first bitcoin transaction, on block 9. This was a key moment for the new cryptocurrency: block 9 for ever shows that Satoshi sent Finney ten bitcoin on 12 January 2009 – it is the first outgoing transaction we know to have come from Satoshi. Satoshi also sent four other transactions on the same day. I asked Wright who the recipients were – who the four addresses belonged to. ‘Hal, Dave, myself,’ he replied. ‘And another I cannot name as I have no right to do so.’ Wright told me that around this time he was in correspondence with Wei Dai, with Gavin Andresen, who would go on to lead the development of bitcoin, and Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who had ideas about the direction bitcoin should take...."


The Satoshi Affair.
Andrew O’Hagan in the #LRB:
30 June 2016
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n13/andrew-ohagan/the-satoshi-affair