Was Satoshi one of the established p2p celebrities?
IMO, this is something that laymen have horribly backward,
Because the intuitions here are exact opposite of what you see in other places.
+ (A) CRIMINALITY / SPORTS:
Extremely COMMON that those who were dominating in the past, are the exact same usual suspects who are dominating at whatever new thing
Whoever was in the tiny < 1% who did the most crimes before, is extremely likely to be guilty of doing the latest unsolved new crimes too.
+ (B) PARADIGM-SHIFTING INNOVATION:
Extremely UNCOMMON for the leaders of the previous wave to be the leaders of the next wave, particularly when the wave must undergo a major shift from one approach to some compeletely different approach.
Bitcoin was, very clearly, of type (B) — paradigm-shifting innovation — the core PoW innovation is a completely different approach from the identity and reputation-based approaches of prior file sharing p2p tech and distributed database consensus tech — instead to a completely identity-free approach, that’s clearly wildly different.
Same happened in AI, in the shift from symbolic-based to connectionist based methods.
Same happened in countless fields of innovation, over thousands of years
— exactly as Planck pointed out:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.”
— Max Planck, 1950
Bitcoin was a major shift, taking on a completely different approach.
In these kinds of cases, the new lead innovator has essentially NEVER been one of the established celebrities popularizing the old way.
= Not good intuition to assume that whoever made past ecash attempts using the prior methods is likely Satoshi.
Thousands of years of innovation shows likely the exact opposite likely to be true.
Opposite of things you might be familiar with, like criminality or sports, where almost definitely those who dominated before are the ones who are dominating again now.
= Satoshi was almost definitely not one of the established p2p celebrities,
who did everything in what ultimately turned out to be the old, wrong way.
Innovation progresses one funeral at a time.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
IMO, this is something that laymen have horribly backward,
Because the intuitions here are exact opposite of what you see in other places.
+ (A) CRIMINALITY / SPORTS:
Extremely COMMON that those who were dominating in the past, are the exact same usual suspects who are dominating at whatever new thing
Whoever was in the tiny < 1% who did the most crimes before, is extremely likely to be guilty of doing the latest unsolved new crimes too.
+ (B) PARADIGM-SHIFTING INNOVATION:
Extremely UNCOMMON for the leaders of the previous wave to be the leaders of the next wave, particularly when the wave must undergo a major shift from one approach to some compeletely different approach.
Bitcoin was, very clearly, of type (B) — paradigm-shifting innovation — the core PoW innovation is a completely different approach from the identity and reputation-based approaches of prior file sharing p2p tech and distributed database consensus tech — instead to a completely identity-free approach, that’s clearly wildly different.
Same happened in AI, in the shift from symbolic-based to connectionist based methods.
Same happened in countless fields of innovation, over thousands of years
— exactly as Planck pointed out:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.”
— Max Planck, 1950
Bitcoin was a major shift, taking on a completely different approach.
In these kinds of cases, the new lead innovator has essentially NEVER been one of the established celebrities popularizing the old way.
= Not good intuition to assume that whoever made past ecash attempts using the prior methods is likely Satoshi.
Thousands of years of innovation shows likely the exact opposite likely to be true.
Opposite of things you might be familiar with, like criminality or sports, where almost definitely those who dominated before are the ones who are dominating again now.
= Satoshi was almost definitely not one of the established p2p celebrities,
who did everything in what ultimately turned out to be the old, wrong way.
Innovation progresses one funeral at a time.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀4💯3
Probablem with the Satoshi is a group theory?
IT’S ALWAYS A LIE EVERYWHERE
You think it’s not a lie.
You’re wrong.
It’s always a lie, literally everywhere.
But the news told you otherwise?
You’re an absolute moron for believing the news.
Mountains of evidence for this, which have shared in the past, and will share in future posts,
But basically once you dig into it, every major innovation is essentially always done by a single person.
Commies will have excuses as to why no innovation is never done by individuals,
why even ever talking to anyone for a minute suddenly means everyone gets credit for whatever is invented,
why making use of any modern technology means every past inventor since the dawn of the stone age should get credit for creation of your invention too
= All absolute commie bs.
Essentially every major invention ever was made by a single person, once you divide up the boundaries properly instead of pathologically.
History full of “group” projects where 1 guy secretly did the entire breakthrough, while 99 others take group credit.
No, talking to others or looking at their failed innovations does not suddenly make it a “group” invention.
No, building upon old tech does not suddenly make something a group project.
Essentially every major breakthrough was an individual breakthrough, to a degree far beyond what you ever imagined.
Will share the evidence later.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
IT’S ALWAYS A LIE EVERYWHERE
You think it’s not a lie.
You’re wrong.
It’s always a lie, literally everywhere.
But the news told you otherwise?
You’re an absolute moron for believing the news.
Mountains of evidence for this, which have shared in the past, and will share in future posts,
But basically once you dig into it, every major innovation is essentially always done by a single person.
Commies will have excuses as to why no innovation is never done by individuals,
why even ever talking to anyone for a minute suddenly means everyone gets credit for whatever is invented,
why making use of any modern technology means every past inventor since the dawn of the stone age should get credit for creation of your invention too
= All absolute commie bs.
Essentially every major invention ever was made by a single person, once you divide up the boundaries properly instead of pathologically.
History full of “group” projects where 1 guy secretly did the entire breakthrough, while 99 others take group credit.
No, talking to others or looking at their failed innovations does not suddenly make it a “group” invention.
No, building upon old tech does not suddenly make something a group project.
Essentially every major breakthrough was an individual breakthrough, to a degree far beyond what you ever imagined.
Will share the evidence later.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯5👏2😐2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
FWIW, finally got around to building my own proper backtesting system last night
Will be testing out some ideas through out the night,
to see if we can confirm or invalidate some strong suspicious as to how predictable these big dumps may be, if you look at the right signals
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Will be testing out some ideas through out the night,
to see if we can confirm or invalidate some strong suspicious as to how predictable these big dumps may be, if you look at the right signals
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀9👏5