Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
I Am Not Satoshi (dustintrammell.com)
318 points by citricsquid 143 days ago | comments


gjm11 143 days ago | link

General consensus seems to be that Ron&Shamir's publications on this topic are extraordinarily weak given how stellar a record Shamir, in particular, has.

The conclusion seems obvious: It's a misdirection. Adi Shamir is Satoshi Nakamoto.

(Note: No, I do not in fact believe this.)

-----

theboywho 143 days ago | link

I think it's important to note that this paper was a research paid by the Citi foundation, which belongs to Citi Group, a financial services corporation formed following the merger of banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group.

-----

mseebach 143 days ago | link

Why exactly is that important? Because it suggests that Citi is involved in hiding the identity of Satoshi and that implies their involvement in setting up Bitcoin?

Or am I missing an angle here?

-----

rs232 143 days ago | link

I think the claim made is that the powers that be are actively working against Bitcoin, here by tarnishing its reputation with sensationalist research.

-----

wmf 143 days ago | link

This sounds like a fairly typical case of an advisor giving a student free reign. Most professors do not invest the time to understand their students' work as much as you might think.

-----

feral 143 days ago | link

As your comment is 3rd from the top of page:

You could investigate that with a few minutes of googling - the 'student' has been writing CS papers since the mid '80s [0]

This reminds me of when someone on HN described both the authors as 'some Israeli CS students' [1]

Whatever you think about this particular paper, the authors are experienced researchers.

[0] http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~dron/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5209356

-----

Aqueous 143 days ago | link

And as Adi Shamir could have found out with a little more Googling, the address belonged to Trammell, not Satoshi.

It takes a bad Googler to know a bad Googler.

I guess we're all just bad Googlers.

We should really brush up on our Googling.

-----

wmf 143 days ago | link

I stand corrected and I apologize to Dr. Ron. I am still not sure how much Shamir is responsible for the flaws in this research given that he's not the first author.

-----

lkozma 143 days ago | link

I'm not sure about this particular paper, but in most theoretical fields the authors are listed alphabetically by last name (the assumption being that each of them made a contribution without which the paper wouldn't exist - so ranking them is not important).

-----

Crito 143 days ago | link

So what we are saying here is that in the "did a bit of preliminary googling before writing something foolish" department, they did about as well as a HN commenter.

Seriously, the slight difference here makes your comparison less than flattering. This seems like some form of "damning with faint praise".

-----

vbuterin 143 days ago | link

This is not even the first paper by Dorit Ron and Shamir on Bitcoin; they did an analysis of the transaction graph earlier: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf‎

And that one too was quite poorly done; from the text, it actually seemed like they thought that "the blockchain" is a file stored on blockchain.info. Disappointing from the inventor of Shamir's Secret Sharing and differential cryptanalysis.

-----

oakwhiz 143 days ago | link

  We acquired the complete state of the Bitcoin transaction system [...]
  This required downloading 180,001 separate but linked HTML files [...]
  following the links backwards to the zeroth block [...]
  Each file was parsed in order to extract all the multisender/multireceiver transactions in it, and then the collection of transactions was encoded as a standard database on our local machine.
This is definitely a very strange way of retrieving the blockchain for research purposes. Couldn't they have simply issued RPC calls to the regular bitcoind client after downloading the blockchain via the built-in peer-to-peer mechanism?

-----

carbocation 143 days ago | link

Yes. In fact, I'm sure (formally, "I suspect") that what you are describing is exactly how blockchain.info gets its data in the first place.

-----

runeks 143 days ago | link

No. Blockchain.info indexes the block chain by address. bitcoind indexes the block chain by transaction IDs (if you enable it). You'd still have to index the data you get from RPC calls by address if you want to track the movement of certain coins.

It's a lot easier to just get it from blockchain.info.

-----

nwh 143 days ago | link

> it actually seemed like they thought that "the blockchain" is a file stored on blockchain.info

People seem to confuse that a lot. It's a badly named service at the best of times. I wonder how many legal requests the site will get from people believing they run Bitcoin.

-----

m_ram 143 days ago | link

I was about to argue with you about it not being very confusing, but then I read the "About" section on the front page:

"This site allows you to navigate the bitcoin blockchain (a database which holds information about all transactions)."

That really does make it sound like they are storing the centralized database for bitcoin.

Edit: changed "storing a" to "storing the" to clarify my point per gojomo's reply.

-----

gojomo 143 days ago | link

Blockchain.info is storing a centralized database for Bitcoin. Just not the centralized database... because there's not any official one. They're a value-added replica (via indexing & UI), not a constitutional authority.

(They have some earned authority, by a record of useful service.)

-----

ars_technician 143 days ago | link

It's not 'a centralized' database at all. Calling it that only adds to the confusion.

-----

Crito 143 days ago | link

I can see where you are coming from, but how could you word that to be technically correct, succinct (not a full blown lecture on what bitcoin is), and not leave yourself open to giving people that impression?

Bitcoin isn't the simplest concept around. Unless you are in the business of packaging up bitcoin for non-technical consumers, I think it is reasonable to expect your users to bring some knowledge about bitcoin to the table.

-----

Philadelphia 143 days ago | link

"This site allows you to navigate through a copy of the bitcoin blockchain"

-----

Crito 143 days ago | link

Yeah, that's definitely better. You might still have people falling into the weird "the blockchain is a bunch of html documents" hole though.

-----

tlrobinson 143 days ago | link

"Disappointing from the inventor of Shamir's Secret Sharing and differential cryptanalysis."

Indeed, as I was reading the post I thought to myself "it couldn't be that Shamir, could it?" Oh.

-----

ninguem2 143 days ago | link

And the S in RSA.

-----

eigenvalue 143 days ago | link

I'd be shocked if the NSA hadn't "invented" differential cryptanalysis long before Shamir.

-----

caf 143 days ago | link

Does that matter? If two people independently invent the same thing, they're both inventors with equal standing. The classic example being Leibniz and Newton with regards to calculus of infintesimals.

-----

ogreyonder 143 days ago | link

Apparently it matters to the good people of Marshall, Texas. According to them, Whitfield Diffie didn't invent public key encryption for exactly that reason.

Yeah, I'm more than a little bitter about the technologically illiterate being allowed to judge complex technology.

-----

Crito 143 days ago | link

Isn't it a given that they did? They strengthened DES's s-boxes against it 10 or so years before it was publicly discovered iirc.

-----

ars_technician 143 days ago | link

You're right, that's precisely why they changed DES.

-----

bitcoin-truth 143 days ago | link

Yes indeed. The first time they actually scraped the blockchain.info website, this time they've finally figured out that the blockchain is public and parsed a local blockchain.dat

The New World is built on the results of that generation of cryptographers, but they can't keep up.

-----

betterunix 143 days ago | link

I find the criticism of research papers on the part of Bitcoin supporters a bit ironic. Have people forgotten how poorly researched the original Bitcoin paper was?

-----

nullymcnull 143 days ago | link

Not sure what you mean by 'poorly researched'. Whatever it's flaws, it produced a hell of an innovative idea (or rather, a conglomeration of ideas into something innovative), and it has grown into something undeniably huge. Something people are building businesses upon. Something that is trading at over $900 USD/unit right now, despite countless rounds of naysayers decrying its intrinsic worthlessness and foretelling it's doom.

Meanwhile these guys are merely riding on the huge waves which that 'poorly researched' paper left in its wake, trying to catch some press-coverage-by-association with their shoddy research. I'm failing to see the irony here, this is apples and oranges stuff. Really seems like you just wanted to sneer at 'Bitcoin supporters'.

-----

betterunix 143 days ago | link

"Not sure what you mean by 'poorly researched'."

I mean that it was poorly researched. There was no definition of security, no mention of the vast body of related work in digital cash or secure multiparty computation, a weak security analysis, no mention of the fact that polynomial time attacks are usually considered to indicate that a system is not secure (one would think that a different security model would require at least some justification), and so forth. That is not the mark of a solid research paper; the fact that Bitcoin has become so famous or that people are making money with it has no bearing on the quality of Satoshi's own research.

-----

nullc 143 days ago | link

It was a simple white paper, offered up anonymously for only what it was. It made no claims which have been demonstrated to be false, which is more than you can say about the paper being discussed here.

The Bitcoin whitepaper does what it says on the tin, you're the one inventing criteria for it that it doesn't meet. The white paper is also remarkably readable, which is something you can't say for most academic works.

-----

betterunix 143 days ago | link

"It made no claims which have been demonstrated to be false"

That is because no falsifiable claims were made.

(Edit: Strictly speaking, this is not true. Falsifiable claims were made; this, for example:

An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent.

This claim has already been falsified: an attacker who can control the block chain can also selectively deny transaction verifications and prevent miners from receiving the mining reward.)

"you're the one inventing criteria for it that it doesn't meet"

No, I am just stating the criteria that determine how well-researched a paper is. If a paper does not cite the relevant previous work, it is poorly researched -- that is the standard that every other paper is held to. If a cryptography paper does not have a well-formed or clearly articulated security definition, it is poorly researched -- that is the standard other cryptography papers are held to. If a security paper breaks from widely accepted notions of security but never bothers to justify that, it is poorly researched. These are not unheard-of criteria, these are standard fare.

"The white paper is also remarkably readable"

What is your point? Readability is orthogonal to how well-researched a paper is.

-----

nullc 143 days ago | link

> If a paper does not cite the relevant previous work,

This is elevating form above substance. Ron & Shamir's work has the proper form, the proper names, and yet the material it contains is rubbish. It cites "relevant previous work", so long as you think that none of the work in industry is relevant.

The gold standard should not be if a work follows a set of practices, advisable as they may be, it should be if a work advances the understanding of mankind. One of these papers did, the other does not.

-----

jeremyjh 143 days ago | link

Reference to previous work is not some perfunctory requirement to satisfy for academic due process. It is critical for the advancement of knowledge. Also, its pretty much entirely the definition of "well-researched". Work that is done completely independent of the established base of knowledge in a field can be valuable but someone has to do the work of integrating it and contrasting it with what was already known or else how can you weed out the cranks without many people spending many hours working through their enormous stacks of drivel?

G. H. Hardy said that his most important contribution to the study of mathematics was the discovery of Ramanujan. One could easily make the mistake of thinking this contribution could have been easily replicated by someone else, but its entirely likely that never would have happened at all because Ramanujan was not aware of much of the contemporary work that he blitzed past.

-----

javert 143 days ago | link

Betterunix has been in this discussion many, many times.

I don't think there is any way to get him to stop saying that bitcoin isn't an achievement and that it is a priori invalid because it doens't have a "formal security model."

-----

nullc 143 days ago | link

Well he stopped saying there was no formal security analysis once someone linked him to one, I think. :)

-----

betterunix 142 days ago | link

I believe that I responded to that paper at least once. By my memory, the formalization of Bitcoin's security left room for a polynomial time attack on the system. That is a fine restatement of what we already know about Bitcoin, but:

1. It is irrelevant to this thread, because I was only talking about Satoshi's paper.

2. It is not the sort of security people demand out of other cryptosystems. There is a reason nobody uses this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%27s_Puzzles

-----

javert 142 days ago | link

If someone could link me to the paper in question, I would really appreciate it.

-----

nullymcnull 141 days ago | link

A little late, but I believe this is the paper mentioned: https://socrates1024.s3.amazonaws.com/consensus.pdf

-----

vbuterin 142 days ago | link

Personally, I say thank god it was poorly researched. If the whole thing was inundated with 20 pages of obscure terminology and various arcane inequalities far fewer people would have understood it. Also, Bitcoin takes such a completely different tack from existing digital cash and SMPC schemes that I think including any discussion on those would have been distracting.

-----

mafribe 143 days ago | link

Real-world cryptography often doesn't have security definitions, e.g. AES. In parts that is because security definitions tend to be asymptotic (which is a massive simplification), and real cryptography is working at a fixed parameter. Coming up with a good security definition is hard, the 2013 Turing award was given for one. I think it will take a long time before we get a realistic security definition for Bitcoin.

-----

betterunix 142 days ago | link

"Real-world cryptography often doesn't have security definitions, e.g. AES"

Block ciphers do have security definitions; what AES lacks is a rigorous proof that it satisfies the definition of security for a block cipher. There are different definitions for different notions of security, but that does not mean there is no security definition. It is also untrue to suggest that security parameters are fixed in practice; this is certainly false for public-key cryptography, but Rijndael was designed to support arbitrary parameters, as are many other practical block ciphers and hash functions.

"Coming up with a good security definition is hard, the 2013 Turing award was given for one."

Not one definition, but several definitions and an entire paradigm for definitions. The work also set the groundwork for proving that cryptosystems and cryptographic constructions meet such definitions.

Really, the importance of having a security definition cannot be understated. Without a security definition, you cannot have any falsifiable claims about security. If I claim a system without a definition is insecure, you can always refute me by claiming that the system was never designed to defend against my attack -- which is technically correct, because without a definition the system cannot be said to be designed to defend against any attacks.

Also, note that I did not say that Satoshi failed to give a good security definition for Bitcoin. What I said is that Satoshi failed to give any security definition. If Satoshi had given an unrealistic or otherwise bad security definition, then we could have a productive conversation about the definition and about whether or not Bitcoin satisfies it.

"I think it will take a long time before we get a realistic security definition for Bitcoin."

The thing is that we do have realisitic security definitions for digital cash -- the definitions just happen to rely on the existence of a central authority that issues the currency, which is a deal-breaker for the Bitcoin community.

-----

computer 143 days ago | link

One of the consequences of a public transaction chain is the great potential for witch hunts. Here's one of the first examples, but it surely won't be the last.

-----

wjnc 143 days ago | link

The scary thing of these kinds of witch hunts is that law enforcement is listening / reading / conducting hunts of their own. And they will be prone to the same mistakes as these readers.

That brings the frontrunners of Bitcoin in a predicament.

On the one hand they are often libertarians and very happy with the succes of Bitcoin. On the other hand, getting in early gives them some windfall gains, and law enforcement will go after them, since many of the real criminals using Bitcoin will remain elusive to them.

A little tidbit that will hit any of them sooner or later: did they properly file their taxes on the Bitcoins they mined? Trammell just admitted holding 800K$ worth of Bitcoins. Where did they come from? (Mining, I know, but those lawsuits will get hairy, because lack of knowledge.)

-----

pacificmint 143 days ago | link

> Trammell just admitted holding 800K$ worth of Bitcoins.

Well, no. He admitted to holding an amount of Bitcoins that would now be worth 800k. At the time he transferred them they were worth a 20th of that amount.

-----

cLeEOGPw 143 days ago | link

That's a positive thing, because it only grows trust between members of community.

-----

computer 143 days ago | link

I don't think so; witch hunts didn't exactly grow trust between people in the middle ages. Witch hunts grow mob feelings between people against whoever happens to get crushed by their collective paranoia that day.

-----

enraged_camel 143 days ago | link

I thought the parent was being sarcastic.

-----

giergirey 142 days ago | link

Pedant's note: Contrary to popular belief, witch hunts were rare in the Middle Ages. They took off in popularity during the Renaissance.

-----

scaphandre 140 days ago | link

Annoying meta-pedant note: You presumably mean that witch hunts mainly occurred in puritanical areas, at a time in which the Renaissance was occurring elsewhere in the world.

-----

bitcoin-truth 143 days ago | link

I think the parent poster meant that the witch hunts in the 21st century related to bitcoin only grow trust in the bitcoin community that witchhunts are destined to fail.

More people see that having financial privacy is a good thing, and trust in bitcoin grows.

-----

cfontes 143 days ago | link

Unless you are the one being hunted and have to stop your life to explain yourself and hope they get it before someone on FBI believes on it.

-----

cLeEOGPw 143 days ago | link

I think if you have much influence, people should know at least who you are. The same applies to any kind of influence, but with fiat currencies it is much easier to hide it in certain positions.

This could also have a maybe unintended consequence of increasing equality, because some people, knowing who has the most bitcoins, might act to decrease the influence they feel is too large by, for example, choosing alternative product or service to use or buy. We see this effect already with people feeling that corporations like Google have grown too big and some go out of their way to not use their services.

-----

Crito 143 days ago | link

If/When bitcoin grows as large as some think/hope it will, there won't be "a bitcoin community" anymore than there is a "USD community". Sure, you'll have communities of various sorts surrounding different aspects of the currency, like you do with any other currency, but for the most part the users of it won't really have any real sense of "community membership". I pay for things with paypal on occasion, but I don't have any sense of a "paypal community".

-----

thisiswrong 143 days ago | link

Until Zerocoin gets kicking. Zerocoin is no longer to be integrated into bitcoin but released as an altcoin.

-----

Aqueous 143 days ago | link

I think we should look closer at the cryptography mailing list for evidence of Satoshi's identity. It seems likely that at some point Satoshi posted under his real name about something unrelated to BitCoin, before he decided to switch identities to release BitCoin under a pseudonym. I really doubt that Satoshi would have lurked silently there for many years before suddenly dropping the BitCoin whitepaper on the list without once contributing under his own name, perhaps before he was even thinking about BitCoin.

I think someone should do a quantified textual analysis of posts to to derive some sort of written language fingerprint for each author on the Cryptography Mailing List. Has anyone been able to derive a unique fingerprint of written language that accurately predicts the identity of the author? Has an analysis like this been done and come up empty?

-----

kanzure 143 days ago | link

At the moment, it would be really helpful if you could submit archives of the original cypherpunk mailing list, the p2p-hackers mailing list, the cryptology mailing list, and the original member list of the p2presearch mailing list (not the current one).

A copy of the original pdf would also be really helpful. Not the one that md5 hashes to d56d71ecadf2137be09d8b1d35c6c042 please.

Here is some content in return: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin-satoshi/

I am secretly hoping that Satoshi (and many others like him) really were lurking throughout the entire cypherpunk history, because it plays well into the cyberpunk fantasy unrolling in my head.

-----

ohwp 143 days ago | link

The term "proof-of-work" (with the dashes) is not used very often. But in all Bitcoin documentation it's written with the dashes.

Now there is one Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system started by 'Julian Krause', so Satoshi might be Julian Krause.. ;)

-----

DominikR 143 days ago | link

Why does it really matter who Satoshi is?

He didn't do anything illegal so why should anyone try to uncover his identity even though he's chosen anonymity for himself?

-----

toyg 143 days ago | link

You could argue that it's in the public interest to know who created Bitcoin and why.

What if Satoshi were a NSA stooge and the algorithm had currently-unknown weaknesses that would allow a selected group of in-the-know people to generate BC at rates much higher than regular miners?

Cryptography does not lie, but we often don't know what (or how) to ask the right questions. Satoshi's identity could help shape those questions.

-----

DominikR 142 days ago | link

As far as I know, everything is open source, and I'm sure that some cryptography experts already analyzed that.

And even if no one did, it is obvious that the person/organization that started the whole thing would have the highest profit by definition without the need of any backdoor.

Just look at how many Bitcoins Satoshi made at the start, when competition and mining difficulty was low.

But yes, I share your concerns, since it could be a pyramid scheme.

The one that starts it profits the most, everyone that enters the game later earns less but hopes that the value increases as long as more and more new players are joining.

And this currency is deflationary by design, which obviously helps driving profit expectations for everyone. (why the hell would you want deflation in a currency? Deflation reduces circulation which defeats the purpose of a currency)

-----

bennyg 143 days ago | link

I'd rather not know. It's more fun this way - almost like a Banksy of cryptography.

-----

jamesrom 143 days ago | link

> a unique fingerprint of written language that accurately predicts the identity of the author

These kinds of analysis are usually more "fuzzy" than "unique" and "accurate". And can be easily fooled if you are trying to remain anonymous. Especially in the case that Satoshi isn't a single person.

-----

darkmighty 143 days ago | link

Agreed, but strong evidence could plausibly be found. Also the style of writing/spelling errors can sometimes reveal nationality if you're familiar enough with different languages. I don't think someone would go through that much work, though.

-----

Tycho 143 days ago | link

If it pointed to a particular individual then people would quickly find corroborating evidence (or not), so the fuzziness doesn't make the analysis useless.

-----

stfu 143 days ago | link

If his statement is true the "research" by Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir seems more than just accidentally flawed, not to say even highly misleading.

-----

shubb 143 days ago | link

Well, he said that the research was funded by Citi bank's 'philanthropic' foundation. Is he mentioning that to insinuate that a bank is trying to produce de-anonymizing scare research about Bitcoin, which need not be true so long as it shakes consumer confidence?

I suspect it's just very easy to get funding for Bitcoin related research right now because it's a hot topic, but that would be a much more fun explanation...

-----

stfu 140 days ago | link

In theory I would like to assume that especially seasoned academics are more concerned about their reputation than a few thousand Citi bank dollars.

-----

maaku 143 days ago | link

As have been their previous papers on the subject.

-----

DigitalSea 143 days ago | link

I doubt the real identity of Satoshi will ever be revealed. Seriously, if the claims of Satoshi mining the first 20,000 Bitcoins is true (with a value of almost one billion), would he seriously want to be publicly known?

I would imagine the FBI amongst other Government organisations and figures would love nothing more than to pick Satoshi's brain (by force if need be) if his or her identity were to ever be truly revealed. We won't ever know who the real Satoshi is.

I can make baseless and factless accusations as to who I think Satoshi is as well. I think it's Al Gore, he invented the Internet after all.

-----

manuelflara 143 days ago | link

Where did you get that 20,000 Bitcoins are worth (even hypothetically) one billion? Even at $1,000 per BTC that's just $20M.

-----

unreal37 143 days ago | link

The paper linked speculates that a small group of people mined the first 20,000 blocks of Bitcoin. 20,000 blocks (@50 coins each) is 1,000,000 bitcoins, which @ $1000 is $1 billion.

-----

manuelflara 143 days ago | link

Ah, got it. Confused bitcoin with blocks. Thanks.

-----

saalweachter 143 days ago | link

I think that's coming from the idea that the "ultimate value" of the BTC money supply should be ~$1 trillion (in order for it to replace real-world currencies in a significant fraction of transactions). 20,0000 Bitcoins is ~1/1000th of 21,000,000 potential Bitcoins.

-----

theintern 143 days ago | link

Some people estimate his net worth to have been not 20,000, but 1.6 million bitcoins. That adds to over a billion dollars.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the...

-----

judk 143 days ago | link

But $1B in nominal marginal priced BTC is faaar less liquid (less order book depth) than most other assets.

-----

runeks 143 days ago | link

Yeah, it's worth more like $50M if you place your sells across exchanges:

    1,600,000.00 bitcoins can be sold for 35,066,701.01 USD on Mt. Gox with a slippage of 1,544,789,298.99 USD (97.78%)
    222,043.14 bitcoins (insufficient bid volume) can be sold for 15,395,973.27 USD on Bitstamp with a slippage of 1,493,404,026.73 USD (98.98%)

-----

njharman 143 days ago | link

> I doubt the real identity of Satoshi will ever be revealed.

They should include revelation in their will. For history's sake if nothing else.

-----

saraid216 143 days ago | link

I think Satoshi is the NSA. This is 99% because it would be the most entertaining result, and 1% actual reasoning ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6206086 ).

-----

digikata 143 days ago | link

It would be entertaining if the NSA could use blockchain data as an aid to cracking systems which employ SHA-256. It would be doubly fun if bitcoin was originally some off-the-cuff gamification scheme to help generate lookup tables for the NSA.

-----

thom 143 days ago | link

Are there any papers about practical (slash nefarious) uses one could make from the work put into the blockchain? I had the same thoughts as you recently, but don't have the background to imagine what's possible.

-----

maxerickson 143 days ago | link

Each miner includes their own address and a nonce value in the work they are doing. Most of the work that goes into mining is generating failed hashes and is discarded by the client. Assuming a lack of mathematical attacks on sha 256, there isn't really anything nefarious to do with the published blocks.

-----

lifeformed 143 days ago | link

I want a universe to exist where the answer to every question is based on its entertainment value.

-----

sliverstorm 143 days ago | link

Can we rule out the FBI?

-----

Munksgaard 143 days ago | link

Not smart enough?

-----

saraid216 143 days ago | link

I think so. Bitcoin is too global to be interesting to a domestic agency. It's more likely to be CIA.

If it's part of a policing effort, then it's obviously part of the UN, which according to Tim LeHaye, rules over the United States with an iron fist and is where the shadow government of totally-not-Jews would do exactly this kind of thing.

The only name I have for that is New World Order.

-----

sliverstorm 143 days ago | link

I would believe NSA before CIA. The FBI gets involved in the internet space, but it doesn't seem like the CIA does all that much.

-----

saraid216 143 days ago | link

You're not supposed to think the CIA does much. They're the actual spy agency; the whole "just a star on the wall at Langley" thing is CIA; you don't hear about their victories, and if you do, it's a failure of some kind. Stuxnet, for instance, was almost certainly CIA.

If Bitcoin is a targeted strike against China somehow (not completely impossible), then the CIA is the likeliest candidate. Otherwise, of the USGov national agencies, the NSA is most likely.

The FBI doesn't really get anything out of it. The only reason I can think of for the FBI to do it is for paying off informants anonymously. (And as I've pointed out before, if anyone's an expert on money laundering, it's the FBI.)

-----

judk 143 days ago | link

It would be interesting if (inplementors of a majority of the client software installed base of) the community declared and anti-hoarders coup, and refused to verify transactions involving the low ID bitcoins.

-----

vijayboyapati 143 days ago | link

I wonder, is research like journalism where an academic is morally obliged to issue a retraction or correction for conclusions shown, conclusively, to be false?

-----

leoc 143 days ago | link

More or less. However it's also like journalism in that you shouldn't necessarily hold your breath until it happens.

-----

vijayboyapati 143 days ago | link

Looks like they posted a retraction: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road...

I hope they also apologized.

-----

smsm42 143 days ago | link

So, they put forward a theory, it turned out to be wrong, they said "ok, we agree, we were wrong". I think this is how the science is supposed to work, not? Vast number of theories and ideas are put out and most of them prove to be wrong, some prove to be true. I think it is a very normal and healthy process and I wonder why so many people feel the need to attack the researchers personally just because one of their ideas turned out to be wrong.

-----

vijayboyapati 141 days ago | link

Because their theory inculpated a person (Satoshi) with criminal activity and they were wrong. That is why an apology was appropriate. This isn't just a matter of scientific incorrectness - someone's reputation was attacked.

-----

eliteraspberrie 143 days ago | link

If it were published in an academic journal, the journal would publish these remarks by Dustin Trammell in the next issue. But this "paper" was published online without peer review, so it's up to Ron and Shamir to do the right thing.

-----

ars_technician 143 days ago | link

Most of the research Shamir does at this point is basically crap like this, which is why it's on a website instead of in a conference or journal.

-----

judk 143 days ago | link

Exposing a weakness in the post-journal open access publishing model. Non peer reviewed work getting more attention thannpeer reviewed work. At least on boards like HN, which I guess never respected the academic community as much as bloggers anyway.

-----

a_bonobo 143 days ago | link

Post journal open access publishing _includes_ peer-review; see PLOS ONE, PeerJ etc.

Similar problems as OP's have been noticed with non "post-journal open access publishing model". That's generally called "science by press conference" now - the most famous case was the arsenic life paper, which was published in Science, a "traditional" journal, and then later retracted after their press conference before the publication generated a huge buzz (and two later papers contradicted their findings).

This isn't a problem that's caused by open access or new publishing models.

-----

More



Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: