adam3us



Offline



Activity: 402

Merit: 265





in bitcoin we trust







Sr. MemberActivity: 402Merit: 265in bitcoin we trust who is this annoying Adam Back guy? June 04, 2013, 07:22:30 PM #1



People seem to think I am trying to claim bitcoin is mostly hashcash with a small change (or it seems that that is what they assume I am saying, its hard to tell other than they find me annoying for some reason). I'm not saying that.



A number of crypto people have asked me seriously over time if I was Satoshi, and I am not, and dont want to be mistaken to be because he has $100mil bitcoin shaped reasons to guard the physical security of his coins. (And I dont even have coins which could be mistaken for really well hidden coins).



People also tell me I probably know Satoshi (ie that I know many of the applied & theoretical crypto privacy tech people and cypherpunks who worked on ecash technologies like digicash, brands ecash/credentials, lucre, wagner mac-based coins, b-money, rpow) though I am not so sure myself if Satoshi came from that background; my guesses are evolving based on the types of bitcoin crypto mistakes (the very few that there were).



So my tag line is actually serious.



Also while it is true that I invented hashcash (1997 hashcash.org), I am not claiming bitcoin is some simple extension, bitcoin has actually several key innovations that no one succeeded with before. And not for lack of trying: there were a number of people on the cypherpunks list who were exceedingly interested in ecash, viewed it as the holy grail, and tried hard for many years (say 1995-2005 range) to figure out how to deploy ecash. (All the central server ones failed, out of business, failed to reach critical mass). And so there was interest in distributed ecash. For example the 1999 Sander & Ta-Shma paper generated a lot of interest (pretty close to zerocoin - the zerocoin references that paper). As far as that goes the bitcoin paper cites the hashcash paper for the proof-of-work, and uses it with small changes (not all of them positive).



Anyway before you say cypherpunks are grey beards trying to muscle into the bitcoin party, you might want to read some of these 1999 threads on the cypherpunks list.



The thread actually started here

and then continues here

because of a subject

line change and then

and

more subject line change confusion.



A related thread a few days later also covers Sander & Ta-Shma (which

zerocoin is based on):



http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154630167&w=2



Eg Wei Dai's B-money and this thread talking about distributed mining. There was an anonymous poster on there who seemed more convinced the B-money related very bitcoin like idea could work - that could have been a 1999 Satoshi:



Quote from: Satoshi in 1999?? This could be a very robust payment system and is worth pursuing further.



The rest of us got stuck on inflation (moore's law) or deflation (fixed up-front supply of coins) and couldnt see a way to control it, other than human intervention. You can see in hindsight that proposal in that thread is rather close to bitcoin and yet we stupidly abandoned the concept and spent years more trying to find other ways to get there.



Hashcash did have some concepts of inflation control but they were not implemented the proposal was to have some group of people estimate moore's law against a reference $1000 machine, and set hashcash difficulty so that the $ cost per hashcash stamp was constant.



I also propose an auditable namespace, I forget when probably around 1999 or so, and bitcoin is related to auditable namespaces.





Another who is this annoying guy first post:



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483



Adam

Taking a leaf from Meni Rosenfeld https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121314 I figured I'd create a thread for people to dis me in. Go for itPeople seem to think I am trying to claim bitcoin is mostly hashcash with a small change (or it seems that that is what they assume I am saying, its hard to tell other than they find me annoying for some reason). I'm not saying that.A number of crypto people have asked me seriously over time if I was Satoshi, and I am not, and dont want to be mistaken to be because he has $100mil bitcoin shaped reasons to guard the physical security of his coins. (And I dont even have coins which could be mistaken for really well hidden coins).People also tell me I probably know Satoshi (ie that I know many of the applied & theoretical crypto privacy tech people and cypherpunks who worked on ecash technologies like digicash, brands ecash/credentials, lucre, wagner mac-based coins, b-money, rpow) though I am not so sure myself if Satoshi came from that background; my guesses are evolving based on the types of bitcoin crypto mistakes (the very few that there were).So my tag line is actually serious.Also while it is true that I invented hashcash (1997 hashcash.org), I am not claiming bitcoin is some simple extension, bitcoin has actually several key innovations that no one succeeded with before. And not for lack of trying: there were a number of people on the cypherpunks list who were exceedingly interested in ecash, viewed it as the holy grail, and tried hard for many years (say 1995-2005 range) to figure out how to deploy ecash. (All the central server ones failed, out of business, failed to reach critical mass). And so there was interest in distributed ecash. For example the 1999 Sander & Ta-Shma paper generated a lot of interest (pretty close to zerocoin - the zerocoin references that paper). As far as that goes the bitcoin paper cites the hashcash paper for the proof-of-work, and uses it with small changes (not all of them positive).Anyway before you say cypherpunks are grey beards trying to muscle into the bitcoin party, you might want to read some of these 1999 threads on the cypherpunks list.The thread actually started here http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629912&w=2 and then continues here http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629900&w=2 because of a subjectline change and then http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629916&w=2 and http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629948&w=2 more subject line change confusion.A related thread a few days later also covers Sander & Ta-Shma (whichzerocoin is based on):Eg Wei Dai's B-money and this thread talking about distributed mining. There was an anonymous poster on there who seemed more convinced the B-money related very bitcoin like idea could work - that could have been a 1999 Satoshi:The rest of us got stuck on inflation (moore's law) or deflation (fixed up-front supply of coins) and couldnt see a way to control it, other than human intervention. You can see in hindsight that proposal in that thread is rather close to bitcoin and yet we stupidly abandoned the concept and spent years more trying to find other ways to get there.Hashcash did have some concepts of inflation control but they were not implemented the proposal was to have some group of people estimate moore's law against a reference $1000 machine, and set hashcash difficulty so that the $ cost per hashcash stamp was constant.I also propose an auditable namespace, I forget when probably around 1999 or so, and bitcoin is related to auditable namespaces. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220138.msg2317418#msg2317418 Another who is this annoying guy first post:Adam hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity

wachtwoord



Offline



Activity: 2100

Merit: 1040







LegendaryActivity: 2100Merit: 1040 Re: who is this annoying Adam Back guy? June 04, 2013, 10:00:47 PM #4



It's totally understandable you are proud of the related work you had done and feel you played a part in making Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrency) become a reality. This is actually the truth as this is how research works: people build on each others' finding.



Also good you started a thread explaining how your work is not Bitcoin. Maybe this will deal with the fact some people find you condescending (if I may paraphrase your post). Perhaps it wasn't the best idea to make your first post on the forum outside of the newbie about what you thought was wrong with Bitcoin*



*Adam made a post in which he tried to convince people to change the hashing algorithm used by Bitcoin to a combination of SCRYPT and double- SHA-256. He didn't manage to convince most people including me, but if he truly believes I think he should start an alt-currency. At least it will be a true experimentation as opposed to the carbon-copies that are popular these days.



Anyway, good luck on the forums and I hope you'll continue to frequent the forum and share you're insight on complicated math problems such as zero-knowledge-proofs I welcome your contributions to the forum, but I already let on as muchIt's totally understandable you are proud of the related work you had done and feel you played a part in making Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrency) become a reality. This is actually the truth as this is how research works: people build on each others' finding.Also good you started a thread explaining how your work is not Bitcoin. Maybe this will deal with the fact some people find you condescending (if I may paraphrase your post). Perhaps it wasn't the best idea to make your first post on the forum outside of the newbie about what you thought was wrong with Bitcoin**Adam made a post in which he tried to convince people to change the hashing algorithm used by Bitcoin to a combination of SCRYPT and double- SHA-256. He didn't manage to convince most people including me, but if he truly believes I think he should start an alt-currency. At least it will be a true experimentation as opposed to the carbon-copies that are popular these days.Anyway, good luck on the forums and I hope you'll continue to frequent the forum and share you're insight on complicated math problems such as zero-knowledge-proofs

bg002h

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 1441

Merit: 1010





I outlived my lifetime membership:)







DonatorLegendaryActivity: 1441Merit: 1010I outlived my lifetime membership:) Re: who is this annoying Adam Back guy? June 04, 2013, 11:13:04 PM

Last edit: June 05, 2013, 01:26:57 AM by bg002h #6 Wow...I'm honored to share the forum with you. I've been looking into the history of digital currency and I have great respect for how clever hashcash is (shouldn't we be using it by now?). Thank you for providing links to our very poorly understood and under appreciated history.



Brian



PS -- just read your newbie intro post. Too funny. People like you get white listed upon request around here!

1GCDzqmX2Cf513E8NeThNHxiYEivU1Chhe Hardforks aren't that hard. Its getting others to use them that's hard.

fellowtraveler



Offline



Activity: 440

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 440Merit: 250 Re: who is this annoying Adam Back guy? June 04, 2013, 11:42:15 PM #7 We're lucky to have a luminary such as Adam Back on this forum. His hashcash innovation is a big part of BTC, and his 'credlib' project will be integrated into OT sometime in the near future. I also had the opportunity to meet with Adam while I was at the Bitcoin Conference 2013, and he mentioned that he's got a solution worked out for homomorphic amounts (ability for a third party to process balances and amounts -- yet without knowing what those amounts actually are, since they are encrypted.) Brilliant!



creator, co-founder, Monetas creator, Open-Transactions

bg002h

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 1441

Merit: 1010





I outlived my lifetime membership:)







DonatorLegendaryActivity: 1441Merit: 1010I outlived my lifetime membership:) Re: who is this annoying Adam Back guy? June 05, 2013, 01:18:33 AM #11



http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629912&w=2



>I wouldn't say ecash has to use blinding, but I would argue it would

>be a misuse of the word "ecash", if something which was revocable were

>dubbed ecash.

>

>With that definition it is not technically possible to implement

>electronic cash at all without tamper resistant hardware, because

>reliance on a mint, or double spend database means your "cash" can

>become worthless over night if someone (say a government) decides to

>switch off a computer (the one holding the double spending database).



There are soem alternatives which would come closer to this definition.



One possibility is to make the double-spending database public. Whenever

someone receives a coin they broadcast its value. The DB operates in

parallel across a large number of servers so it is intractable to shut

it down.



The greater danger is that the mint would be taken over and forced to

behave badly, say by issuing too many coins. This would degrade the

money and make it worthless.



Another possible form of ecash could be based on Wei Dai's b-money.

This is like hashcash, something which represents a measureable amount of

computational work to produce. It therefore can't be forged. This could

be a very robust payment system and is worth pursuing further. >I wouldn't say ecash has to use blinding, but I would argue it would>be a misuse of the word "ecash", if something which was revocable were>dubbed ecash.>With that definition it is not technically possible to implement>electronic cash at all without tamper resistant hardware, because>reliance on a mint, or double spend database means your "cash" can>become worthless over night if someone (say a government) decides to>switch off a computer (the one holding the double spending database).There are soem alternatives which would come closer to this definition.One possibility is to make the double-spending database public. Wheneversomeone receives a coin they broadcast its value. The DB operates inparallel across a large number of servers so it is intractable to shutit down.The greater danger is that the mint would be taken over and forced tobehave badly, say by issuing too many coins. This would degrade themoney and make it worthless.Another possible form of ecash could be based on Wei Dai's b-money.This is like hashcash, something which represents a measureable amount ofcomputational work to produce. It therefore can't be forged. This couldbe a very robust payment system and is worth pursuing further.

1GCDzqmX2Cf513E8NeThNHxiYEivU1Chhe Hardforks aren't that hard. Its getting others to use them that's hard.

Bitinvestor



Offline



Activity: 471

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 471Merit: 250 Re: who is this annoying Adam Back guy? June 05, 2013, 07:01:56 AM #14



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217732.0



Nice to see that you joined the forum! I would be interested to hear your opinion about proof-of-stake as it is implemented by PPCoin and Novacoin. Hello Adam, we were recently talking about you in this thread:Nice to see that you joined the forum! I would be interested to hear your opinion about proof-of-stake as it is implemented by PPCoin and Novacoin. Those who cause problems for others also cause problems for themselves.