Cryddit



Offline



Activity: 924

Merit: 1055







LegendaryActivity: 924Merit: 1055 Original November 2008 version of the Bitcoin paper January 30, 2015, 09:12:58 AM #1

I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper. A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not. The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version. It appeared a few months later.



I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it.



However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.



The magic string is:



427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faa



I mention this because, right now, there is a version of the paper at



Cryddit

I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper. A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not. The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version. It appeared a few months later.I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it.However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.The magic string is:427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faaI mention this because, right now, there is a version of the paper at https://www.blacksheepatorenco.com/bitcoin.html which matches.Cryddit

AWARD-WINNING

CASINO CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE

CLUBHOUSE 1500+

GAMES 2 MIN

CASH-OUTS 24/7

SUPPORT 100s OF

FREE SPINS PLAY NOW tised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum.They may beunsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Throwaway_Acc



Offline



Activity: 28

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 28Merit: 0 Re: Original November 2008 version of the Bitcoin paper January 30, 2015, 09:35:09 AM #3 Quote from: Cryddit on January 30, 2015, 09:12:58 AM

I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper. A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not. The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version. It appeared a few months later.



I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it.



However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.



The magic string is:



427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faa



I mention this because, right now, there is a version of the paper at https://www.blacksheepatorenco.com/bitcoin.html which matches.



Cryddit



I did not save a copy of the original bitcoin paper. A URL for it was posted to several mailing lists I was on, but the paper itself was not. The version of the paper now hosted at that URL is - although I can't spot the differences on a casual reading - not the same version. It appeared a few months later.I have sadly been unable to provide the original paper to several people who have asked me for it.However, when I asked Satoshi once to make sure we were looking at the same version of the paper, he did send me its hash to verify it, and that email is in my archive.The magic string is:427c63b364c6db914cf23072a09ffd53ee078397b7c6ab2d604e12865a982faaCryddit

Has Satoshi retired and joined a knitting community? Has Satoshi retired and joined a knitting community?

OnkelPaul



Offline



Activity: 1042

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1042Merit: 1002 Re: Original November 2008 version of the Bitcoin paper January 30, 2015, 09:55:00 AM

Last edit: January 30, 2015, 10:06:44 AM by OnkelPaul #5



The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.



Onkel Paul



By the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one. Yup, this looks pretty genuine, even though I wonder why the sha256 hash of the document is mentioned on the web only recently (there's a discussion in the cryptography mailing list http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.general/22386 ).The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.Onkel PaulBy the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one. BITMIXER.IO High Volume Bitcoin MIXER

OnkelPaul



Offline



Activity: 1042

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1042Merit: 1002 Re: Original November 2008 version of the Bitcoin paper January 30, 2015, 10:12:08 AM #6

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/how-you-will-not-uncover-satoshi/

Apparently, the document ID is a hash of some fields of the document. Only some of these fields are retained in the PDF file, and the article above indicates that you might be able to recover other field values by bruteforcing them.



Onkel Paul If someone is into sleuthing, he might try his skills on this approach at discovering some info not present in the PDF files:Apparently, the document ID is a hash of some fields of the document. Only some of these fields are retained in the PDF file, and the article above indicates that you might be able to recover other field values by bruteforcing them.Onkel Paul BITMIXER.IO High Volume Bitcoin MIXER

Gleb Gamow

VIP

Legendary



Offline



Activity: 1428

Merit: 1120









In memoriamVIPLegendaryActivity: 1428Merit: 1120 Re: Original November 2008 version of the Bitcoin paper January 30, 2015, 10:56:58 PM #17 Quote from: OnkelPaul on January 30, 2015, 09:55:00 AM



The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.



Onkel Paul



By the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one.

Yup, this looks pretty genuine, even though I wonder why the sha256 hash of the document is mentioned on the web only recently (there's a discussion in the cryptography mailing list http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.general/22386 ).The edits between the 2008 and the 2009 version that I see are mostly small clarifications. What I consider really interesting is the use of "broadcasted" instead of "broadcast" in the first version - I'm not entirely sure but to me that indicates that the original author's native language might not be english. I have seen this kind of mistake made by german speakers, but others are probably also prone to mixing up english language idiosyncrasies such as this ("to list" -> "has been listed" but "to broadcast"->"has been broadcast"). However, english isn't my native language either, and it's possible that native speakers make such mistakes, too.Onkel PaulBy the way, the "CreationDate" attribute of the PDF states 20081003134958-07 for the first version and 20090324113315-06 for the second version, so it looks like the timezones of the creating computer(s) were american. According to DST rules, both would fall into the daylight saving time date range, so this were either two separate computers set up for different timezones, or one computer that was switched from one timezone to another one.

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/



Quote





I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully

peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.



The paper is available at:

http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf



The main properties:

Double-spending is prevented with a peer-to-peer network.

No mint or other trusted parties.

Participants can be anonymous.

New coins are made from Hashcash style proof-of-work.

The proof-of-work for new coin generation also powers the

network to prevent double-spending.



Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System



Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would

allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another

without the burdens of going through a financial institution.

Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main

benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent

double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending

problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps

transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based

proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without

redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as

proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came

from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as honest nodes control

the most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longest

chain and outpace any attackers. The network itself requires

minimal structure. Messages are broadcasted on a best effort basis,

and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the

longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they

were gone.



Full paper at:

http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf



Satoshi Nakamoto



---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cryptography Mailing List

Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-01 19:16:33 UTCI've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fullypeer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.The paper is available at:The main properties:Double-spending is prevented with a peer-to-peer network.No mint or other trusted parties.Participants can be anonymous.New coins are made from Hashcash style proof-of-work.The proof-of-work for new coin generation also powers thenetwork to prevent double-spending.Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemAbstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash wouldallow online payments to be sent directly from one party to anotherwithout the burdens of going through a financial institution.Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the mainbenefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to preventdouble-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spendingproblem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestampstransactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-basedproof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed withoutredoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves asproof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it camefrom the largest pool of CPU power. As long as honest nodes controlthe most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longestchain and outpace any attackers. The network itself requiresminimal structure. Messages areon a best effort basis,and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting thelongest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while theywere gone.Full paper at:Satoshi Nakamoto---------------------------------------------------------------------The Cryptography Mailing ListUnsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]