For Satoshi Nakamoto - posing as a libertarian

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 22/10/2023 01:38, pro2rat at yahoo.com.au wrote:
> Lopp does us a favor and rules out HALfin as Satoshi. This opens up a possibility Nakamoto was a libertarian. Since Hal definitely wasn't!
> 
> Evidence for this theory includes avoidance of cypherpunks list.

I don't think he totally avoided the list, but posted here (and possibly 
still posts elsewhere) under a different nym.

I don't think I would call him a libertarian though (whatever that 
means; in UK usage the word usually means someone who believes in the 
least practicable amount of Government). Hmmm, perhaps.




A supposition: suppose Satoshi (who was or is English) worked for, I 
don't know, say GCHQ.

Around the time that Bitcoin was introduced the patents on Chaumian 
eCash were running out (Chaum never implemented eCash properly), and if 
others then built on Chaum a real untraceable ecurrency might result - 
something GCHQ would dislike intensely.

So in order to discourage that they introduce a blockchain-based 
"ecurrency" [1] which is fairly easily traceable - plus they don't even 
have to search the internet for the raw data, it is all in the 
blockchain and immediately and publicly available.

They (Satoshi plus GCHQ colleagues) also write one of the best-written 
and most secure pieces of software ever, the Bitcoin Reference 
Implementation.

Ne lesser entity could write something similar for Chaumian eCash which 
could compete with the Reference Implementation in terms of quality, 
reliability, security and usability.

Satoshi and NSA got there "firstest with the mostest" - and so the 
battle was won.

And so an easily-traceable blockchain-based "ecurrency" was widely 
adopted instead of a real untraceable ecurrency, perhaps based on Chaum 
or developments, or something else.



It is interesting to compare this supposition with the history of TOR...


[1] I put blockchain-based "ecurrencies" in quotes because they could 
never be widely used as actual ecurrencies, the technology doesn't scale.




Peter Fairbrother