skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Agree - it's a notional form of free that includes your CFO paying through the nose without realizing it.

The office up strategy is really good for MS. I've always wondered why they haven't made more of Exchange as a data platform given that they have a near corporate monopoly on that and there is vast latent value in the data that is in it.

Or maybe that's why!
There is a giant possible Game Of Thrones spoiler from last night's episode in the image of this article. Be warned. I haven't watched the episode yet but now I'm rather annoyed.
The question is can he liquidate his holdings without causing a market crash? Not just because of economics of demand and supply but because of the psychological effects on the market.
> IIRC, this was called "link farming".

"Mindless Link Propagation" was the term of art at the time. Still true.
This article from 2015 was right after all: https://www.wired.com/2015/12/bitcoins-creator-satoshi-nakam...
Thank you for this very well written response. I was struggling to say what you just explained so well.

The reason I personally think it will destroy Reddit is because it has already ruined a few of the subreddits I subscribe to. Mainly /r/technology, /r/news, and /r/politics.
The all time high was ~$1216 a coin [1]... so that would put him approximately at $1.2 billion if he has a million coins like the OP suggests. There are about 15.4mm coins in circulation [2], so he has about 6.5% of the current market, or 4.7% of the total BTC that will ever be mined (1/21 million).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin#cite_note-6... (would appreciate a correction with a better source)

[2]: https://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins
I see what you mean! It felt like the end of the Perplexity puzzle that existed, the moment it was found the excitement behind it all just didn't keep going!

Mind you, the card to find someone using six degrees of separation is also called Satoshi!

http://perplexcitywiki.com/wiki/Billion_to_One
I'm well under forty and enjoyed the article immensely.

While that normally would disprove your observation, it's probably just the dubious honor of falling within one of the article's "well-known fucked-up life scripts" (I'm going with 40 < 40).

You're right though, there is a lot of negative sentiment towards the article—some of it bordering on pure vitriol. Those people would do well to not take it so seriously. It's basically gallows humor, as you said.
interesting that he didn't want to reveal his identity, but got in trouble and thought it might help
I'm sure people will still question his claims even though this should settle the debate.
The price at its peak was nearly $1200, so over a billion.
BBC argyle says that was calculated at 449USD per Bitcoin, so assuming nearly 1Billion USD or thereabouts when they were at their peak
"I never, ever want to be in front of a camera ever again" Can't blame him there. Some Bloomberg mobile reporter came up to me once for an interview about BTC hitting $1k, and I redirected him to Google HQ. Fuck that soundbite, MSM, lazy shit.
That's really interesting. I've been updating this Quora answer for a while and he actually commented on it saying "People always know" in Sep 2015 before his name ever came up.

I'm not sure I believe his comments fully in his latest video though. It seems he's been conflicted for a long time on whether to reveal himself but for all the times he says he wants to be left alone, he easily could have but yet here he is.

https://www.quora.com/Who-is-most-likely-Satoshi-Nakamoto/an...
> How many users had the talent and time to create original content, and then survive the ridiculous Kuro5shin editing process? Not many.

k5 had a diary section where you could publish anything you wanted.

I think the biggest problem with k5 were the annoying "trolls" that were allowed to to shitpost without any restraint whatsoever and eventually overran the whole site.
SEO ΣΤΗΝ ΑΘΗΝΑ – SEO – WEB DESIGN
This is bittersweet. I loved the mystery and the whole guessing game of what Satoshi Nakamoto would have wanted.
Looks like the sceptics at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10701785 were wrong. Interesting to read through now that the truth is known.
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609619
They were close to or over $1k at it's peak. So - somewhere close to a bil.
Not just fanfiction, but original fiction as well. It got weird, but it was fun. I particularly liked localroger's stories, which due to another comment on this story, I now know are at localroger.com (thanks!).

The other thing I remember from kuro5hin is that the trolls seemed particularly proficient. There was enough of a mix of people trying to have reasoned arguments and people there just to fuck with you, perhaps even the same person multiple times in the same argument, that some comment threads were particularly surreal.
This is a good TLDR, why is this downvoted?
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609629
Tech journalists: "Bitcoin creator confirms his identity by using, um, crypto stuff. Or something"
Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently feels rational to you.

Here's a thought exercise for you - return to your car analogy and apply all the same rules you insist on for firearms to freedom of movement. The Constitution doesn't even guarantee freedom of movement explicitly, so you can wipe away that mess without even repealing an amendment, just overturn some old cases. Stipulate the same taxation and registration (even for private land use), revocation of use upon even considering moving to another state, and so on. Our founding fathers could have never imagined the network of interstates we have today. Unless you're saying your car analogy doesn't work.

Still looking forward to reading your exploration of the causative link between gun control and reduced crime rates in free countries.
Are the details of the key signing public?
I agree. I think that extending the exercise period to something like seven years (as suggested elsewhere) would essentially fix this problem at the individual employee level. The employee shouldn't face risk that their option will end up worthless just because he or she makes the fairly reasonable decision to seek employment elsewhere.
> The largest Etruscan body of text we have is 1200 words, it somehow ended up as wrappings for a mummy in Egypt.

Very cool, I'd never heard of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Linteus
Why would he verify that he is the creator? Even though Bitcoin is past the phase where the governments can criminalize it publicly they will surely torture him in every roundabout way possible for the rest of his life.

He seems to be owning up to it in order to protect others but I think he has no idea what he is getting into. They mention that his house was raided a couple of years ago but I guess that didn't phase him.
It's funny how many commenters on hacker news think that this is actually satoshi nakamoto.
Actually this was submitted 2 minutes earlier but the other took the lead in upvotes.
It's interesting that "The transport protocol doesn’t cover who sends their banner first". It'd be good if I could configure my server to keep quiet until the client identifies itself as an SSH client. I run it on an unusual port and it gets scanned frequently. sshguard helps but I'd prefer it wasn't announcing to any client that it is an ssh server.
"Mr Wright has also demonstrated this verification in person to The Economist—and not just for block 9, but block 1." Economist confirms: http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steve...

BBC says it's also confirmed through GQ but I don't see anything related yet.

(My view below)

The way he is communicating in the interview sounds like the government was putting pressure on him. Whomever is 'forcing him' to come out as Nakamoto, I don't think this will end well for Wright nor his companies.
considering the cause for him needing to liquidate is known, he has major tax penalties he has to pay, exchanging them now won't cause as big of a stir as if he did it when he was anonymous and would lead to suspicion of some sort of problem with the protocol. and a run to cash in.
EDIT 2: Debunked!

The signature in Wright's post is just pulled straight from a transaction on the blockchain. Convert the base64 signature from his post (MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=) to hex (3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae0022066632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce), and you get the signature found in this transaction input: https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69...

Note that the base64 string at the top of his post isn't a signature, just a cleartext message: " Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.\n\n".

Now the only question is how he fooled Gavin. I would imagine this story will still get spread around some naive channels for a while, just like the last time Wright tried something like this.

Credit goes to jouke in #bitcoin for figuring it out.

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

EDIT: Current opinion: still skeptical. Here is the public cryptographic "proof": http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-signif...

Something still seems off to me, why does he go into such specific detail in verifying the signature? I would have assumed he would just let people figure out the verification themselves. But maybe I'm just skeptical because Satoshi having a public identity takes some of the magic away.

As pointed out by maaku, he never revealed what message the signature is supposed to be signing.

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

My Original Post:

Everyone in this thread is already taking this as the truth. But remember that Wright has not publicly released any cryptographic proof, there is only a claim from BBC that he showed the signature to them and a few magazines.

This strikes me as a little strange since originally Satoshi pretty much only interacted with the community via the bitcoin mailing list. Why did he "reveal" the proof by sending it to some magazines rather than emailing the mailing list?

It really seems like the person who created Bitcoin, a trustless system based on cryptographic proof, wouldn't make everyone take his word on his identity when it could be trivially solved with one email.
Craig Steven Wright Is Satoshi Nakamoto
Hah, I was just thinking about Perplex City the other day and wondered if that Satoshi was ever found. I really did love that game and the community around it.
I'm on the cusp. Just turned 40. The only thing I find depressing about this article is how it rambles on and on in its pseudo intellectual tone. It's mostly erudite fluff sprinkled with aphorisms.
Jean-Paul Sartre, Signing and Significance
And they may want to edit this one: https://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-susp...
For a "community" that preaches tolerance, a large number of people on Reddit seems to lack just that, tolerance. I use the term community lightly, because sometimes Reddit appear more to be an angry mob.

There is a very limited set of opinions and beliefs that are accepted on Reddit. Mostly the moderators don't seem to mind, but it's pretty obvious that derivation from the accepted truth is down voted to an extreme. Being exposed to a large number of different opinions is generally a health thing, but it also highlight the possibility that you might be wrong, and people, Redditors least of all, don't want to be proven wrong.
Didn't they debunk this guy as a hack? /r/bitcoin pretty much destroyed him when he popped up last time
While I love seeing more PostgreSQL offerings in the cloud, I don't understand why they call it PaaS. It's a DbaaS, but a PaaS... a PaaS is really an application API that is managed by the cloud provider, and takes care of stuff like scaling it. Like Google App Engine. But calling a database a PaaS is a little bit bending the term, IMHO.
Perhaps folks more knowledgable could weigh in if a large liquidation event could happen by darkpools or some other means that wouldn't cause an oversupply "market run."
Fun fact that might pique one's interest: the fasces, which is still widely used to symbolize strength through unity, is believed to be of Etruscan origin.
invalid tls certs everywhere.
ORMs are a trap. They are like some sugary drink which makes you fat and you only realize it when it's too late.

They prevent harnessing the power of SQL by providing seemingly convenient shortcuts. Only later (when it's too late and you already invested heavily in it) it becomes clear that one would have been better off not using an ORM but using SQL directly.
I'm not sure I follow that line of argument. If plain SQL is too low-level for you there's a wealth of ORMs that abstract away all the nitty-gritty details.
Wasn't E a somewhat popular Amiga PL?
Do you know what tables in your DB need indexes and why? Do you know how to optimally set up your partitions? Do you know why your one query runs fast for a week and then suddenly runs slow, and what you can do about it?

Yes. And I'm absolutely not an expert.

But I think you are missing an important goal of RDBs: data integrity. This is why people like to use this storage method over a NoSQL method.

Need to store subscriptions or news items? Then NoSQL might be fine. But when you need to store data relations, well thats why it's called Relational Data Base.

I advice you never to stop learning even when stuff seems difficult.
> But (and this may be cultural) wearing my "where are we in 2 years" hat makes me push for Hadoop.

Google's F1 paper makes it clear that they were running Adwords, their most (maybe only) important product, on MySQL on Jan 1 2012. GFS and Big Table were not enough, and until Hadoop provides a robust ACID compliant data store, you should probably keep your pgsql books around.
Skip the short BBC article – The Economist has a full profile here: http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steve...

EDIT: Mods merged the thread with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609611, which is the Economist story. I can't seem to delete this comment, for some reason.
> Publishing your code (at all) does not mean you have to make it production-quality or provide support for it.

No. If you publish something that's incomplete or doesn't have all the right dependencies listed, etc, it's not really of any use. Writing up compiling instructions plus dependencies plus how to run it plus input files etc takes time and by the time you've got it to the state that someone else can run it, now it's "production-quality".

> Given that, it seems reasonable that you should make the modicum of effort to publish your code.

There's currently no incentive/requirement to publish code, it uses time and does not increment your publication counter. Find the incentive and you'll start seeing published code.
ReactJS Developer? Be Productive with a Structor
Fascinating. Why would he chose to reveal himself now?
10 tips to read 500 emails per day
I was SO fed up with all the bullshit and problems at delicious (and so dispointed by alternatives like Diigo) that I wrote my own, Shaarli.

Never again I'm going to trust another service for storing and sharing my links.
If you the article is about existential angst (something like "the difficulty in searching for meaning"), I'm not sure it "clicked" for you; it's essentially the opposite of mere existential angst - it's about realizing something crucial about cultural meaning.
(Confirmed to Economist) "Mr Wright has also demonstrated this verification in person to The Economist—and not just for block 9, but block 1."

(Confirmed to Economist) "Still, as far as we can tell he indeed seems to be in possession of the keys, at least for block 9. This assessment is shared by two bitcoin insiders who have sat through the same demonstration: Jon Matonis, a bitcoin consultant and former director of the Bitcoin Foundation, and Gavin Andresen, Mr Nakamoto’s successor as the lead developer of the cryptocurrency’s software (he has since passed on the baton, but is still contributing to the code)."

(Doubts from Economist) "Still, questions remain. Mr Wright does not want to make public the proof for block 1, arguing that block 9 contains the only bitcoin address that is clearly linked to Mr Nakamoto (because he sent money to Hal Finney). Repeating the procedure for other blocks, he says, would not add more certainty. He also says he can’t send any bitcoin because they are now owned by a trust. And he rejected the idea of having The Economist send him another text to sign as proof that he actually possesses these private keys, rather than simply being the first to publish a proof which was generated at some point in the past by somebody else. Either people believe him now—or they don’t, he says. “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”"
Or maybe authoritarian?
Much more useful link: http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-signif...

Working through it now -- lets say I am rapidly heading towards "Not a hoax" territory.

[Edit: Or, possibly, totally quackadoodle -- but very convinced-in-himself quackadoodle. I've gotten as far as proving "OK, he knows how to reverse a Bitcoin address into a public key, and picked a good address for the purpose."]
The first danger is that "asm volatile" is basically a hack to get the output you want from the compiler. But the compiler is a rather complicated piece of software, and there is no guarantee that future versions of the compiler will still give you the desired output. Perhaps it works correctly now, but if you change your optimization settings are you sure that something unexpected won't happen? Remember that "asm volatile" can still be moved around. From the GCC manual[1]:

> Do not expect a sequence of asm statements to remain perfectly consecutive after compilation, even when you are using the volatile qualifier. If certain instructions need to remain consecutive in the output, put them in a single multi-instruction asm statement.

The second danger is that "asm volatile" hides incorrect operand specification. If you examine the assembly, you might get the wrong assembly, and adding "volatile" might fix it. However, the incorrect operand specification might cause problems in other parts of the code. These are harder to diagnose. Stack Overflow is littered with questions by people who specify asm operands wrong, add "volatile" to fix the assembly, but other things are still broken. My general procedure is to work with asm blocks at -O2 or higher without using volatile, and make sure I'm getting the desired results that way (unless I'm writing some synchronization primitives).

Yet it is just so damn easy to write larger, multi-statement asm blocks. With larger blocks, the intent of the programmer is clear. It becomes obvious to both the reader and to the compiler that the assembly should be emitted as-is, rather than moved or reordered.

Finally, you can often get the results you want with the auto-vectorizer, restrict, and __builtin_assume_aligned. Whenever that is possible I'd prefer it.

[1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but you make it sound like left-leaning people can't be hateful. The left-leaning crowd of redditors can be just as hateful towards the people they disagree with as the right wing.
Yup. Attached is the HN submission. Seems legit. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11609708
Governments could have criminalized it at any point, they can criminalize it now, and they will certainly criminalize it in the future if they feel a need to do so (unless this thing gets used by >1% of the population which I'm willing to bet money against.) They didn't because they didn't want to. If they wanted to know who created Bitcoin in order to "torture" them they would have found out, at this point we know how good they are at this sort of thing; also, if they wanted to "torture" prominent people behind the Bitcoin software there was never a shortage of people with known identities. That he didn't pay his taxes seems to be a separate issue.
Some banks over here (Europe) now let you block mag-stripe credit card transactions. Actually sounds like a good way to prevent ATM fraud as long as you are not visiting the US.
About how this cultural divide came to be, part of me thinks that blanket rejection of "what works" is a sound strategy as an individual.

You don't want to work on a successful project. Successful projects are the ones you have been cramming 190 man.years of business rules into, and they did not explode.

You can thank Java's accessors, refactoring capabilities; you can thank SQL's ability to produce rich views without changing the data storage. You're still stuck with having to deal with at least all the essential complexity that is there.

On the other side, preach that the future is Go-Mongo-on-the-cloud and you've got yourself a greenfield project. Rarely have I heard about a Go project that is there only because it needs Go's unfair advantage (namely hugely high concurrency that you have to cram into one single box)

Same thing goes for microservices. Microservices are: I don't want to deal with other people's code.
If only the Emperor Claudius' dictionary survived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius#Scholarly_works_and_t...
because it might not be
One of the best productivity app for iPhone and iPad
Knowing what indexes you need and why is far from being some kind of esoteric specialized knowledge of database internals. That and some basic relational modeling techniques are the very minimum prerequisites to being able to leverage an RDBMS competently. Learning these things is not as difficult as trying to use an RDBMS without learning them.

I can't say I get the comparison to machine code. SQL is probably the highest level language there is.
> What he seems to be asking for is the ability to take the code you used to produce the pretty graphs and tables in your paper and re-run it,

You're assuming such code exists. If the graphs were produced by hand (eg, typing things into MATLAB to create the plot and then saving the figure), then there is no code to hand off. Now the code request has risen to "redo all that work".
How to measure prosperity
sorry for OT, but:

g+ share: 0, reddit share: 1k.

.. so I guess it becomes clear why Google is deemphasising this.
Based on the wikipedia page that is one of two cards never solved, the other being the Riemann hypothesis.
Is he going to way in on the whole Blockchain size debate?
That's disastrous. A currency where a single individual owns 4.7% of all currency isn't going to end well

I remember there was speculation that Bitcoin could go up to tens of thousands of dollars. Which would probably make Wright the richest man alive
It would help if Git didn't have such an awful learning curve (and I say this as a git user that already went through it).

I know researchers that used Subversion when it was on the rise, but they just abandoned version control altogether when Git became the generally preferred option.
I was hoping they would ask him why choose the name 'Satoshi Nakamoto'?
I think the video is live at here: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTQ5OTgxNDgxNg==.html

Sorry this is a Chinese site, the video is in English tho. IMO, one thing that blocks the spread of OpenResty, is that most of the discussions and materials are in Chinese only. This is kinda like the early days of Ruby. Hope we can have a Dave Thomas for OpenResty soon :)
Man Has Never Set Foot on The Moon
You can use http://archive.is/
Absolutely! That's why Prime finds up to 50 'prime times' for every day of the week. Even within the space of one hour, there are certain times that will be more active than others, and so simply posting sporadically doesn't guarantee engagement.