Does it matter who Satoshi was?

This is the subject of my latest column for Bloomberg, here is an excerpt:

It is also important whether Satoshi was an individual or a small group. If one person, that could mean that future innovations have more possibilities than is often thought: If Satoshi is one person, maybe there are unknown geniuses out there. On the other hand, the Satoshi-as-a-team theory would say that secrets are easier to keep than people think. If so, perhaps conspiracy theories are more true than most of us would like to admit.

According to many speculations, Satoshi came from an organization full of e-cash and e-gold mechanisms, dating back to the 1980s. People from that organization who have been identified as potential candidates for Satoshi include Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, Wei Dai, David Chaum and Douglas Jackson, among others. At the time, the movement was considered a failure because their products did not seem sustainable. The lesson here would be that movement is never truly and forever. It is worth experimenting in unconventional ways because something useful may come out of those efforts.

If Peter Todd is Satoshi, then it’s worth improving any measure of the ability of very young people to get things done. Todd would have been working on Bitcoin and related white paper as a student in his early 20s. At the same time, if the usual Adam Back is involved, then perhaps the takeaway is that young rebels should seek out older mentors in matters of process and marketing.

I believe that in less than two years we will know who Satoshi is.



Source link