| It's interesting that there are a few bits of evidence that are used for and against the Satoshi = Szabo question: 1. Szabo wasn't cited in Satoshi's white paper 2. Szabo barely mentioned Satoshi or bitcoin in his own blog or posts until Satoshi had disappeared 3. In an email to Wei Dai (another pioneer in this space), Satoshi introduces himself and seems to imply he had only recently learned about Wei Dai (and by association, Szabo) I tend to lean in the direction that Szabo probably knows more than he's let on. Basically, it comes down to that I find it almost impossible that whoever developed bitcoin
was entirely unaware of Szabo and Wei Dai's previous proposals and efforts during the development. Newton and Leibniz supposedly invented Calculus independent of one another, and considering their approach and notation, that seems plausible, but bit gold is so much like bitcoin (including, but not limited to the name), I just refuse to accept that. And then when you suppose that Satoshi must've known about Szabo, the three bits of evidence above seem very suspicious. Taking the evidence above: 1. Once Satoshi discovered Wei Dai's similar work and cited him, why didn't he cite Szabo? 2. This was Szabo's baby. Why was he almost silent for 3+ years about the very thing he had written about for 10 years that was finally put into practice? 3. Satoshi contacted the other pioneers in the space (Adam Back, Wei Dai), and yet Szabo hasn't mentioned a thing about any communications he received from Satoshi. |