A deep dive into Bitcoin's enduring riddle: the identity of its inventor
The Booklist is a weekly newsletter for book lovers from Jason Steger. Get it delivered every Friday.
CRYPTOCURRENCY
The Mysterious Mr Nakamoto
Benjamin Wallace
Atlantic, $45
In 2008, a white paper was published entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. It explained how existing technologies like proof of work, public key encryption and peer-to-peer network architecture could be assembled into a decentralised digital currency - the Bitcoin. The author, whose name was given only as Satoshi Nakamoto, had been active on internet forums and had built an implementation of the so-called Bitcoin - leaving clues to his identity - in code and word.
Then one day he disappeared. Over the past 16 years, the identity of the paper's author has been the matter of widespread speculation - with possible candidates running in the hundreds, mostly nerds, freaks and weirdos, along with a few starry-eyed optimists. It's generally assumed that Nakamoto is a mister but could be a group. And owing to Nakamoto's use of British English, this rogues' gallery even includes a few Australians - a bigot and a conman, most likely a serial liar.
The Mysterious Mr Nakamoto, by former WIRED writer Benjamin Wallace, journals a 15-year search for Nakamoto's true identity. From the beginning, his book shines less as a hunt than as an excuse to tell Bitcoin's florid history.
The general idea of cryptocurrency emerged from an online group called the Cypherpunks, of which Nakamoto was a member. These were a mix of crunchy Bay Area hippies who somehow found common cause with their ideological opposites: Randian libertarians. Both could agree that the post-global financial crisis bailouts were proof of rot in an antiquated system that new technologies could replace.
Today it takes an effort to cast one's mind back to an era of tech utopianism when technology was a solution to, rather than an entrenchment of, societal problems.
The belief was that recent advances in cryptography would provide anonymity while decentralisation would avert concentration of power and limit the financial corruption that had led to the crisis. Wallace notes similar efforts existed to Bitcoin but failed to catch on. Bitcoin was unique in its intuitive understanding of market and human psychologies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
'Delay': eSafety boss cools expectations over looming ban
Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration.
Sydney Morning Herald
9 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
A deep dive into Bitcoin's enduring riddle: the identity of its inventor
The Booklist is a weekly newsletter for book lovers from Jason Steger. Get it delivered every Friday. CRYPTOCURRENCY The Mysterious Mr Nakamoto Benjamin Wallace Atlantic, $45 In 2008, a white paper was published entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. It explained how existing technologies like proof of work, public key encryption and peer-to-peer network architecture could be assembled into a decentralised digital currency - the Bitcoin. The author, whose name was given only as Satoshi Nakamoto, had been active on internet forums and had built an implementation of the so-called Bitcoin - leaving clues to his identity - in code and word. Then one day he disappeared. Over the past 16 years, the identity of the paper's author has been the matter of widespread speculation - with possible candidates running in the hundreds, mostly nerds, freaks and weirdos, along with a few starry-eyed optimists. It's generally assumed that Nakamoto is a mister but could be a group. And owing to Nakamoto's use of British English, this rogues' gallery even includes a few Australians - a bigot and a conman, most likely a serial liar. The Mysterious Mr Nakamoto, by former WIRED writer Benjamin Wallace, journals a 15-year search for Nakamoto's true identity. From the beginning, his book shines less as a hunt than as an excuse to tell Bitcoin's florid history. The general idea of cryptocurrency emerged from an online group called the Cypherpunks, of which Nakamoto was a member. These were a mix of crunchy Bay Area hippies who somehow found common cause with their ideological opposites: Randian libertarians. Both could agree that the post-global financial crisis bailouts were proof of rot in an antiquated system that new technologies could replace. Today it takes an effort to cast one's mind back to an era of tech utopianism when technology was a solution to, rather than an entrenchment of, societal problems. The belief was that recent advances in cryptography would provide anonymity while decentralisation would avert concentration of power and limit the financial corruption that had led to the crisis. Wallace notes similar efforts existed to Bitcoin but failed to catch on. Bitcoin was unique in its intuitive understanding of market and human psychologies.
The Age
9 hours ago
- The Age
A deep dive into Bitcoin's enduring riddle: the identity of its inventor
The Booklist is a weekly newsletter for book lovers from Jason Steger. Get it delivered every Friday. CRYPTOCURRENCY The Mysterious Mr Nakamoto Benjamin Wallace Atlantic, $45 In 2008, a white paper was published entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. It explained how existing technologies like proof of work, public key encryption and peer-to-peer network architecture could be assembled into a decentralised digital currency - the Bitcoin. The author, whose name was given only as Satoshi Nakamoto, had been active on internet forums and had built an implementation of the so-called Bitcoin - leaving clues to his identity - in code and word. Then one day he disappeared. Over the past 16 years, the identity of the paper's author has been the matter of widespread speculation - with possible candidates running in the hundreds, mostly nerds, freaks and weirdos, along with a few starry-eyed optimists. It's generally assumed that Nakamoto is a mister but could be a group. And owing to Nakamoto's use of British English, this rogues' gallery even includes a few Australians - a bigot and a conman, most likely a serial liar. The Mysterious Mr Nakamoto, by former WIRED writer Benjamin Wallace, journals a 15-year search for Nakamoto's true identity. From the beginning, his book shines less as a hunt than as an excuse to tell Bitcoin's florid history. The general idea of cryptocurrency emerged from an online group called the Cypherpunks, of which Nakamoto was a member. These were a mix of crunchy Bay Area hippies who somehow found common cause with their ideological opposites: Randian libertarians. Both could agree that the post-global financial crisis bailouts were proof of rot in an antiquated system that new technologies could replace. Today it takes an effort to cast one's mind back to an era of tech utopianism when technology was a solution to, rather than an entrenchment of, societal problems. The belief was that recent advances in cryptography would provide anonymity while decentralisation would avert concentration of power and limit the financial corruption that had led to the crisis. Wallace notes similar efforts existed to Bitcoin but failed to catch on. Bitcoin was unique in its intuitive understanding of market and human psychologies.
