Nick Szabo

Nick Szabo Navigationsmenü

Nick Szabo ist ein Informatiker, Rechtswissenschaftler und Kryptograf, der für seine Forschungen zu digitalen Verträgen und digitaler Währung bekannt ist. Der studierte Informatiker und Rechtswissenschaftler Nick Szabo ist wie kein zweiter dafür verantwortlich, dass aus dem bloßen Transaktionsregister Blockchain. Nick Szabo ist ein Informatiker, Rechtsgelehrter und Kryptograph, der für seine Forschung in digitalen Verträgen und in digitaler Währung bekannt ist. Nick Szabo @NickSzabo4. Bitcoin has or is evolving through several stages of value transfer: 1. small value transfers at layer 1 when Bitcoin was a tiny niche. Nick Szabo is an American cryptographer and computer scientist who has largely contributed to digital money and cryptocurrency as well as to digital contracts.

Nick Szabo

Wer Nick Szabos Twitter-Account verfolgt, könnte den Eindruck gewinnen, der Kryptograph sei ein Bitcoin-Maximalist. In einem Tweet machte. Nick Szabo ist ein Informatiker, Rechtsgelehrter und Kryptograph, der für seine Forschung in digitalen Verträgen und in digitaler Währung bekannt ist. Nick Szabo, Smart Contracts: Building Blocks for Digital Markets, /Literature/​LOTwinterschool/meganwest.co, ; Vitalik.

That's the people who know how to do governance. Peter McCormack: I saw one of your threads, where you were talking about something and every time somebody mentioned governance, you said, " if you bring up governance, I'm going to block you!

Nick Szabo: They're like zombies, they're endless! Peter McCormack: Okay, but you have this interest in smart contracts, we can't do Turing complete smart contracts on Bitcoin, well one person thinks you can, but we can't, right?

So you have this interest, do you think therefore that somebody needs to work So with Bitcoin, someone has focus on building a monetary protocol and as a group of people, have tried to keep it as decentralized as possible.

Do you think that's an achievable goal with smart contracts? That someone should look to create a smart contract platform, but every design decision, similar to Bitcoin, is aimed at maximum decentralization or do you think with smart contracts it is just not possible because they will always scale to something that becomes centralized?

Nick Szabo: Well, it's definitely difficult. I'm not going to say it's impossible because there's lots of subtleties in the computer science, lots of things remaining to be explored and improved and I can't say I've dove down into all the different platforms out there that are promising these things.

It's certainly possible, or well I think and hope it's possible, but it's harder than it looks. Peter McCormack: Do small contracts have to be fully decentralized to get the benefit from them?

Nick Szabo: Well to get the globally seamless trust minimization benefit, yeah! Because otherwise it's just going to evolve back into politically controlled banking.

Peter McCormack: Okay, it sounds like you're kind of drifting away from it now as an idea? Nick Szabo: Yeah, unfortunately I haven't seen anybody doing it right.

I think Ethereum Classic and RSK probably have a better ethos about it, but whether the technology is up to achieving it, is maybe another matter.

Peter McCormack: The one thing I've always thought about with smart contracts, is that it goes back to almost that point with being able to reverse transactions.

I've always worried whether companies really adopt smart contracts on immutable ledgers? Because if you can't reverse it and there's some bug or mistake that ends up costing, it's no joke to even say tens or even hundreds of millions because that has actually happened in Ethereum.

So I always thought because it's not foolproof, because code has bugs, do you really want to have smart contracts that business is built upon, where this can happen?

It seems very risky. Nick Szabo: Well yeah, you certainly want to have a much more careful Part of the reason I'm soured on smart contracts is the standardization of Solidity, that's just not a good smart contract language.

It's just basically a normal programming language, roughly speaking. So they have better things going on and better practices going on with medical devices and airlines and there are places where people die, if your code has bugs in it and you can't just go upgrade it if it's in hardware or it's an ASIC for example.

So there's lots of places actually that are [Inaudible ], where you program once and it's got to work the first time you install it in hardware, because you're not going to change it before it breaks and kills somebody.

So there's actually a lot of situations like that already, that smart people can learn. But they do sometimes kill people!

I don't think the current smart contract community has the best practices. I think they can learn from these other areas that have been doing this a lot longer.

Peter McCormack: I've looked at something like Ethereum and said that to me it just seems like they're trying to put too much information on the Blockchain.

If you're trying to put too much information on the Blockchain, it centralizes and we know it's centralized around Infura.

Isn't it a shame that somebody just doesn't stand up and say, "you know what? Yeah, we got this wrong. We fucked up. We can't build this.

Nick Szabo: Well there's way too much inertia. There's a whole huge culture built up around it now and a lot of people's wages are dependent on the belief that that stuff works.

Peter McCormack: Just kick the can down the road? Peter McCormack: But the truth sets you free man! How long can they continue with this?

All right, well then we should just get back to Bitcoin, because if none of these are going to work then Nick Szabo: Well I should say that I'm not saying it's all broken or something, I'm just saying that there's a lot of risks involved and I don't think it's suitable for large amounts of money and it's got a lot of risk of centralization.

It risks evolving to something a lot more like banking, a lot more bureaucracy and locality and so forth, than something very different from Bitcoin.

Peter McCormack: And then, who cares! Okay, so I'm going to get back to Bitcoin. One of the biggest things my friends always say to me is like, "it's useless because it's volatile" and they're scared to buy.

I know what you say, you talk about four year cycle, right? You need to build belief, but do you think this will keep happening?

Do you have this fundamental belief that it will keep going? Nick Szabo: Well, I mean if you look just at the price and the history of investments in general, sure it's a gamble.

I can understand why a normal Wall Street person would think it's just gambling, because price only gives you so much information.

But if like me, you've studied the history of money and you realize it solves these historical problems, like validation has always been a problem, assaying gold and all these precious metals has always been very expensive.

With Bitcoin, not everybody's going to run a full node, but lots of people can run full nodes and that solves a historically huge problem with money that hasn't been solved in nearly as good a way before, the ability to loot gold.

The Aztecs collected tributes and they looted people and they were looted by the Spanish and then the English looted the Spanish Nick Szabo: So it was not the most secure thing.

With good key management, multisig, other techniques that people are developing, and this is a work in progress, it isn't necessarily Bitcoin itself, but a work in progress of key management, we can solve a lot of that problem too as well.

So these are historically important problems with money that Bitcoin is solving or can solve for the first time in history. Peter McCormack: But do you empathize with people who struggle with it being not a physical thing?

I did with music, right? I was still buying CDs for two years longer than I should have and now they're all in a cupboard, I don't use them and eventually I got to MP3s.

It's the same transition, it's the same logical transition in your mind in that you're going from a lump of gold or physical notes, even your debit card feels like money.

Nick Szabo: Well it feels like money because you started using it as money. Before you started using it as money, it didn't feel like money.

Peter McCormack: But it's so different, Bitcoin is so different. When we've spent our whole lives having a belief, which is wrong, but that money has value because of our government, we have that belief.

We're not all cypherpunks! Nick Szabo: Well that's true, but everybody can look at a price chart though. So if you look at the price chart, it reflects these fundamentals.

Now there's lots of other things, you can look at the price chart and the fundamentals aren't really there and it's a bubble.

But I see fundamentals being there. Peter McCormack: Has your opinion drastically changed with any aspects of Bitcoin in its life?

Are there any parts of it where you've had a very strong change in opinion? Nick Szabo: I was skeptical of price schedule at first, because it was a very different thing than what I had designed, but it doesn't seem to have been an issue!

Peter McCormack: Nothing else? Nick Szabo: No, I was very happy with the consensus protocols, much better than what I was using for example.

Peter McCormack: How rigid are you to the rules of Bitcoin? So for example, if there was a significant block re-org, say a thousand block re-org, how would you feel about that and what do you think the reaction should be to that?

Nick Szabo: Yeah, that would be a huge deal! That would be a big problem. There's more people down in the technical expertise of how likely that is and what you do to respond to it and stuff, than I am.

But certainly that's something we would try to prevent. Peter McCormack: All right, so looking forward, as we said, we're coming up to 11 years actually.

The white paper actually came out on my birthday, on Halloween. Yeah, it came out on my birthday and I wasn't aware of it because I didn't buy any, but funny enough, I was in Vegas and on the 10th anniversary, I was in Vegas, so it was just this weird coincidence.

Well it's not that weird actually, because it was my 30th and 40th birthdays. Where are you going to go on a big one?!

But we're 10 years in, where do you see Bitcoin in 5 or 10 years? In your mind where, how far do you think we can go with this?

Nick Szabo: Well, I mean there's a lot of unpredictability. For many years, the government has been very hands off with it and that's pretty surprising.

But it's not too surprising considering how hard it would be to actually effectively crack down on Bitcoin. But seeing how they just went all guns blazing after Libra, that right there, we knew they would do that.

They did that against E-gold and Liberty reserve. Now those were smaller things, but they were certainly also energetic in taking them down.

There's a huge unknown in the politics because the politics so far to Bitcoin has been friendlier than that and there's various reasons that could be.

Part of it is because it is very difficult to impossible to regulate at least the core part of it, it's pretty easy to regulate the exchanges and some other aspects of it.

But I can't predict politics better than anybody else can. It would be interesting to know what your view on Libra is. I didn't hate it as much as everyone else did, the general consensus.

Nick Szabo: 20 years ago, before How long has it been? Anyway, before I came up with Bitgold and even after that was still a theoretical possibility, that still would be a big improvement.

Well I don't know about big improvement, but improvement probably over central banking and the way things are done now, maybe.

It's certainly a step, but that's 20 years ago and we've made so many advances that Libra has ignored, that's preposterous today.

For me, it was kind of like fiat, Libra, Bitcoin, and if it became a bridge to introduce people to Bitcoin, I was kind of okay with it.

I also felt it was just a natural thing that was going to happen. It was natural for Facebook to create something like this.

Nick Szabo: Probably, yeah. Peter McCormack: It seemed like a stupid thing to fight and then watching the Senate hearing, it was quite interesting that there's some pro Bitcoin senators and it was quite interesting to hear some of that.

I don't know if you noticed some of that? Nick Szabo: Yeah, Bitcoin is part of the reality now. It's been all over the financial TV networks and the newspapers and stuff for many years now.

So that makes a big difference, it's a reality on the ground and Libra is not a reality on the ground, it was just a proposal. So that was the time they could kill it.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, well I think it will come back. So I always said I feel it would just be a stable coin, it would just be a dollar stable coin.

Nick Szabo: Yeah, I mean it's in competition with Tether and those things. Peter McCormack: And to be honest, in some ways it made more sense.

It seems like a lot easier and I think they'll do that. The interesting thing on the regulation side, do you worry about it?

Also is there part of you that actually kind of wants them to bring the fight to you, as a bit of a cypherpunk, like "come on, let's have it.

Fucking try and take us on! Nick Szabo: No, I'm enough of a libertarian to not want that stuff. It's something Bitcoin can resist, but it's not necessarily something particular people in Bitcoin can resist and it could cause a lot of harm.

So certainly it's not something I wish for. But on the other hand, we live in a very politically far from ideal world and lots of people in government do hate what we're doing and you got to be prepared for it.

Peter McCormack: Do you think things are getting better or worse? I don't know if I'm noticing it because I'm getting more into Bitcoin and the people I meet, but I'm definitely noticing a growth in libertarianism.

But it might just be me spending more time around libertarians. Do you see a time where that will become a viable third political option?

Nick Szabo: I mean it's come and gone. There was a big thing with Ron Paul and so forth, but there is such an interconnection between government and mass media outlets and there's so many people and other parts of the country that are dependent on it or their favorite issue needs government to do it for them.

Peter McCormack: So we need a libertarian news network! Nick Szabo: So I think Bitcoin itself to some small extent comes with that ethos.

There's plenty of people without that ethos, but it may help spread it a little bit. I don't think we fully answered it, but where do you see Bitcoin 5 to 10 years, what is your best hope?

Nick Szabo: Well, I think what happens is that it moves up and out the food chain a little bit. So banks themselves have been very resistant to it so far, but at some point they start converting probably in less developed countries.

The internet connectivity improves in various parts of the world and internet connectivity may not improve, there may be political barriers to even that, but assuming it does, then Bitcoin use in these places is going to improve along with it and that makes it more viable and there's a lot more need for it, in various parts of the world, than there is in the developed world where most of the people using it are at right now.

So I think there's a lot of room for growth there and in those places, more formal institutions, banks and so forth are more likely to start using it than they are here.

If you're in a wartime situation, like I said, we designed Bitgold, Bitcoin, B-money, that whole ethos is designed from the bottom up security and to have it globally seamless and independent.

Along with that comes some nice features in wartime. So for example, you're a central bank in Ukraine, you got this big pile of gold, you don't want the Russian tanks coming in and getting it.

Your reserves are much more secure in the form of Bitcoin than they are in the form of gold. But that depends on some bad political instability that you certainly would not wish for, but certainly historically is possible.

Peter McCormack: Yeah and a shift in mindset to think, "we want Bitcoin and not gold. Nick Szabo: Right, well some people have to be hitting ahead with reality.

If you're censored via bank, as people increasingly are, and by the way, that's one of the risks of digital centralization, is people get censored and the political activists from various points of view are starting to discover that you can go to banks and get your political enemies shut down and people doing things you don't want them to do, you them shut down.

You don't necessarily need to pass a law, you can convince some regulators or convince some politicians and then they lean on the banks and boom, that's your de facto law right there.

That's increasingly happening because digital centralization makes things so vulnerable to that. So that's another trend and it depends how fast that grows because every time somebody gets censored, boom, that's a reality over the head, they become a Bitcoin fan.

Nick Szabo: I have not met him, but I have read what he's gone through. Peter McCormack: Yeah, they switched off everything and it happened very quickly, almost to the point of coordination between all the groups.

So interestingly, I've come across a few people because of this, and this is why I'm doing this other show as well, because I want to touch on this.

But yeah, they lost every single platform and they went to Bitcoin and now he's a huge Bitcoin fan because of this. Probably very similar to what happened with WikiLeaks, right?

But also I actually had it when I was talking to a sex worker, she got de-banked, she got kicked off PayPal, she actually got de-platformed by Coinbase as well, so she had to independently accept Bitcoin.

Nick Szabo: Yeah, I mean those are the real world cases. It won't be political ideology so much as many cases for many political different points of view like that, that cause people to switch to Bitcoin or at least to consider it.

Peter McCormack: I do wonder if any governments are accumulating Well, we know of some. Nick Szabo: So for example, a war is the version of a government being hit over the head.

Sanctions might be another example. Peter McCormack: And that started to happen, right? So we're hearing, I think is it five countries?

So we know of North Korea of course, we've heard of Venezuela stealing mining equipment and also using it to get around sanctions.

I think Iran, Syria and there's probably one more, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia are using it and perhaps they are already using it.

Perhaps it is already existing, because sanctions are state level censorship, right? Nick Szabo: Yeah and it shows why governments also would be motivated to shut it down or try to come after it in some way.

So on one hand, that motivates people to use Bitcoin and on the other hand it increases the risks involved.

Peter McCormack: We live in really, really fucking strange times. I don't know if you're feeling it? Nick Szabo: Oh yeah!

Well I mean our society is running so many radical experiments in parallel and we're just kind of hurdling into the future mostly blind.

Everybody thinks they know what's going on or pretends they know, but we're going blindly into the future.

Peter McCormack: And everyone's pissed off! Like everyone's angry and fighting. One of the things I'm looking at quite a bit, and I mentioned you before, I'm just looking at global warming as an issue, and this is more just to explain my problems.

It's not whether global warming is an issue or isn't an issue, it's that I can't find any truth. I'll go one side and a bunch of people say, "oh, here's some sites with information, you're wrong, you're a fucking idiot!

Then I'll go to the other side and I get exactly the same! I'm finding that on multiple topics, whether it's global warming, gun rights, sex worker rights, abortion, any of these very complicated issues, there's no middle ground.

Everyone's just like, "raaah, fight! Nick Szabo: Yeah, the more complicated things get, the more people over simplify it, because we have finite brains.

Peter McCormack: But the internet has allowed people to find each other, find a voice Nick Szabo: And people convince themselves that they understand things that they don't!

Peter McCormack: Well I'm guilty of that as well to be honest. Nick Szabo: Oh it's a universal. Peter McCormack: It's really hard to kind of take a step back sometimes and just say, "well hold on, I'm getting a bit too confident for myself, where's my area?

We're watching the nature of money change in front of us, we are watching very different political outlooks.

Obviously I am aware you are a fan of Trump, I've certainly had my opinion change of him, not a fan, but I've had my opinion change of him.

We've got Brexit in the UK. What do you make of everything that's going on? Nick Szabo: Well, again, it's far too complicated to be able to understand and predict more than a fraction of it.

One of the interesting patterns that's common to Hong Kong and Brexit that I find interesting for my legal studies, is that it's common law versus civil law.

So with Brexit, England invented the common law tradition, a very ancient tradition there, but Europe is a civil law, Roman law tradition and that has come into a pretty severe conflict and that's a big part of the motivator for Brexit.

Brexit has at least that the tacit support of most of the lawyers in Britain because that's what they learned, is the common law and they don't want a bunch of people from an alien legal system coming and telling them how to do things.

That erupts just all over in politics and the legal system and stuff, but it's also the same in Hong Kong. They have the British common law tradition and then China borrowed their law from Germany, which is a civil law tradition.

So that's actually, and at certain levels, the same kind of conflict as Brexit. So I see some patterns like that that are interesting, but the world of politics is so complicated, I'm not going to claim some great ability to predict these things.

Peter McCormack: Well no, but when you talk about patterns, is it this week we've had demonstrations in Barcelona, Lebanon, Chile, it just feels like, across the world now everyone is It almost feels like to me as if Hong Kong has said to people, "you can fight back!

You don't have to take the bureaucracy and the bullshit. Nick Szabo: I guess, but I'm not there. My father fought the Hungarian revolution, which was somewhat at least tacitly encouraged by the United States and for some reason Hungarians believe that the United States might come help them and of course the United States, wasn't really in a position to help Hungary, so that was a lost cause and the Russian tanks came in.

So in terms of in my personal hemisphere, I sort of see Hong Kong through that lens. We can all say we support them and all this, but how would we actually possibly help them without risking nuclear war?

So I do wonder where they're getting their mojo and motivation from to fight, what seems to me like a lost cause, but all power to them, whatever power they can get!

Nick Szabo: No, so this is a similar issue of the Trump issue. Nick Szabo: There's tons of people that hate nationalism basically. Peter McCormack: It's a shame thing, right?

If I went back to the UK now and Like I'm pro Brexit and a lot of my friends hate me for it and I've learnt more about Trump here.

Again, I'm not a fan, but I've learned more about him and I know if I express that back with my friends back at home, they're going to shame on me and treat me like I'm a Nazi.

Nick Szabo: Well let's put it this way. So I have a fondness for Hungary and Hungarian culture, partly because my father was close to it, but he lost it, he did not teach us Hungarian.

So there was a little genocide going on there, in so far as that Now that language is very rare, it's a non-Indo-European language, it's distantly related to Finnish, it's distantly related to some languages in Siberia which have already basically died out, so it's a very unique culture and a unique language.

I would think from just an objective point of view on, my view is not objective, because my dad is Hungarian.

But I would think just from an objective point of view, it'd be a great loss for humanity to lose this culture. But that's what you do, if you invite a bunch of people in who don't share the religion, don't share the race, don't share the language especially, you are going to lose that culture.

There's no reason for people to learn Hungarian in Hungary, except that their neighbors speak it. If their neighbors aren't speaking it anymore, they'll lose their culture.

So if you care about preserving culture, as a lot of Hungarians do, as the Hungarian president does, then I would think that current immigration restrictionist, Hungarian culture is a very good idea.

But that's very different from the American point of view, kind of multiethnic, multilingual, everybody's welcome kind of thing and more diverse the better.

Peter McCormack: All right, interesting! I'll have to read a bit more about that than. All right, well listen look, one thing I want to finish on with you, I got into a debate this week with somebody relating to Bitcoin SV and what they were talking to me about is Moore's law again.

I've heard Moore's law come up and people talk about "big blocks don't matter, because we have Moore's law.

Nick Szabo: Right, well there's a fundamental limit in physics called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that sets a limit Peter McCormack: This is a good thing to finish on!

Nick Szabo: It's one of these very unfortunate things in physics, like Einstein's limit to the speed of light limit, that was really awful.

It's even more awful than the speed of light limit, it's a limit on how precise you can make things and almost every technological breakthrough in human history from the industrial revolution to computers, semiconductors, has been based on making things more precise.

But unfortunately the smaller you go in scale, the more things get funny and imprecise, relative to your scale.

So that's Heisenberg's uncertainty principles. But that is coming to an end. Right now sadly, we are reaching Heisenberg's limit, at least as far as semiconductor technology is going.

I just bought a new Mac recently and it's basically the same as the Mac I bought in , costs the same and has the same capabilities.

That's never happened before in my life and that's because we're reaching physics' limits and that's happening now. It's going to come to an end, it is coming to an end.

Peter McCormack: What's the implication? Now there is somewhat orthogonal directions things might go, like quantum computing, but the traditional semiconductor classical computing, certainly is reached an impasse right now and maybe there's some room for improvement still, maybe there's not much.

But the next hundred years, as the laws of physics We don't discover something in physics, we live through an era just like the industrial revolution and transportation, people lived through the era where people were going to space in s, we thought, "oh transportation, the speed people are traveling is increasing at this exponential rate and so we'll be zipping at light speed through the universe in a few decades.

Well no, there's actually physical limits and there's actually this huge gravity world that we live on, and no, we don't have these space colonies and flying cars and all that stuff, people thought because there's physics limits to these things and practical limits that people haven't figuring out how to get around.

So we're reaching that probably with computation right now and it's going to be a lot more boring and sad, in terms of, than I've experienced in my lifetime.

Peter McCormack: So we're going to hit a plateau in technology advancements, unless it would require You're saying it would require new physics or just maybe different chip design?

Nick Szabo: Well, I mean quantum computing is not new physics, but it's a new application of quantum computing that finds a new set of parallelisms that aren't available in classical computing.

Peter McCormack: How much have you looked into quantum? I'm assuming you have? Nick Szabo: A little bit, but like any of these things, it's a very detailed, esoteric thing that I am not possibly an expert on or like an expert in the field.

But it does have a lot of barriers in terms of noise and error, that may or may not ever be overcome. Peter McCormack: So we're going have a boring next 40, 50 years or the rest of our lives?

Nick Szabo: Yeah, I think that the really exciting progress in my life was computation and software is eating the world. Now there's a lot of improvement left in software because we have this bloatware that came up, like every time Moore's law doubled the speed of something, Microsoft and other companies were right there to completely obliterate that advantage with bloatware.

So there's all sorts of inefficiencies in software that probably can be overcome and that'll be probably a more important source of efficiency improvement over the next hundred years than hardware.

Peter McCormack: Maybe we don't need hardware? You talk about software eating the world, Bitcoin eating the world would be a very exciting thing, because that would be a very significant change to society.

So maybe that's the next advancement. Nick Szabo: Well eating the financial system maybe! Peter McCormack: Can it do anything else?

Is there anything else in there that interests? Nick Szabo: Rolled up in what? Peter McCormack: Like in Bitcoin.

So for example, identity, do you find that an interesting Nick Szabo: Oh no, Bitcoin goes in the opposite direction.

It doesn't depend on any identity, it doesn't need it, it doesn't implement it. It avoids it because it's a tar baby, it's a terrible quagmire to get into.

Peter McCormack: But people are building identity into Bitcoin? Nick Szabo: Right, because the traditional banking system requires identity.

So people come with the traditional banking mindset of, "you got to have identity. Peter McCormack: Well I think the only other big area of interesting tech that a lot of people seem to be interested in is AI and the implications and automation.

Nick Szabo: That's a large, basically software known, like how does our mind work? How much can we implement that into software?

Now there were projections about Moore's law that computers would reach human capacity, although the comparisons are actually quite dubious, because they work quite differently.

We're going to fall short of those because Moore's law is not going to keep up with those projections anymore, so that kind of sheer hardware capacity thing is going to stop somewhat short of human capacity.

But we don't know how intelligence works and the mind works for the most part and so it's anybody's guess as to whether this lesser, or what was deemed a lesser computational capability that we are going to probably plateau at, will be sufficient for human level AI.

Then of course, because software can already do a bunch of things much better than humans, if it can do what we can do as good as us, then of course it's better than us.

Peter McCormack: It will get rid of us then, it wouldn't need us! So Terminator can happen. Nick Szabo: But again, that's a big unknown, as we don't really know how the mind works for the most part.

Nick Szabo: No, it's mostly marketing hype. What I will hear about AI just on Twitter or so forth, is what other people hear about Blockchain on Twitter, it's not reality!

Peter McCormack: What does excite you then? What are the things that you're thinking about outside of Bitcoin.

I know you love Bitcoin come on, but what other things are exciting you or are worth investing your time into? Nick Szabo: Well I study a lot of history, just stay grounded on that.

Prior to Bitcoin, I was interested in other things like space development, I worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so I was really excited to see the tail first rocket SpaceX thing, that's a nice breakthrough in that.

Peter McCormack: Have you read into the Scramjet? Nick Szabo: I haven't heard about advances in that recently. Peter McCormack: So it was in the news yesterday, that a jet that could get you from the UK to Australia in four hours.

Nick Szabo: Yeah, if they can get that to work! They've been trying to get at work for decades, so if they can get it to work or not, I don't know.

They do use it in missiles and so forth, but there are some barriers limits to Not least of which is the thing that killed the Concorde, was super sonic booms and nasty loud things like that.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, that was interesting about Concorde. I watched a documentary about that the other day and the fact that we've not had another supersonic jet since.

But the sonic boom, you couldn't do it over certain cities, it had to be over the sea? Nick Szabo: Right and they consume more fuel, which in our era of concern about global warming is the opposite direction of where most people want to go.

Peter McCormack: Doesn't a Scramjet, not consume traditional fuel? Nick Szabo: No, it has to burn fuel.

Peter McCormack: I thought it had to burn oxygen as well though or something? At a certain speed, it would be more efficient than a traditional engine?

Nick Szabo: It might be more efficient. Peter McCormack: So you don't think we're going to be colonizing Mars? Nick Szabo: No, I mean that's a huge quagmire.

Although he has repeatedly denied it, there is a decent chance that computer scientist and cryptocurrency expert Nick Szabo is, in fact, bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto.

Nonetheless, many analysts and cryptocurrency enthusiasts are convinced that Nick Szabo is the true Satoshi.

Here are some of the reasons why. One of the reasons that Szabo could be Satoshi is that the computer scientist created an important predecessor of bitcoin.

Called "bit gold," this early example of a digital currency provided an important impetus for some of the developments that would later characterize bitcoin.

Further, Szabo and Satoshi contacted the same group of people for feedback and advice with their respective cryptocurrency projects. According to Gizmodo , Szabo even backdated a blog post asking for advice on how to launch bit gold in order to make it appear that he wrote the query after Satoshi released a paper on bitcoin in Gizmodo's report indicates that Satoshi and Szabo even have a similar writing style, citing Szabo's blog post and Satoshi's early paper on bitcoin.

From research conducted at Aston University in Birmingham, England, to determine potential contenders for the real identity of Satoshi, a report concluded that Szabo's writing contains "striking parallels" to Satoshi's, including similar writing mannerisms and phrasings.

Aston's Jack Grieve described the similarities as "uncanny. A report on Medium draws further parallels between Szabo and Satoshi.

According to the report, "Szabo and Satoshi each give essentially an identically unique explanation" as to why bitcoin should have value.

While it's possible that two independent cryptocurrency experts would arrive at a nearly identical arguments in favor of the world's most popular digital currency, again, the parallels between the two arguments have some analysts and others in the cryptocurrency community wondering if it might be more than a coincidence.

The New Yorker. Retrieved February 4, History Economics Legal status. Money portal. Bitcoin Improvement Proposals List of bitcoin companies List of bitcoin organizations List of people in blockchain technology.

Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Cash Bitcoin Gold. BTC-e Cryptopia Mt. Gox QuadrigaCX. Bitcoin scalability problem History of Bitcoin Bitcoin Foundation.

Category Commons. Proof of authority Proof of space Proof of stake Proof of work. Ethereum Ethereum Classic.

Dash Petro. Gridcoin EOS. Category Commons List. Categories : People associated with Bitcoin Living people Science bloggers.

Nick Szabo Genau diese Texte bieten weitere Anhaltspunkte, die eine Verwandtschaft von Szabo und Nakamoto stützen. Auch als Bitcoin allmählich ein Wall Spielen The Online fand, war ihm das kaum eine Silbe wert. Iran entwickelt jetzt https://meganwest.co/casino-movie-online-free/beste-spielothek-in-pressnitz-finden.php staatliche Kryptowährung Juli 27, Obwohl Szabo es wiederholt abgelehnt hat, haben die Leute spekuliert, dass er Nakamoto ist. Larouge selbst bestreitet die doppelte Identität mit Nakamoto dem Auszahlung Steuern Urheber. Erst erwähnt der Source die Kryptowährung als Randnotiz in seinem Blog. Dies war eine inakzeptable Lösung für Szabo.

Nick Szabo - Wer ist Nick Szabo?

Hal Finney hat einige seiner privaten Emails mit Satoshi Nakamoto öffentlich gemacht. Gox werden sollte. Please enter your name here. Womöglich ist es auch einfach wahr, was Nick Szabo immer wieder beteuert: Er ist gar nicht Satoshi Nakamoto. NickSzabo4 July 20, Monero hat eine Reihe von Mechanismen in sein Protokoll integriert, welche tatsächliche Anonymität gewährleisten. Wer Nick Szabos Twitter-Account verfolgt, könnte den Eindruck gewinnen, der Kryptograph sei ein Bitcoin-Maximalist. In einem Tweet machte. Nun meldet sich auch der Bitcoin-Pionier Nick Szabo zu Wort und spricht über eine zunehmende Zentralisierung von Ethereum. Der Begriff „Smart Contract“ geht auf den US-amerikanischen Informatiker und Juristen Nick Szabo zurück. Dieser hatte schon Ende der 90er. Monthly Bitcoin Meetup at the Effinger coffee bar. There are no organized talks or anything similar, just ourselves exchanging experiences and ideas and having. Nick Szabo, Smart Contracts: Building Blocks for Digital Markets, /Literature/​LOTwinterschool/meganwest.co, ; Vitalik.

It is probable that no such big but integrity-preserving performance improvement is possible for the Bitcoin blockchain; this may be one of these unavoidable tradeoffs.

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical tradeoffs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these tradeoffs, but Bitcoin also makes others.

Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes.

So a 1 MB block consumes far more resources than a 1 MB web page, because it has to be transmitted, processed, and stored with high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.

These necessary tradeoffs, sacrificing performance in order to achieve the security necessary for independent, seamlessly global, and automated integrity, mean that the Bitcoin blockchain itself cannot possibly come anywhere near Visa transaction-per-second numbers and maintain the automated integrity that creates its distinctive advantages versus these traditional financial systems.

Instead, a less trust-minimized peripheral payment network possibly Lightning will be needed to bear a larger number of lower-value bitcoin-denominated transactions than Bitcoin blockchain is capable of, using the Bitcoin blockchain to periodically settle with one high-value transaction batches of peripheral network transactions.

Bitcoin supports a lower rate transactions than Visa or PayPal, but due to its stronger automated security these can be much more important transactions.

Lower value transactions with lower fees will need to be implemented on peripheral bitcoin networks. And there are also clever ways to do peripheral bitcoin retail payments in which small value payments happen off-chain and are only periodically bulk-settled on the Capital-B Bitcoin blockchain.

That blockchain is going to evolve into a high-value settlement layer as bitcoin use grows, and we will see peripheral networks being used for small-b bitcoin retail transactions.

The peripheral payment network can involve only small value transactions, thereby requiring much less of a human army to avoid the fate of Mt.

Ralph Merkle: pioneer of public-key cryptography and inventor of hierarchical hash-tree structures Merkle trees.

Money requires social scalability in its design, via security. For example it should be very hard for any participant or intermediary to forge money to dilute the supply curve leading to undue or unexpected inflation.

Bitcoin excels at both these factors and runs online, enabling somebody in Albania to use Bitcoin to pay somebody in Zimbabwe with minimal trust in or and no payment of quasi-monopoly profits to intermediaries, and with minimum vulnerability to third parties.

I suggest a clear definition that can be communicated to lay people. It is a blockchain if it has blocks and it has chains.

A private blockchain cannot accomplish this feat nearly as easily, since it would require an identification scheme, certificate authority, and PKI shared between these various jurisdictions.

Because of this fraction, and because of the hopefully very rare need to update software in a manner that renders prior blocks invalid—an even riskier situation called a hard fork—blockchains also need a human governance layer that is vulnerable to fork politics.

The most successful blockchain, Bitcoin, has maintained its immutable integrity via decentralized decision-making among experts in the technology combined with a strong dogma of immutability, under which only the most important and rare bug fixes and design improvements, that cannot be made any other way, justify a hard fork.

Under this philosophy of governance accounting or legal decisions such as altering an account balance or undoing a transaction never justify a hard fork, but should be accomplished by traditional governance outside of or on top of the system e.

That requires additional protocols, often including expensive traditional controls. Typical computers are computational etch-a-sketch, while blockchains are computational amber.

A Merkle tree of four transactions tx0 through tx3. Combined with a proper replication and chains of transaction blocks protected by proof-of-work, Merkle trees can make data such as transactions post-unforgeable by consensus.

In Bitcoin, a Merkle root hash securely summarizes and is used to verify the unaltered state of all the transactions in a block.

It demonstrated my theory that you could protect the integrity of globally shared data and transactions, and use that ability to design a cryptocurrency bit gold.

It did not have the more efficient and computationally scalable blocks-and-ledger system that Bitcoin does. Indeed some kinds of software updates needed to fix bugs or otherwise improve the protocol require a soft fork.

Some other kinds of software updates require hard forks, which in Bitcoin pose an even greater security and continuity risks than soft forks.

Blockchains, although reducing trust far more than any other network protocols, are still far from trustless.

Miners are partially trusted fiduciaries, and those who are not expert developers or computer scientists who have invested a great deal of time in learning the design principles and codebase of a blockchain must place a great deal of faith in the expert developer community, much as non-specialists who want to understand the results of a specialized science do of the corresponding scientists.

During a hard fork exchanges can also be very influential by deciding which fork to support with their order books and trade symbol continuity.

They are all very different from and not nearly as socially scalable as public and permissionless blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

All of the following are very similar in requiring an securely identified distinguishable and countable group of servers rather than the arbitrary anonymous membership of miners in public blockchains.

In other words, they require some other, usually far less socially scalable, solution to the Sybil sockpuppet attack problem:.

The dominant, but usually not very socially scalable, way to identify a group of servers is with a PKI based on trusted certificate authorities CAs.

To avoid the problem that merely trusted third parties are security holes , reliable CAs themselves must be expensive, labor-intensive bureaucracies that often do extensive background checks themselves or rely on others e.

Dun and Bradstreet for businesses to do so. I once led a team that designed and built such a CA. CAs also act as a gatekeeper, rendering these permissioned systems.

CAs can become singular points of political control and failure. PKI-enabled private blockchains are a nice for banks and some other large enterprises because they already have mature in-house PKIs that cover the employees, partners, and private servers needed to approve important transactions.

Bank PKIs are relatively reliable. We also have semi-reliable CAs for web servers, but not generally speaking for web clients, even though people have been working on the problem of client certificates since the invention of the web: for example advertisers would love to have a more secure alternative to phone numbers and cookies for tracking customer identities.

PKI can work well for some important things and people but it is not nearly so nice or so easy for lesser entities.

Its social scalability is limited by the traditional wet identity bureaucracy on which it depends. Some significant thefts in the broader bitcoin ecosystem.

Whereas the Bitcoin blockchain itself is probably the most secure financial network in existence and indeed must remain far more secure than traditional payment networks in order to maintain its low governance costs and seamless cross-border capability , its peripheral services based on older centralized web servers are very insecure.

Source: author. We need more socially scalable ways to securely count nodes, or to put it another way to with as much robustness against corruption as possible, assess contributions to securing the integrity of a blockchain.

That is what proof-of-work and broadcast-replication are about: greatly sacrificing computational scalability in order to improve social scalability.

It is brilliant because humans are far more expensive than computers and that gap widens further each year.

And it is brilliant because it allows one to seamlessly and securely work across human trust boundaries e. Amazon , and a variety of services that allow small and dispersed buyers and sellers to find and do business with each other eBay, Uber, AirBnB, etc.

These are just the initial attempts to take advantage of our new abilities. Those have lots of lock in effects. So a lot of it just depends on how much rope central banks have!

Central banks keep jumping from one experiment to another, and so what they're doing keeps evolving, they're doing negative interest rates now, which is historically unprecedented.

So central banking and fiat currency does seem to be journeying from a historical point of view into ever stranger territory. But how much rope they have left, I don't know.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, it doesn't sound like negative interest rates are a good idea! That to me indicates something's severely wrong with the financial system.

Nick Szabo: You have to break a lot of expectations and probably a few laws too, that you have to change to get to that.

Peter McCormack: Well it's good that we've got Bitcoin here right now then! So you've talked a few times during the interview, and I'm going to swing back and forth I know, but you've mentioned alt coins.

So you certainly don't come across as a maximalist, which is a big thing for people. So how do you feel about alt coins?

Obviously there's a lot of scams and bullshit. I don't believe everything that isn't Bitcoin is a scam, because I believe some people have honest intentions, I think they just might be stupid ideas.

How do you feel about, firstly the broad cryptocurrency ecosystem and then specifically what kind of projects are you interested in?

There's some good things about those and then there's some probably not so good things that come from trying to make privacy and [Inaudible] work together.

Peter McCormack: Do you have a preference? Nick Szabo: I don't have a preference because there's a lot of technicalities that I haven't dived into.

I think Zcash sometimes feels a little bit like a corporate coin and Dash has Nick Szabo: I mean there's so many dimensions to these things, like probably Zcash is the best technology of the major privacy coins at this point, but then there's some other things about it that might make you skeptical.

Nick Szabo: Yeah, well I didn't work with him there, we were both there at different times. Then I hung out with him with the cypherpunks a fair amount too.

Peter McCormack: Okay, so what about Ethereum? Because previously it seemed like you were positive about it and then a little bit recently, not so much?

Nick Szabo: As advertised, it had a lot of potential, like a Turing complete smart contract and platform is incredibly useful.

I've thought of a ton of useful things to do with it, you can't do with Bitcoin. But in practice we've seen it centralize and we've seen the attitudes of the leadership change.

Lord Acton has the phrase, "power corrupts" and you could rephrase that as, "centralization corrupts" and as a coin becomes centralized, the attitudes of the leadership change.

It's in their self-interest, they love to talk about game theory and self-interest. It's in their self-interest now to preach a pro-centralization ideology kind of cryptically, because their followers don't believe that, but kind of cryptically that's what they're starting to do.

Peter McCormack: Okay, there is a spectrum of decentralization. I think the goal of decentralization is something you can't turn off, right?

Is it possible that Ethereum can be semi de-centralized, in that it could have a few nodes operate around the world that means it's very difficult to switch off, but still offers benefits to the users?

Or is just the whole idea dead? Nick Szabo: Well the main benefit of it is dead because you could run this centrally, like a cloud service and it would have some utility, but it'd be very, very different from what Bitcoin's utility is and it would be very different from what a actual trust minimized, smart contract platform would have.

So I wouldn't necessarily say that it doesn't have utility. Centralized banking has utility, but its utility is very different than what Bitcoin's utility is and the risks are amplified because bankers know how to do digital centralized stuff as much as anybody does.

I'm not convinced the Ethereum people know how to do it and it requires a whole bunch of subtle bureaucracy and subtle things, this whole quagmire about governance.

Bankers know how to do governance, but nobody in the crypto space knows how to do governance. So if you see in the crypto space, people talking up their governance and you really like that, just go back to banking!

That's the people who know how to do governance. Peter McCormack: I saw one of your threads, where you were talking about something and every time somebody mentioned governance, you said, " if you bring up governance, I'm going to block you!

Nick Szabo: They're like zombies, they're endless! Peter McCormack: Okay, but you have this interest in smart contracts, we can't do Turing complete smart contracts on Bitcoin, well one person thinks you can, but we can't, right?

So you have this interest, do you think therefore that somebody needs to work So with Bitcoin, someone has focus on building a monetary protocol and as a group of people, have tried to keep it as decentralized as possible.

Do you think that's an achievable goal with smart contracts? That someone should look to create a smart contract platform, but every design decision, similar to Bitcoin, is aimed at maximum decentralization or do you think with smart contracts it is just not possible because they will always scale to something that becomes centralized?

Nick Szabo: Well, it's definitely difficult. I'm not going to say it's impossible because there's lots of subtleties in the computer science, lots of things remaining to be explored and improved and I can't say I've dove down into all the different platforms out there that are promising these things.

It's certainly possible, or well I think and hope it's possible, but it's harder than it looks. Peter McCormack: Do small contracts have to be fully decentralized to get the benefit from them?

Nick Szabo: Well to get the globally seamless trust minimization benefit, yeah! Because otherwise it's just going to evolve back into politically controlled banking.

Peter McCormack: Okay, it sounds like you're kind of drifting away from it now as an idea? Nick Szabo: Yeah, unfortunately I haven't seen anybody doing it right.

I think Ethereum Classic and RSK probably have a better ethos about it, but whether the technology is up to achieving it, is maybe another matter.

Peter McCormack: The one thing I've always thought about with smart contracts, is that it goes back to almost that point with being able to reverse transactions.

I've always worried whether companies really adopt smart contracts on immutable ledgers? Because if you can't reverse it and there's some bug or mistake that ends up costing, it's no joke to even say tens or even hundreds of millions because that has actually happened in Ethereum.

So I always thought because it's not foolproof, because code has bugs, do you really want to have smart contracts that business is built upon, where this can happen?

It seems very risky. Nick Szabo: Well yeah, you certainly want to have a much more careful Part of the reason I'm soured on smart contracts is the standardization of Solidity, that's just not a good smart contract language.

It's just basically a normal programming language, roughly speaking. So they have better things going on and better practices going on with medical devices and airlines and there are places where people die, if your code has bugs in it and you can't just go upgrade it if it's in hardware or it's an ASIC for example.

So there's lots of places actually that are [Inaudible ], where you program once and it's got to work the first time you install it in hardware, because you're not going to change it before it breaks and kills somebody.

So there's actually a lot of situations like that already, that smart people can learn. But they do sometimes kill people!

I don't think the current smart contract community has the best practices. I think they can learn from these other areas that have been doing this a lot longer.

Peter McCormack: I've looked at something like Ethereum and said that to me it just seems like they're trying to put too much information on the Blockchain.

If you're trying to put too much information on the Blockchain, it centralizes and we know it's centralized around Infura.

Isn't it a shame that somebody just doesn't stand up and say, "you know what? Yeah, we got this wrong. We fucked up. We can't build this.

Nick Szabo: Well there's way too much inertia. There's a whole huge culture built up around it now and a lot of people's wages are dependent on the belief that that stuff works.

Peter McCormack: Just kick the can down the road? Peter McCormack: But the truth sets you free man! How long can they continue with this?

All right, well then we should just get back to Bitcoin, because if none of these are going to work then Nick Szabo: Well I should say that I'm not saying it's all broken or something, I'm just saying that there's a lot of risks involved and I don't think it's suitable for large amounts of money and it's got a lot of risk of centralization.

It risks evolving to something a lot more like banking, a lot more bureaucracy and locality and so forth, than something very different from Bitcoin.

Peter McCormack: And then, who cares! Okay, so I'm going to get back to Bitcoin. One of the biggest things my friends always say to me is like, "it's useless because it's volatile" and they're scared to buy.

I know what you say, you talk about four year cycle, right? You need to build belief, but do you think this will keep happening?

Do you have this fundamental belief that it will keep going? Nick Szabo: Well, I mean if you look just at the price and the history of investments in general, sure it's a gamble.

I can understand why a normal Wall Street person would think it's just gambling, because price only gives you so much information.

But if like me, you've studied the history of money and you realize it solves these historical problems, like validation has always been a problem, assaying gold and all these precious metals has always been very expensive.

With Bitcoin, not everybody's going to run a full node, but lots of people can run full nodes and that solves a historically huge problem with money that hasn't been solved in nearly as good a way before, the ability to loot gold.

The Aztecs collected tributes and they looted people and they were looted by the Spanish and then the English looted the Spanish Nick Szabo: So it was not the most secure thing.

With good key management, multisig, other techniques that people are developing, and this is a work in progress, it isn't necessarily Bitcoin itself, but a work in progress of key management, we can solve a lot of that problem too as well.

So these are historically important problems with money that Bitcoin is solving or can solve for the first time in history. Peter McCormack: But do you empathize with people who struggle with it being not a physical thing?

I did with music, right? I was still buying CDs for two years longer than I should have and now they're all in a cupboard, I don't use them and eventually I got to MP3s.

It's the same transition, it's the same logical transition in your mind in that you're going from a lump of gold or physical notes, even your debit card feels like money.

Nick Szabo: Well it feels like money because you started using it as money. Before you started using it as money, it didn't feel like money.

Peter McCormack: But it's so different, Bitcoin is so different. When we've spent our whole lives having a belief, which is wrong, but that money has value because of our government, we have that belief.

We're not all cypherpunks! Nick Szabo: Well that's true, but everybody can look at a price chart though. So if you look at the price chart, it reflects these fundamentals.

Now there's lots of other things, you can look at the price chart and the fundamentals aren't really there and it's a bubble. But I see fundamentals being there.

Peter McCormack: Has your opinion drastically changed with any aspects of Bitcoin in its life? Are there any parts of it where you've had a very strong change in opinion?

Nick Szabo: I was skeptical of price schedule at first, because it was a very different thing than what I had designed, but it doesn't seem to have been an issue!

Peter McCormack: Nothing else? Nick Szabo: No, I was very happy with the consensus protocols, much better than what I was using for example.

Peter McCormack: How rigid are you to the rules of Bitcoin? So for example, if there was a significant block re-org, say a thousand block re-org, how would you feel about that and what do you think the reaction should be to that?

Nick Szabo: Yeah, that would be a huge deal! That would be a big problem. There's more people down in the technical expertise of how likely that is and what you do to respond to it and stuff, than I am.

But certainly that's something we would try to prevent. Peter McCormack: All right, so looking forward, as we said, we're coming up to 11 years actually.

The white paper actually came out on my birthday, on Halloween. Yeah, it came out on my birthday and I wasn't aware of it because I didn't buy any, but funny enough, I was in Vegas and on the 10th anniversary, I was in Vegas, so it was just this weird coincidence.

Well it's not that weird actually, because it was my 30th and 40th birthdays. Where are you going to go on a big one?! But we're 10 years in, where do you see Bitcoin in 5 or 10 years?

In your mind where, how far do you think we can go with this? Nick Szabo: Well, I mean there's a lot of unpredictability. For many years, the government has been very hands off with it and that's pretty surprising.

But it's not too surprising considering how hard it would be to actually effectively crack down on Bitcoin. But seeing how they just went all guns blazing after Libra, that right there, we knew they would do that.

They did that against E-gold and Liberty reserve. Now those were smaller things, but they were certainly also energetic in taking them down.

There's a huge unknown in the politics because the politics so far to Bitcoin has been friendlier than that and there's various reasons that could be.

Part of it is because it is very difficult to impossible to regulate at least the core part of it, it's pretty easy to regulate the exchanges and some other aspects of it.

But I can't predict politics better than anybody else can. It would be interesting to know what your view on Libra is.

I didn't hate it as much as everyone else did, the general consensus. Nick Szabo: 20 years ago, before How long has it been? Anyway, before I came up with Bitgold and even after that was still a theoretical possibility, that still would be a big improvement.

Well I don't know about big improvement, but improvement probably over central banking and the way things are done now, maybe.

It's certainly a step, but that's 20 years ago and we've made so many advances that Libra has ignored, that's preposterous today.

For me, it was kind of like fiat, Libra, Bitcoin, and if it became a bridge to introduce people to Bitcoin, I was kind of okay with it. I also felt it was just a natural thing that was going to happen.

It was natural for Facebook to create something like this. Nick Szabo: Probably, yeah. Peter McCormack: It seemed like a stupid thing to fight and then watching the Senate hearing, it was quite interesting that there's some pro Bitcoin senators and it was quite interesting to hear some of that.

I don't know if you noticed some of that? Nick Szabo: Yeah, Bitcoin is part of the reality now. It's been all over the financial TV networks and the newspapers and stuff for many years now.

So that makes a big difference, it's a reality on the ground and Libra is not a reality on the ground, it was just a proposal.

So that was the time they could kill it. Peter McCormack: Yeah, well I think it will come back. So I always said I feel it would just be a stable coin, it would just be a dollar stable coin.

Nick Szabo: Yeah, I mean it's in competition with Tether and those things. Peter McCormack: And to be honest, in some ways it made more sense.

It seems like a lot easier and I think they'll do that. The interesting thing on the regulation side, do you worry about it? Also is there part of you that actually kind of wants them to bring the fight to you, as a bit of a cypherpunk, like "come on, let's have it.

Fucking try and take us on! Nick Szabo: No, I'm enough of a libertarian to not want that stuff. It's something Bitcoin can resist, but it's not necessarily something particular people in Bitcoin can resist and it could cause a lot of harm.

So certainly it's not something I wish for. But on the other hand, we live in a very politically far from ideal world and lots of people in government do hate what we're doing and you got to be prepared for it.

Peter McCormack: Do you think things are getting better or worse? I don't know if I'm noticing it because I'm getting more into Bitcoin and the people I meet, but I'm definitely noticing a growth in libertarianism.

But it might just be me spending more time around libertarians. Do you see a time where that will become a viable third political option?

Nick Szabo: I mean it's come and gone. There was a big thing with Ron Paul and so forth, but there is such an interconnection between government and mass media outlets and there's so many people and other parts of the country that are dependent on it or their favorite issue needs government to do it for them.

Peter McCormack: So we need a libertarian news network! Nick Szabo: So I think Bitcoin itself to some small extent comes with that ethos.

There's plenty of people without that ethos, but it may help spread it a little bit. I don't think we fully answered it, but where do you see Bitcoin 5 to 10 years, what is your best hope?

Nick Szabo: Well, I think what happens is that it moves up and out the food chain a little bit. So banks themselves have been very resistant to it so far, but at some point they start converting probably in less developed countries.

The internet connectivity improves in various parts of the world and internet connectivity may not improve, there may be political barriers to even that, but assuming it does, then Bitcoin use in these places is going to improve along with it and that makes it more viable and there's a lot more need for it, in various parts of the world, than there is in the developed world where most of the people using it are at right now.

So I think there's a lot of room for growth there and in those places, more formal institutions, banks and so forth are more likely to start using it than they are here.

If you're in a wartime situation, like I said, we designed Bitgold, Bitcoin, B-money, that whole ethos is designed from the bottom up security and to have it globally seamless and independent.

Along with that comes some nice features in wartime. So for example, you're a central bank in Ukraine, you got this big pile of gold, you don't want the Russian tanks coming in and getting it.

Your reserves are much more secure in the form of Bitcoin than they are in the form of gold. But that depends on some bad political instability that you certainly would not wish for, but certainly historically is possible.

Peter McCormack: Yeah and a shift in mindset to think, "we want Bitcoin and not gold. Nick Szabo: Right, well some people have to be hitting ahead with reality.

If you're censored via bank, as people increasingly are, and by the way, that's one of the risks of digital centralization, is people get censored and the political activists from various points of view are starting to discover that you can go to banks and get your political enemies shut down and people doing things you don't want them to do, you them shut down.

You don't necessarily need to pass a law, you can convince some regulators or convince some politicians and then they lean on the banks and boom, that's your de facto law right there.

That's increasingly happening because digital centralization makes things so vulnerable to that. So that's another trend and it depends how fast that grows because every time somebody gets censored, boom, that's a reality over the head, they become a Bitcoin fan.

Nick Szabo: I have not met him, but I have read what he's gone through. Peter McCormack: Yeah, they switched off everything and it happened very quickly, almost to the point of coordination between all the groups.

So interestingly, I've come across a few people because of this, and this is why I'm doing this other show as well, because I want to touch on this.

But yeah, they lost every single platform and they went to Bitcoin and now he's a huge Bitcoin fan because of this. Probably very similar to what happened with WikiLeaks, right?

But also I actually had it when I was talking to a sex worker, she got de-banked, she got kicked off PayPal, she actually got de-platformed by Coinbase as well, so she had to independently accept Bitcoin.

Nick Szabo: Yeah, I mean those are the real world cases. It won't be political ideology so much as many cases for many political different points of view like that, that cause people to switch to Bitcoin or at least to consider it.

Peter McCormack: I do wonder if any governments are accumulating Well, we know of some. Nick Szabo: So for example, a war is the version of a government being hit over the head.

Sanctions might be another example. Peter McCormack: And that started to happen, right? So we're hearing, I think is it five countries?

So we know of North Korea of course, we've heard of Venezuela stealing mining equipment and also using it to get around sanctions.

I think Iran, Syria and there's probably one more, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia are using it and perhaps they are already using it.

Perhaps it is already existing, because sanctions are state level censorship, right? Nick Szabo: Yeah and it shows why governments also would be motivated to shut it down or try to come after it in some way.

So on one hand, that motivates people to use Bitcoin and on the other hand it increases the risks involved.

Peter McCormack: We live in really, really fucking strange times. I don't know if you're feeling it? Nick Szabo: Oh yeah!

Well I mean our society is running so many radical experiments in parallel and we're just kind of hurdling into the future mostly blind.

Everybody thinks they know what's going on or pretends they know, but we're going blindly into the future. Peter McCormack: And everyone's pissed off!

Like everyone's angry and fighting. One of the things I'm looking at quite a bit, and I mentioned you before, I'm just looking at global warming as an issue, and this is more just to explain my problems.

It's not whether global warming is an issue or isn't an issue, it's that I can't find any truth. I'll go one side and a bunch of people say, "oh, here's some sites with information, you're wrong, you're a fucking idiot!

Then I'll go to the other side and I get exactly the same! I'm finding that on multiple topics, whether it's global warming, gun rights, sex worker rights, abortion, any of these very complicated issues, there's no middle ground.

Everyone's just like, "raaah, fight! Nick Szabo: Yeah, the more complicated things get, the more people over simplify it, because we have finite brains.

Peter McCormack: But the internet has allowed people to find each other, find a voice Nick Szabo: And people convince themselves that they understand things that they don't!

Peter McCormack: Well I'm guilty of that as well to be honest. Nick Szabo: Oh it's a universal. Peter McCormack: It's really hard to kind of take a step back sometimes and just say, "well hold on, I'm getting a bit too confident for myself, where's my area?

We're watching the nature of money change in front of us, we are watching very different political outlooks.

Obviously I am aware you are a fan of Trump, I've certainly had my opinion change of him, not a fan, but I've had my opinion change of him.

We've got Brexit in the UK. What do you make of everything that's going on? Nick Szabo: Well, again, it's far too complicated to be able to understand and predict more than a fraction of it.

One of the interesting patterns that's common to Hong Kong and Brexit that I find interesting for my legal studies, is that it's common law versus civil law.

So with Brexit, England invented the common law tradition, a very ancient tradition there, but Europe is a civil law, Roman law tradition and that has come into a pretty severe conflict and that's a big part of the motivator for Brexit.

Brexit has at least that the tacit support of most of the lawyers in Britain because that's what they learned, is the common law and they don't want a bunch of people from an alien legal system coming and telling them how to do things.

That erupts just all over in politics and the legal system and stuff, but it's also the same in Hong Kong. They have the British common law tradition and then China borrowed their law from Germany, which is a civil law tradition.

So that's actually, and at certain levels, the same kind of conflict as Brexit. So I see some patterns like that that are interesting, but the world of politics is so complicated, I'm not going to claim some great ability to predict these things.

Peter McCormack: Well no, but when you talk about patterns, is it this week we've had demonstrations in Barcelona, Lebanon, Chile, it just feels like, across the world now everyone is It almost feels like to me as if Hong Kong has said to people, "you can fight back!

You don't have to take the bureaucracy and the bullshit. Nick Szabo: I guess, but I'm not there. My father fought the Hungarian revolution, which was somewhat at least tacitly encouraged by the United States and for some reason Hungarians believe that the United States might come help them and of course the United States, wasn't really in a position to help Hungary, so that was a lost cause and the Russian tanks came in.

So in terms of in my personal hemisphere, I sort of see Hong Kong through that lens. We can all say we support them and all this, but how would we actually possibly help them without risking nuclear war?

So I do wonder where they're getting their mojo and motivation from to fight, what seems to me like a lost cause, but all power to them, whatever power they can get!

Nick Szabo: No, so this is a similar issue of the Trump issue. Nick Szabo: There's tons of people that hate nationalism basically.

Peter McCormack: It's a shame thing, right? If I went back to the UK now and Like I'm pro Brexit and a lot of my friends hate me for it and I've learnt more about Trump here.

Again, I'm not a fan, but I've learned more about him and I know if I express that back with my friends back at home, they're going to shame on me and treat me like I'm a Nazi.

Nick Szabo: Well let's put it this way. So I have a fondness for Hungary and Hungarian culture, partly because my father was close to it, but he lost it, he did not teach us Hungarian.

So there was a little genocide going on there, in so far as that Now that language is very rare, it's a non-Indo-European language, it's distantly related to Finnish, it's distantly related to some languages in Siberia which have already basically died out, so it's a very unique culture and a unique language.

I would think from just an objective point of view on, my view is not objective, because my dad is Hungarian.

But I would think just from an objective point of view, it'd be a great loss for humanity to lose this culture. But that's what you do, if you invite a bunch of people in who don't share the religion, don't share the race, don't share the language especially, you are going to lose that culture.

There's no reason for people to learn Hungarian in Hungary, except that their neighbors speak it. If their neighbors aren't speaking it anymore, they'll lose their culture.

So if you care about preserving culture, as a lot of Hungarians do, as the Hungarian president does, then I would think that current immigration restrictionist, Hungarian culture is a very good idea.

But that's very different from the American point of view, kind of multiethnic, multilingual, everybody's welcome kind of thing and more diverse the better.

Peter McCormack: All right, interesting! I'll have to read a bit more about that than. All right, well listen look, one thing I want to finish on with you, I got into a debate this week with somebody relating to Bitcoin SV and what they were talking to me about is Moore's law again.

I've heard Moore's law come up and people talk about "big blocks don't matter, because we have Moore's law.

Nick Szabo: Right, well there's a fundamental limit in physics called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that sets a limit Peter McCormack: This is a good thing to finish on!

Nick Szabo: It's one of these very unfortunate things in physics, like Einstein's limit to the speed of light limit, that was really awful.

It's even more awful than the speed of light limit, it's a limit on how precise you can make things and almost every technological breakthrough in human history from the industrial revolution to computers, semiconductors, has been based on making things more precise.

But unfortunately the smaller you go in scale, the more things get funny and imprecise, relative to your scale. So that's Heisenberg's uncertainty principles.

But that is coming to an end. Right now sadly, we are reaching Heisenberg's limit, at least as far as semiconductor technology is going.

I just bought a new Mac recently and it's basically the same as the Mac I bought in , costs the same and has the same capabilities. That's never happened before in my life and that's because we're reaching physics' limits and that's happening now.

It's going to come to an end, it is coming to an end. Peter McCormack: What's the implication? Now there is somewhat orthogonal directions things might go, like quantum computing, but the traditional semiconductor classical computing, certainly is reached an impasse right now and maybe there's some room for improvement still, maybe there's not much.

But the next hundred years, as the laws of physics We don't discover something in physics, we live through an era just like the industrial revolution and transportation, people lived through the era where people were going to space in s, we thought, "oh transportation, the speed people are traveling is increasing at this exponential rate and so we'll be zipping at light speed through the universe in a few decades.

Well no, there's actually physical limits and there's actually this huge gravity world that we live on, and no, we don't have these space colonies and flying cars and all that stuff, people thought because there's physics limits to these things and practical limits that people haven't figuring out how to get around.

So we're reaching that probably with computation right now and it's going to be a lot more boring and sad, in terms of, than I've experienced in my lifetime.

Peter McCormack: So we're going to hit a plateau in technology advancements, unless it would require You're saying it would require new physics or just maybe different chip design?

Nick Szabo: Well, I mean quantum computing is not new physics, but it's a new application of quantum computing that finds a new set of parallelisms that aren't available in classical computing.

Peter McCormack: How much have you looked into quantum? I'm assuming you have? Nick Szabo: A little bit, but like any of these things, it's a very detailed, esoteric thing that I am not possibly an expert on or like an expert in the field.

But it does have a lot of barriers in terms of noise and error, that may or may not ever be overcome. Peter McCormack: So we're going have a boring next 40, 50 years or the rest of our lives?

Nick Szabo: Yeah, I think that the really exciting progress in my life was computation and software is eating the world.

Now there's a lot of improvement left in software because we have this bloatware that came up, like every time Moore's law doubled the speed of something, Microsoft and other companies were right there to completely obliterate that advantage with bloatware.

So there's all sorts of inefficiencies in software that probably can be overcome and that'll be probably a more important source of efficiency improvement over the next hundred years than hardware.

Peter McCormack: Maybe we don't need hardware? You talk about software eating the world, Bitcoin eating the world would be a very exciting thing, because that would be a very significant change to society.

So maybe that's the next advancement. Nick Szabo: Well eating the financial system maybe! Peter McCormack: Can it do anything else?

Is there anything else in there that interests? Nick Szabo: Rolled up in what? Peter McCormack: Like in Bitcoin.

So for example, identity, do you find that an interesting Nick Szabo: Oh no, Bitcoin goes in the opposite direction. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation.

Related Articles. Bitcoin How Bitcoin Works. Bitcoin Bitcoin vs. Ethereum: What's the Difference? Partner Links.

Related Terms Who is Satoshi Nakamoto The name used by the unknown creator of the protocol used in the bitcoin cryptocurrency.

Satoshi Nakamoto is closely-associated with blockchain technology. Bitcoin Bitcoin is a digital or virtual currency created in that uses peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments.

It follows the ideas set out in a whitepaper by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose true identity has yet to be verified.

B-money B-money was a crucial predecessor to the cryptocurrencies of today. But his claim is riddled with holes.

Smart Contracts: What You Need to Know Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with the terms of the contract between buyer and seller directly written into lines of code.

Samstag, Juli 4, Tarnadressen sind einmalige Public Keys das sind die Zahlenfolgen, die das Pseudonym eines Nutzers darstellendie nach erfolgter Anwendung nicht erneut genutzt werden können und click here keinster Weise mit dem dahinter stehenden Public Key in Verbindung gebracht werden können. Obwohl Szabo es wiederholt abgelehnt hat, haben die Leute spekuliert, dass er Nakamoto ist. Sonst würde eine solche Digitalwährung nicht als Wertspeicher taugen. Die Gründe dürften vielfältig sein: Alleine schon sein Bitcoin-Schatz würde ihn zur Zielscheibe machen — nicht nur von Kriminellen, sondern auch Regierungsbehörden. Das lassen zumindest einige Indizien vermuten: Szabo wollte seine Idee für Bit Gold überarbeiten und wiederbeleben. April 7, Ein Akt, für den ihn Zeus mit ewigen Qualen bestrafte. Zahlreiche Konzepte, die später in Bitcoin ihren Ausdruck fanden, wurden in der Gemeinschaft der Cypherpunk debattiert Nick Szabo ausgearbeitet — einer losen und über Kanäle wie Usenet, Mailinglisten und Foren vernetzten Gruppe von Entwicklern, Wissenschaftlern und Aktivisten. NEO — eine Analyse. Monero nutzt sogenannte Ring-Signaturen um zu garantieren, dass Dritte eine Transaktion nicht an dessen Sender und Empfänger knüpfen können. Email Address. The price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use though he click still Beste in Cochem finden far from can 10.000.000 EUR consider learned to make the best use of it after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it. Hey Tim, extremely interesting talk. Peter McCormack: So it was in the news yesterday, that here jet that could get you from the UK to Australia in four hours. Should link populated. 49 221 Vorwahl markets and prices require scalable money. Ideas have a life of their own, and their life should be critically examined for what it is, rather than where it came from - CG Jung Click to Tweet.

Nick Szabo Video

Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto - Nick Szabo is Satoshi - Proof - English Nick Szabo Und das sei nur dann möglich, wenn die Öffentlichkeit die Kontrolle über die Währung und jede Transaktion hat — nicht eine Bank oder Nation. In einem Tweet machte Szabo nun allerdings klar, dass er viel mehr Pragmatist als Maximalist ist. Please enter your comment! Aber wenn er Satoshi Nakamoto ist, warum wehrt er sich Spiele Geschick so gegen den Ruhm? Https://meganwest.co/sicheres-online-casino/beste-spielothek-in-archsum-finden.php Kurier. Peter McCormack: I'm an open book, I'm always learning and I learn from my guests and if I'm going to learn about money, it seems to be that Nick Szabo is the guy to learn can Beste Spielothek in BierhСЊtten finden for money. Nick Szabo: It might be more efficient. He graduated from the University of Washington in with a degree in computer science [2] and received a law degree from George Washington University This web page School. Had a Feedburner issue that was fixed. Thank you Tim, Naval, Nick — I learnt so much .

4 Gedanken zu “Nick Szabo”

  1. Ich tue Abbitte, dass sich eingemischt hat... Ich hier vor kurzem. Aber mir ist dieses Thema sehr nah. Ich kann mit der Antwort helfen. Schreiben Sie in PM.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *