中本聪_悬念再起!比特币发明人中本聪:那个澳大利亚大叔不是我 Nakamoto _ suspense renewed! Bitcoin inventor Ben Cong the Australian uncle is not me-副教授剽窃论文



悬念再起!比特币发明人中本聪:那个澳大利亚大叔不是我

关于比特币创始人中本聪,新的剧情今天再次出现,而且极具反转性。真正的“中本聪”在比特币发展讨论的邮件列表中表态:

“我不是克雷格·怀特。我们每个人都是中本聪(I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi)。”

由于发布声明的账号关联的邮箱‘satoshin@vistomail.com’,正是2009年比特币刚诞生的时候“中本聪”用来发布白皮书所用的,“中本聪”也曾不止一次在这个位置公布重要信息,所以这则消息自然也就是出自真正的“中本聪”之口了。

这不禁让人回想起了被美国记者确认为真的“中本聪”的那位日籍美国人,故事最终的结局就是“中本聪”本人站出来否认。但明显这次的事件同样不会因为“中本聪”的否认而告一段落,因为Wright被怀疑是“中本聪”的过程中实在太多疑问。

所以说,已经可以断定Wright 是个骗子?

在Wired报道中,作者Greenberg和Gwern Branwen就明确表示:

“最有可能的是两种情况:要么就是Wright发明了比特币,要么就是一个手段和心计都极其高明的恶作剧玩家,很成功的让我们怀疑他是‘中本聪’。”

既然现在真正的“中本聪”说Wright不是他,那么能否直接得出他就是个骗子的结论呢?倒也未必,从“中本聪”的表态中我们就能够管中窥豹。

越来越接近真相,或许中本聪是一群人

被认成“中本聪”的日籍美国人的全名是“多利安·普伦蒂斯·中本聪”,当时“中本聪”那次相似的表态全文为“多力安不是我。”对比之下这次的表态却明显多了一句“我们都是中本聪”。仔细思考一下,这一句话的内容就不得了。

就算有很多证据能够说明Wright不是中本聪,但Wright和其朋友内含110万个比特币的信托基金的来源实在无法轻易解释。而且“我们”这两个字似乎已经暗示了“中本聪”并不只是一个人。

当然一个人想保守秘密已经非常困难的,如果“中本聪”是一个群体的话,最大而且关键的问题就是如何能够将一个大秘密隐藏足足7年。更有意思的是,Wright在被曝光之后就开启了隐身状态,就连澳洲的税务局也没有发现他的踪迹(当然也有可能是已经被抓起来了)

我们究竟需要“中本聪”么?

抛开比特币的去中心化不提,究竟“中本聪”的存在对于比特币有什么意义?在TechCrunch的报道中,他们甚至拿Linux来进行类比:“Linux的创始人Linus Torvalds并不是第一个使用开源代码的人,但这个市场就是需要一个起源的故事,但关键在于这种技术能够让你不必再花费大量资金去租用专业服务器,而是使用自己的电脑作为服务器”

康奈尔大学的教授Emin Gün Sirer就表示:

“最为重要的是中本聪带来了什么。我们的银行架构非常陈旧,从千年虫问题爆发以来基本没有改进。整个金融系统中也没有什么透明度和可供审计性可言。

零售银行业从1959年到最近几年还有一些比较珍贵的小进步。直到今天,银行还是通过差劲的方式管理我们的资金。当然我不会肯定像比特币一样的虚拟货币就是终极解决方案,或者是对现在可能的方案进行对比。

比特币并不能扩展到全球,即便考虑它最近一些计划中的提升,而且它在安全方面还有很大的难度需要挑战。但‘中本聪’和他的一些前辈,还是带来了一些全新的技术思路,能够应用在我们的全球社会中。

有责任的媒体应该放下对于“中本聪”这个人的追踪,而是更加的去关注技术和其影响。这才是我们实际上需要做的。”

别找了,就让“中本聪”消失在历史里吧!

在7年无数次的尝试中,每次对于“中本聪”真身的追寻只会引出更多的疑问和不确定。没错,这个问题终究一天会得到答案,也许那时这个问题也已经不再重要。但有一点不会改变:

比特币还是一个大众都可以使用的‘工具’,它并不属于任何一个人。

Renewed suspense! Bitcoin inventor Ben Cong: the Australian uncle is not me

 

About bitcoin founder Nakamoto So, the new story appears again today, and extremely reversal. The real "China smart" in bitcoin development discussion mailing list position:

"I’m not Craig White. Each of us is Nakamoto So (I am not Craig Wright. We are all Satoshi)."

The statement account associated mailbox ‘satoshin@vistomail.com’, is the "2009 birth bitcoin Nakamoto used to publish the white paper, Nakamoto more than once published important information in this position, so this news is naturally from real Nakamoto" the mouth.

This is reminiscent of the American reporter confirmed as true Nakamoto the Japanese Americans, the ending of the story is "Nakamoto" I stand out to deny. But obviously, this incident will not end because of the denial of "Cong Zhong cong", because Wright is suspected to be "Chinese master" in the process, there are too many questions.

So, Wright has concluded that is a liar?

In the Wired report, authors Greenberg and Gwern Branwen made it clear:

"Most likely, there are two situations: either Wright invented bitcoin, or he was a very clever game player with a lot of tricks and calculations, and it was very successful for us to suspect that he was" Cong Zhong Cong. "."

Now that the real "Zhong Cong cong" said Wright is not him, then can you come to the conclusion that he is a liar? Not necessarily, from Nakamoto’s statement we can see only a small part.

More and more close to the truth, perhaps, Ben Cong is a group of people

Known as "Nakamoto Japanese American name is" Dorian – – prentice Satoshi Nakamoto ", was" the similar statement "I not force an article." In contrast, this position is obviously more than one sentence: "we are all Ben Cong."". Think carefully, the content of this sentence is incredible.

Even if there is a lot of evidence that Wright is not Nakamoto So, the source of Wright and its friend’s 1 million 100 thousand – bit trust fund can not be easily explained. Moreover, "our" these two words seem to have hinted that "Zhong Cong cong" is not just a person.

Of course, it’s very difficult for a person to keep a secret. If the "Cong cong" is a group, the biggest and the key question is how to hide a big secret for 7 years. What’s more interesting is that Wright was invisible after he was exposed, and even the Australian Tax Bureau didn’t find him

Do we really need "Zhong Ben cong"?

Aside from bitcoin to the center of not mention, what is the existence of the "smart" for bitcoin what is the point? In the TechCrunch report, they even take the Linux to carry on the analogy: "the founder of Linux Linus Torvalds was not the first to use the open source code, but this market is the need for a origin story, but the key is that this technology can make you do not have to spend a large amount of money to hire a professional server, but the use of their own the computer as a server"

Cornell University professor Emin G n Sirer said:

"Most important of all, what did the Chinese Master bring?". Our banking architecture is very old and has been largely unchanged since the Y2K outbreak. There is also no transparency or audit in the financial system.

Retail banking has had some precious little advances from 1959 to recent years. To this day, banks have managed our funds in bad ways. Of course, I’m not sure that a virtual currency like bitcoin is the ultimate solution, or a comparison of what is possible.

Bitcoin can not be extended globally, even if it is considered a recent upgrade in some of its plans, and it has a lot of security challenges. But "Zhong Ben cong" and some of his predecessors have brought some new technological ideas which can be applied to our global society.

Responsible media should let go of the "middle man", but pay more attention to technology and its influence. That’s what we really need to do."

Don’t look for it, let the "Cong Cong cong" disappear in history!

In numerous attempts in 7 years, every time to "pursue Nakamoto himself will only lead to more questions and uncertainties. Yes, the question will come to an end someday, and perhaps the problem is no longer important. But one thing will not change:

Bitcoin is also a tool that is available to all, and it does not belong to anyone.

相关的主题文章: