16-4 Wei Dai who let others tell lies for him

Wu: Wei Dai is the inventor of B-money, and Mr. Zhu identified Satoshi Nakamoto. The previous two testimonies are reasonable. This section looks at how Wei Dai defended himself.

Let’s see what Wei Dai has to say. The article quoted from Gwen’s post on” LessWrong.” Gwern is very knowledgeable in the research of Satoshi Nakamoto. The piece is essential; I posted the original post as a reference(1). It is an interview with a reporter; the full text is very long. We will analyze it in sections.

The reporter asked Wei Dai:

“how many people would have the necessary competencies to create something like bitcoin”(1)

Wei Dai replied:

“Coming up with bitcoin required someone who:

  1. thought about money on a deep level, and
  2. learnt the tools of cryptography,
  3. had the idea that something like Bitcoin is possible,
  4. was motivated enough to develop the idea into something practical,

The number of people who even had a), b) and c) was really small — ie, just Nick Szabo and me — so I’d say not many people could have done all these things.”1)

Regarding a), b), and c), same as Nick’s point in “Bitcoin, what took ye so long?”, this is a tiny circle. Notice what Wei Dai says; the circle is narrower. Hal is gone. This statement is the same as Satoshi Nakamoto’s definition of Bitcoin. Wei Dai here echoes Nick’s assertion that the circle is narrow. They are telling the truth, but the thinner the meaning is, the less likely Satoshi Nakamoto will appear from the outside. Why is Hal gone out? We were talking about Hal’s gap in finance in the earlier article. Satoshi Nakamoto and Hal discussed, which ruled out the possibility of Hal developing something similar to Bitcoin. Because in item” a), ” Hal’s financial thinking is not deep enough.

As a scientific person, the more you do it, the more real you will be, focusing on one side and giving up the other. Wei Dai’s narrow circle like to let the cat out of the bag by the cat himself. So it became a choice between two, either Wei Dai or Nick. Nick still chooses one of the three, obviously more difficult than Wei Dai to choice one.

Wu: But the position has changed. Wei Dai showed his modesty by putting his name behind Nick, and Nick knew it.

Your observation is correct; you have learned my method of deep thinking. We dare not say that all the scenarios we imagined are accurate, and restoring the scenarios is an inference after deep thinking. Currently, ChatGPT does not have this capability. Nick knows the contribution of Bitcoin to humanity. Nick did such a thing in his life and was highly praised by Satoshi Nakamoto, and his name has gone down in history.

Wu: The mention of Wei Dai in item “d),” is the same as that of Nick

about d) Nick also noted that only Hal and Satoshi Nakamoto are motivated to make it happen. Regarding the English word for motivated, Nick and Wei Dai use the same word. So Nick and Wei Dai have the first three points, plus d) Isn’t it only Wei Dai who has it? Both masters believe that not many people understand and that the circle is very small. Nick and Wei Dai’s statements had been confirmed by each other and could be established as evidence.The most important thing is that the two of them were endorsed in writing by Satoshi Nakamoto, who believed that their ideas were the source of Bitcoin’s ideas, thus making the evidence authoritative. This authoritative evidence is precisely to exclude Satoshi Nakamoto from the circle. Fortunately, Satoshi Nakamoto is recognized as anonymous, and the most reasonable explanation is unidentified of insiders. And Bitcoin’s situation when it was first published on the cryptography mailing group also confirms this. The response was lukewarm, and only Hal supported it Because he understood.

Wu: Through Wei Dai’s dialogue and Nick and Hal’s statement, it can be confirmed that it is a small circle. Satoshi Nakamoto is likely one of these people. But the evidence is still not enough.

Of course, the evidence is a witness and physical evidence. The parties and circumstantial evidence must corroborate witnesses. It proves that the small circle is critical. Choosing one of the two can solve the problem. Nick can be ruled out because the portrait is too far apart. It is not wrong to identify Wei Dai. In the jargon of criminal investigation, the main direction of attack is Wei Dai. Find evidence around Wei Dai. The evidence of himself and Satoshi Nakamoto must be mutually confirmed to determine that Satoshi Nakamoto is Wei Dai.

The dialogue that follows will see how Wei Dai defends it. Citation is the same as above (1)

Ask: “Is Nick Szabo Satoshi?”

Wei Dai replied, “No, I’m pretty sure it’s not him.”

Ask: “you, then?”

Wei Dai replied, “No. When I said just Nick and me, I meant before Satoshi.”

Ask: “So where could this person have come from?”

Wei Dai replied: “Well, (note: well, it means that Wei Dai has hesitated, and the reason must be edited) when I came up with b-money I was still in college or just recently graduated, and Nick was at a similar age when he came up with bit gold, so I think Satoshi could be someone like that.”

Here comes the question.

In 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto was an inventor in his early 20s, according to Wei Dai. He understands this knowledge in this tiny cypherpunk circle. The cypherpunk community disbanded in 2000, 10 years before Bitcoin was invented; Satoshi Nakamoto was only about 12 years old. Logically unlikely. Although the above are “oral confessions,” they are all narrations by experts in the industry, and they can be mutually confirmed as evidence. So Wei Dai here is making a misleading statement:

 “Nick was at a similar age when he came up with bit gold, so I think Satoshi could be someone like that.” (1)

This sentence was carefully read; what is a “similar age”? Nick came up with the age of bit gold at about the age of 34 when Satoshi Nakamoto published bitcoin. Wei Dai was right about that. But where did outsiders know that Nick posted Bit Gold age and the age when Wei Dai came up with B money is more than ten years different, causing a misunderstanding to reporters, thought that Wei Dai and Nick were about the same age and concluded that Satoshi Nakamoto was a young man impression.

Wu: You are right. Outsiders can’t know the difference in such details.

But both Hal and Nick knew it, and they understood it right away, and they secretly had a laugh. I was also laughing to see this. The reporter was stupid and let Wei Dai take him away. So I say that Bitcoin is the hard work of a group of masters. Hal understands but pretends to be confused, misleading outsiders.

Wu: Laugh out loud.


Ask: “Someone young, with the energy for that kind of commitment?”

Wei Dai replied, “yeah, someone with energy and time, and that isn’t obligated to publish papers under their real name.”(1)

Note Wei Dai’s final answer to the question: “yeah, someone with energy and time, and that isn’t obligated to publish papers under their real name.” Unconsciously erased what the reporter said about the young people. He didn’t want to confirm an untrue fact for himself. Nick was born in 1964 and was 34 years old in 1998 when he came up with Bit Gold. Without thinking deeply, Readers will also believe that Nike came up with Bitcoin Gold in his 20s at a “similar” age to Wei Dai.

“yeah, someone with energy and time, and that isn’t obligated to publish papers under their real name.” It is a true statement; what does this “yeah” mean? What is confirmed? Not sure.From the language habit, this “yeah” is the affirmation of the following words.

Wu: The young man unconsciously erased it, but it still can’t prove that he was deliberately

one more sentence

Ask: “What about you?”

Wei Dai: “No, when I say just Nick and I, I mean before Satoshi.

“Before Satoshi Nakamoto,” this sentence is also true, but Satoshi Nakamoto is anonymous, doesn’t Wei Dai know? Here Satoshi Nakamoto is regarded as a natural person. The circle is so tiny only two or three of them “understand and like it”. As we discussed earlier, could it be that Satoshi Nakamoto jumped out of the sky? Impossible. They disagree. Because a small circle. So Wei Dai’s statement was carefully prepared and organized. It is by no means erased casually.

There is a question; Satoshi Nakamoto is a young man; how did Wei Dai know? Unless Wei Dai read what Hal Finney said. Wei Dai’s descriptive statement here is contradictory and a guess, so I tend to Hal Finney say Satoshi is a young man who comes after Wei Dai. Otherwise, Wei Dai wouldn’t be vague.

There is nothing wrong with Wei Dai’s overall answer, and the reporter himself guesses all the feelings. High, it is really high, a master is an absolute master, and the lies are people to help him say. This article has a significant impact, and with Hal’s statement, the market has confirmed that Satoshi Nakamoto is a young man. If the age is wrong, Satoshi Nakamoto will never be found.So, Hal, Satoshi Nakamoto’s Watson makes sense. They Cooperate tacitly.

I provide evidence and analyze Nick and Hal; they know who Satoshi is. It is mentioned above. The curious can ask up-and-coming stars like Vitalik and Ruen how they explain WEI and DAI. I used “maybe know” about Adam Back mainly because of the contradiction between his behavior and language. I always feel that there is a superior person behind him, so can be explained the contradiction between his behavior and language; this superior person may be Satoshi Nakamoto. But I have no proof.

As an outsider who doesn’t know the background, he can’t hear the fault in Wei Dai’s words, but Hal and Adam’s ears can tell the difference. That’s the cypherpunks’ belief in protecting privacy. The characters of these masters are first-class.This circle is great, and people who understand it are keeping it secret.

Why is it different from the truth? One didn’t know it, and the other did it on purpose. Wei Dai didn’t tell a lie, but it must have been done on purpose. Why did he do it on purpose? It shows that something is hidden.

Wu: Is the witness testimony finished?

The main witness has finished speaking, and the others are not industry leaders and are not strong enough as evidence, so I will not talk.

Wu: You left homework in chapters 16-2 :

“until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai).” there is also a problem with saying this sentence, let everyone guess. Are you Whether to decrypt the answer?

Good question. This sentence has two meanings. The first meaning is related to Nick. The whole sentence can be a logical expression only by removing the content in brackets.

“until Nakamoto, only Finney (RPOW) and Nakamoto were motivated enough to actually implement such a scheme.” If Satoshi Nakamoto is not Hal or Wei Dai, the words in parentheses are redundant. Writing in this way is a hint instead, and the object of the hint must be understood.

The second meaning implies another topic involving Hal and Wei Dai, which can only be clarified now.

I noticed Nick used the word “until” at “until Satoshi comes.” Wei Dai used the word “before,” at “before Satoshi Nakamoto.” Both of them were talking about the same thing, and after careful reading, the two seemed similar, and I felt that Nick was the initiator of this statement. Judging from the time of publication, Wei Dai was later, and Wei Dai posted on the “LessWrong” website in 2014, but I don’t know exactly when this reporter interviewed. I tend to Wei Dai’s talk after Nick’s opinion and before Hal’s “Bitcoin and Me.” The market was calm after Nick made this opinion, so Wei Dai knew that this was an acceptable statement in the market, so he boldly adopted it. And Hal saw what they said and the doubts that the market could not quell and finally made up for it. Unfortunately, Hal was running out of time and tried his best.

Scan originated from asking questions, looking for evidence, and finally drawing conclusions. I did not study this timeline because it is not mainstream and does not affect the conclusion, but it is an example of asking questions for deep thinking. I’m leaning towards the timeline of the three pieces of evidence, Nick→Wei Dai→Hal. Those who have interested can analyze.

Wu: As witnesses, the descriptions of the masters have powerful evidentiary force, and the evidence echoes each other. Wei Dai did have inexplicable inconsistencies. Your analysis is hard to refute. But why did Satoshi Nakamoto disappear? If the disappearance is correct, why did you find him? Users are arguing a lot about this issue. If you don’t explain this problem clearly, it’s a novelty hunt, which reduces your taste.

I explained the problem like the football first and second half. I have also seen the reader’s point of view. It is difficult for me to explain this point of view clearly. Because Satoshi Nakamoto has profound and long-term ideas, his ideological realm is far higher than our contemporary ideological and political leaders. He is the thinker and practitioner of the next civilization. I understand that 60% is good. Leaders can understand even less, and the effect of speaking out may not be good.

Wu: This is a crucial issue. If you don’t make sense, you won’t convince the audience.

This problem is straightforward, and I have already solved it. Disappeared: natural growth. Returned: community needs.

Wu: I still don’t understand. I look forward to your detailed explanation.

This episode is not in the article. So I think about how to say it.

Wu: What are you going to say?

Only the evidence that Satoshi Nakamoto would come out was prepared. There was a small amount of evidence of the disappearance’s reason, and it will need too much direct evidence. It’s too late to study. As far as my understanding of Bitcoin is concerned, “Satoshi Nakamoto, who conquers Regional but do not want to control Regional “I was deeply impressed by this point and was shocked. It is a learning experience and has nothing to do with evidence.


1. Gwern March 17, 2014


had the article jailbroken recently, and the relevant parts (I hope I got it right, my version has scrambled-up text) are:

Nonetheless, the original bitcoin white paper is written in an academic style, with an index of sources at the end. I go to Wei Dai, an original cypherpunk, the proposer of a late-1990s e-currency called b-money and an early When, in the first of several late-night chats, I ask him how many people would have the necessary competencies to create something like bitcoin, he tells me:

“Coming up with bitcoin required someone who, a) thought about money on a deep level, and b) learnt the tools of cryptography, c) had the idea that something like Bitcoin is possible, d) was motivated enough to develop the idea into something practical, e) was technically skilled enough to make it secure, f) had enough social skills to build and grow a community around it. The number of people who even had a), b) and c) was really small — ie , just Nick Szabo and me — so I’d say not many people could have done all these things.”

A sudden frisson. Szabo, an American computer scientist who has also served as law professor at George Washington University, developed a system for “bit gold” between 1998 and 2005, which has been seen as a precursor to Bitcoin. Is he saying that Szabo is Satoshi? “No, I’m pretty sure it’s not him.” you, then? “No. When I said just Nick and me, I meant before Satoshi” So where could this person have come from? “Well, when I came up with b-money I was still in college, or just recently graduated, and Nick was at a similar age when he came up with bit gold, so I think Satoshi could be someone like that.” “Someone young, with the energy for that kind of commitment?” “yeah, someone with energy and time, and that isn’t obligated to publish papers under their real name.”

in China link

Here is our article link: https://chainless.hk/


Chinese link:


English link: https://en.bitpush.news/?s=Weisha+Zhu

Sun TV’s link is as follows:

Please follow and like us:
Follow by Email
X (Twitter)
Visit Us
Follow Me

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top