El primer párrafo del libro blanco de Bitcoin aborda directamente una cuestión fundamental del comercio electrónico: la ineficiencia y el alto costo de procesar transacciones pequeñas y ocasionales a través de intermediarios externos.

El problema central es que la dependencia de las instituciones financieras como terceros de confianza hace que dichas transacciones sean imprácticas. Cuando intervienen intermediarios, los costos de transacción aumentan, lo que hace que los intercambios cotidianos de bajo valor sean económicamente inviables. Esta cuestión constituye la base del propósito de Bitcoin, tal como se describe en el libro blanco.

El propósito de Bitcoin, entonces, es proporcionar un sistema que facilite transacciones pequeñas y ocasionales directamente entre las partes sin la necesidad de confiar en un intermediario. La idea no es simplemente eliminar a los terceros, sino hacerlo de una manera que permita específicamente transacciones que de otro modo serían demasiado costosas o engorrosas debido a las tarifas y los requisitos de procesamiento asociados con los sistemas financieros tradicionales.

Bitcoin logra este propósito al crear una red descentralizada que elimina la necesidad de confiar en una autoridad central. En cambio, se basa en la verificación criptográfica para permitir que las transacciones se realicen directamente entre usuarios a un costo mínimo, evitando los gastos y las ineficiencias impuestas por los intermediarios. Al eliminar la necesidad de un tercero de confianza, Bitcoin hace que las transacciones frecuentes y de bajo valor sean factibles y económicamente prácticas, abordando el problema específico identificado en el párrafo inicial del libro blanco.

En marcado contraste con el propósito previsto de Bitcoin de permitir transacciones pequeñas y casuales sin intermediarios, BTC ha evolucionado hacia algo completamente diferente. Las altas tarifas en la red BTC han hecho que el sistema sea poco práctico para los intercambios de bajo valor, oponiéndose directamente a la visión original establecida en el libro blanco. En lugar de respaldar las transacciones directas y económicas, la estructura de tarifas de BTC obliga a los usuarios a buscar alternativas para una usabilidad práctica.
Como resultado, muchos usuarios se ven obligados a almacenar sus BTC en intercambios de terceros o "bucket shops", donde confían en entidades centralizadas para facilitar las transacciones. Esta dependencia de intermediarios para mantener y administrar fondos reintroduce los mismos problemas que Bitcoin buscaba resolver: dependencia de terceros, mayores costos y vulnerabilidad a las restricciones o fallas de los sistemas centralizados. Por lo tanto, BTC no cumple con el estándar establecido por el concepto original de Bitcoin, ya que actualmente no puede funcionar como un sistema de efectivo práctico entre pares, para las transacciones cotidianas.
• • •

S. Tominaga, también conocido como CSW
3 de noviembre de 2024
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1852923902881939939.html

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1808

_Hal Finney has implemented a variant of bit gold called RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work). This relies on publishing the computer code for the "mint," which runs on a remote tamper-evident computer. The purchaser of of bit gold can then use remote attestation, which Finney calls the transparent server technique, to verify that a particular number of cycles were actually performed._

https://web.archive.org/web/20060329122942/https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

I wonder if anyone's ever noticed that Nick Szabo's so-called idea is just ecash ?

It's an ecash methodology selling Adam Backs hashcash. That is, not a set of competing systems but rather a bank or other entity who sells a solution of a particular depth. For instance, you could have different levels of coin based on the number of zeros in the useful proof of work. It doesn't actually satisfy double spends at all. More importantly, it is literally just an ecash based system with a central bank offering tokenised coins.

There is no distributed peer network here. In fact he never understood that concept. The concept is one where a shadow bank issues tokens of a particular level of difficulty. To these guys, Moore's law was actually a problem because the difficulty changed over time. This is why bit gold failed. The plan had been to create something along the lines of EGold. The central body would be able to issue a bit gold token. That would then be tradable.

The EGold all Liberty reserve type platform would be the central party dictating which particular spend had happened first in the same way that digicash did this with Banks. Effectively, the entire plan was to replicate the existing banking system without involving banks. That is, they would create a shadow bank system. Different levels of token would have been tied to different monetary amounts. The problem they had was that they could not set the value of each token so that it could be stable. No idea of economics in these guys.

It utterly fails because they fail to understand the basics of how firms develop. The concept of nobody having a specialisation and everybody doing everything is the foundation of communism. It is directly taken from Marx and the Communist manifesto. These guys are not in any way libertarian. Stalin and Lennin and Mao together a 1000 times closer to being libertarian than any of the cyberpunks.

*The one thing that they are all trying to remove in creating bit gold is a blockchain *

The argument here was that the string of zeros and ones is scarce and therefore it has value. That was literally Szabo's response to the concept of inflation. The nature of decentralisation as they saw it was that anybody could construct a proof of work token and sell it and anybody could have their own tokens. This dates back to Tim May's idea of every single person on earth having their own money. It is one of the most asinine, collectivist/Communist backward ideas demonstrating just how little knowledge of economics these guys have.

This is where lightning and other things come into it. This is why Greg Maxwell said that bitcoin was broken. To them, bitcoin is broken. It is designed as the opposite of all they sought to create. It is designed to be the anti-bit gold, not they even knew what the hell bit gold was until well into 2011. Wei Dai had pointed me towards Nick Szabo, but I still saw nothing interesting and didn't even read about it.

I only finally read about it because people kept telling me how similar it was to bitcoin. And then I started realising just how little they understood about bitcoin and how much they wanted something else.

This is where this concept of trust being distributed came from as well. It is not the trust model noted in the bitcoin White Paper. That is this sort of model :
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/1147/

CSW
Nov 1, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572607388248500

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2089

Read the Fuc... White Paper!!!!

Análisis del Libro Blanco de Bitcoin: Intermediarios e Internet (22 min)
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/e2bc1837-14a1-4fd7-a5e7-f81fbc354c98?authuser=2

El texto es un análisis del libro blanco de Bitcoin, escrito por S. Tominaga (también conocido como CSW), que explora el rol crucial de los intermediarios de pago en el comercio electrónico. Se argumenta que la necesidad de intermediarios, como consecuencia de la falta de un sistema de micropagos eficiente y seguro, ha frenado la innovación en internet. El análisis contrasta los sistemas tradicionales basados en la confianza con la propuesta de Bitcoin como una solución descentralizada y peer-to-peer para las transacciones, permitiendo micropagos y reduciendo la dependencia de intermediarios. Se discuten las implicaciones legales de este cambio, incluyendo el derecho electrónico ...

Fuente:
Análisis del libro blanco de Bitcoin
CSW
10 sep. 2024
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/analisis-del-libro-blanco-de-bitcoin-s-tominaga-aka-csw/

Listas de Correo Cypherpunk y Criptografía (10 min)
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/57d06bc5-b580-4762-96e5-b74308336eac/audio

El texto explora la publicación del white paper de Bitcoin en 2008, investigando si Satoshi Nakamoto lo publicó directamente en la lista de correos Cypherpunk. Se descubre que el white paper apareció primero en la lista de correos de criptografía el 31 de octubre de 2008, y luego fue reenviado a la lista Cypherpunk por R.A. Hettinga el 1 de noviembre. El autor argumenta que la lista Cypherpunk parecía más un tablón de anuncios, que un repositorio adecuado para documentos técnicos, lo que podría explicar la elección de Satoshi de otra lista para la publicación original. Se presentan enlaces a ambas listas de correo para facilitar la verificación de la información.

Fuente:
Satoshi Nakamoto 2008 – Lista de Correos Cypherpunk
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/lista-de-correos-cypherpunk/

Now to one of the coolest things I found, just in terms of pop culture synchronicities...

Dave Bayer, cited in the Bitcoin Whitepaper, helped make a Hollywood blockbuster visually appealing for mathematicians while simultaneously working on cryptographic systems that would later influence Bitcoin.

Fun fact: If you watch A Beautiful Mind, all the equations that Russell Crowe writes on chalkboards throughout the movie?

That’s Dave Bayer’s actual handwriting.

Bayer personally wrote out and designed the math that appears on-screen.

The mathematician John Nash, whom the movie is about, has been posited to be Satoshi by some (obviously this is incorrect, but a novel serendipity).

https://x.com/FractalEncrypt/status/1888626054451048791?t=7A7-3AVT5dynqo78ODCPtQ&s=09

Next let's take a look at one of the lesser-known but crucial references in the Bitcoin Whitepaper;

"Secure Names for Bit-Strings" (1997) – A Closer Look

Authors: Stuart Haber, W. Scott Stornetta, and Dave Bayer
Publication Year: 1997

What Problem Does the Paper Address?

In the digital world, we often need to name and reference data securely, ensuring that:

✅Names are unique (no collisions where different data gets the same name).

✅Names are secure (cannot be forged or modified).

✅Names allow efficient lookup (you can verify an object by its name without ambiguity).

Next we'll look at some of the core ideas of the paper...

https://x.com/FractalEncrypt/status/1888626042203709805?t=eExWVk-lYqTKWw10O_grnA&s=19

References
[1] Wei Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998.

[2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquater, "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal
trust requirements," In 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, May 1999.

[3] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "How to time-stamp a digital document," In Journal of Cryptology, vol 3, no
2, pages 99-111, 1991.

[4] D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping,"
In Sequences II: Methods in Communication, Security and Computer Science, pages 329-334, 1993.

[5] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Secure names for bit-strings," In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference
on Computer and Communications Security, pages 28-35, April 1997.

[6] A. Back, "Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure,"
http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002.

[7] R.C. Merkle, "Protocols for public key cryptosystems," In Proc. 1980 Symposium on Security and
Privacy, IEEE Computer Society, pages 122-133, April 1980.

[8] W. Feller, "An introduction to probability theory and its applications," 1957.

🔥 The Bitcoin Whitepaper was spotted at the White House

https://x.com/CryptosR_Us/status/1903563353316110841?t=CX8RM9eEfzufBIE3cr40Wg&s=09

S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Mar 24, 2025
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1904046371730268488?t=M8ihiiwCGd856r1MiqVpNQ&s=19

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/2758