My theory is that Satoshi is a persona created by Adam Back and Hal Finney.
They probably devised something where both needed to agree and sign something for Satoshi to act. This also allowed them to say "I’m not Satoshi Nakamoto".
They also probably ensured that anything that belongs to Satoshi required both of them. The death of Hal Finney ensure that Satoshi died definitely.
But they may have "killed" him before by burning the keys because, when Bitcoin started to become a success, they probably anticipated the need to "kill" satoshi (few remember but Bitcoin passing 1$ was considered as a crazy bubble at the time! Some become millionnaires and exited when BTC did the 30$ bubble. Satoshi’s stack was already closely observed, bright mind of that time would have anticipated the need to kill it). Or it was just that "satoshi" was not needed or they accidentaly deleted some keys.
I'd like to think that if I'd come up with something like this, I'd have quickly gone "oh shit" and realised it'd be hard to access the earliest coins without raising unwanted attention, and started mining with multiple different keys, and actively moved those coins around. If Satoshi is still around, I'd expect he has more than enough money without the need to risk the upheaval touching those earliest keys would cause.
This may be the most convincing theory I've heard.
I don't believe any live human being has the wherewithal to not use any of the $100B+ in the Satoshi wallets, which has led me to believe it was Hal Finney. Back and Finney both being in on it would explain some of the email timing as well
If you can use GrapheneOS, good for you but what /e/OS offers is:
- Usable Android with your usual Android app (banking, etc)
- No data sent to Google by default
- Easier interface with nearly no bloatware
- Available easily on many smartphones, including older ones
- Extending the life of some smartphones
The price to pay is:
- Some Murena cloud bloatware
- Android security patches are sometimes delayed
- Security is not on par with GrapheneOS
If your main concern is protecting your privacy from Google and extending the life of your smartphone without breaking a sweat, /e/OS is probably the best option.
If your main concern is protecting against state actors attacks or very specific threats, then GrapheneOS might be better.
/e/OS works really great for non-techie users. I’ve done it in my family.
I have phones with both, but I don't necessarily agree that /e/OS is easier. E.g. things like doing or restoring in-app purchases often do not work, even when logging in through microG. Want that nice backup option that Signal is now offering? Well, good luck, you cannot purchase it on /e/OS (at least I couldn't). In general when it comes to compatibility, my experience is that GrapheneOS is better because it can use real Google Play Services, albeit sandboxed. I think you can use the Play Store on /e/OS as well, but it's going to have higher privileges.
They also use Google for assisted GPS when you use it, eSIM provisioning, widevine provisioning. Last time I checked, microG on /e/OS also downloads a Google binary blob for SafetyNet.
Besides analytics, if you install Google Apps (e.g. for Android Auto), many of them get higher privileges on /e/OS.
The price to pay is:
I would also add installing F-Droid apps (if you use App Lounge) through 'CleanAPK', without wanting to reveal why this is necessary or who owns/maintains CleanAPK.
They do quite a lot of fishy stuff. It may be incompetence, but yeah...
If your main concern is protecting against state actors attacks or very specific threats
This always sounds like systems like GrapheneOS are for paranoid people. But this is basically you if you ever go to a demonstration (e.g. in the US) or cross borders of certain countries (e.g. of the US), sadly things like Cellebrite have become very common. Then suddenly layered protection, not running years behind in security patches, a duress pin, or rebooting after not unlocking for a few minutes to get back to BFU aren't so bad. (IANAL, figure out yourself which of these are legal and not destruction of evidence.)
GrapheneOS is just another OS. It's no less usable than /e/ and it is no more difficult to get a phone with it than /e/. You can purchase both preinstalled.
Capable doesn't mean capable of office work though, I could see someone with a language disorder doing electronics and have trouble with words, not numbers. Or someone who has trouble with written words specifically doing most of their learning with classes and videos.
Exactly right. The individual in question produces excellent deliverables within their space. They, the coworker, are very good at receiving inputs, but not very good at outputs (other than their deliverables). In a way, it's like having an offshore worker who speaks almost none of your language but can understand it and produce good work.
nope, let the user does the translation, with his own choice of tool and being thus perfectly aware of the shortcomings.
I know that some people translate my French posts to read them. That’s really cool. But I would never post something I didn’t write myself (but I use spellcheking tools. I even sometimes disagree with them)
Not everyone can. Try going to rural Spain and handing out flyers in English and ask them to translate it themselves, 0% of the people will translate it themselves, it'll go straight into the trash. If you instead hand them something in a language they understand, there is a least a chance they'll read it, even though probably 5% will do so.
It's sometimes useful to understand that the world is much bigger and varied than what you experience locally, and what works for you and the people in one country, doesn't always work the same everywhere.
So you go to a site. If the site is not complete, try "v full" (for "view full").
The reason is that there was no unmerdify rule for your site and that readability mistakenly assumes that lot of your site is spam/ads (readability doing that is the reason why we push for unmerdify)
They probably devised something where both needed to agree and sign something for Satoshi to act. This also allowed them to say "I’m not Satoshi Nakamoto".
They also probably ensured that anything that belongs to Satoshi required both of them. The death of Hal Finney ensure that Satoshi died definitely.
But they may have "killed" him before by burning the keys because, when Bitcoin started to become a success, they probably anticipated the need to "kill" satoshi (few remember but Bitcoin passing 1$ was considered as a crazy bubble at the time! Some become millionnaires and exited when BTC did the 30$ bubble. Satoshi’s stack was already closely observed, bright mind of that time would have anticipated the need to kill it). Or it was just that "satoshi" was not needed or they accidentaly deleted some keys.
reply