The old Nick Szabo = Satoshi Nakamoto theory was making rounds again this week thanks to an article on Bitcoin.com. If you’ve never heard the general case, here’s a link.
In this inaugural issue of the Breaking Satoshi newsletter, I show why this question is important, why it is unlikely that he is Satoshi, and refute two of the strongest arguments for the theory, one of which never appeared in my original Tweet thread, nor anywhere else.
1/ Szabo’s Satoshi-ness is important insofar as it has historically been used to push a particular small block agenda in Bitcoin. For example, during the 2017 Segwit 2x fork debacle Charlie ‘Labor Theory’ Lee used the possibility of Szabo being Satoshi as evidence against the fork.
In my opinion, Nick Szabo is the closest we have to Satoshi, if not Satoshi himself. With Nick and all of Bitcoin Core devs against Segwit2x, why are people still pushing for this hardfork that will split the chain?
2/ It’s unlikely that Szabo is Satoshi though, given that what we know about Szabo’s economic view of Bitcoin, and his earlier BitGold proposal, contradicts what Satoshi himself saw for the technology.
3/ Szabo has said that since 1998 he’s known digital cash would need to have a base settlement layer and a second consumer payments layer.
My bit gold design in 1998 was 2-layer: bit gold for settlement, Chaumian e-cash for a privacy-enhanced payments layer. I've always thought of Bitcoin as evolving into a settlements-and-large-payments layer that in the long term needed a layer 2 for consumer payments.
4/ Compare this with Satoshi who instead described scaling for small consumer payments on the base layer of the protocol.
Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
5/ Lest we think Szabo has simply changed his mind after his Satoshi days, in 1993 he wrote on the Cypherpunk Mailing List about a similar concept of digital cash requiring some form of final settlement.
Digital cash: accumulating credits/debits for use of on-line services (including travel services, concert tickets, etc. purchased on-line), eventually paid for by some "real" currency: FRNs, yen, etc. Implemented with Chaum-style protocol to prevent forgery and assure privacy.
6/ Timeline and testimony from early people in communication with Satoshi Nakamoto also tell us Szabo is probably not him.
7/ Satoshi’s first known email was to Adam Back, who told him about b-money.
I believe it was me who got Wei Dai’s b-money reference added to Satoshi’s bitcoin paper when he emailed me about hashcash back in 2008.
8/ Szabo would have already known about b-money though because of his long connections to the cryptoanarchy and digital cash space and he would not have needed the introduction. He has confirmed as much.
Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto.
9/ Satoshi then emails Wei Dai asking him for the date of his paper so he can cite it properly.
I'm getting ready to release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system.
Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your
I need to find out the year of publication of your b-money page for the
citation in my paper. It'll look like:
 W. Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, (2006?).
10/ Thus it appears that Satoshi was not familiar with b-money before creating Bitcoin.
11/ Wei Dei confirms that Satoshi didn’t know what b-money was and that his creation was independent of previous attempts to create digital cash.
My understanding is that the creator of Bitcoin, who goes by the name Satoshi Nakamoto, didn’t even read my article before reinventing the idea himself. He learned about it afterward and credited me in his paper. So my connection with the project is quite limited.’
12/ When Satoshi later writes ‘Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai’s b-money proposal […] on Cypherpunks […] in 1998…’ he’s citation stuffing. He didn’t really use b-money as a source or know about it before he created it.
13/ Satoshi says he made Bitcoin before ever thinking about the whitepaper or citations.
I actually did this kind of backwards. I had to write all the code before I could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I wrote the paper.
14/ Why didn’t Satoshi cite BitGold in the whitepaper? Wei tells us Satoshi didn’t know about BitGold until he was told by him, after he had created Bitcoin.
In Satoshi’s early emails to me he was apparently unaware of Nick Szabo’s ideas.
15/ When Satoshi writes years later that Bitcoin is also an implementation of ‘Nick Szabo’s Bitgold proposal,’ we can assume he is probably just referencing it in the same way he referenced b-money. He’s not literally claiming he was influenced by it.
16/ Much controversy has been made out of the fact that Szabo postdated his 2005 blog post about BitGold to 2008, around the time Satoshi was publishing Bitcoin. Many claim this is proof Szabo was covering his tracks. It does look suspicious.
17/ But this is not the only essay that was postdated. The Kula Ring and several other early articles were also redated in 2008 and 2009. Bitgold was not uniquely edited as many have thought. Why?
18/ Szabo wrote a post on August 20, 2008 announcing that he would be doing this so that he could bump his better articles to the front of the site as ‘reruns.’ A web archive search of the 2006 article Wet code and dry shows he began changing dates to 2008 only a few days after the announcement, just like he said he would.
19/ Szabo was not covering his BitGold tracks or even attempting to do so. He was promoting his old posts like normal bloggers do. I am surprised that this has been overlooked, since the theory is so popular and the postdating so scandalous.
20/ Szabo of course could still be Satoshi and all of this part of a plan to obscure that. He’s certainly brilliant. I don’t think he is, but I’ll end with a quote of his from a 2008 essay on BitGold that sounds very similar to Satoshi’s view that mining would become a specialized profession to keep us honest.
Some computers are more energy efficient than others, some have more spare cycles than others, some algorithms and custom circuits will solve puzzles far faster than others, and so on, so there will be great differences in profitability, and as in gold mining the market will evolve towards only a few of the best specialists in puzzle solving making a reasonable profit.
Thank you for reading this first Breaking Satoshi newsletter. I’m working on Season One now and hope to have updates soon. In the meantime, let me know if there are newsletter topics you’d like me to write about.