Clarification on the Article of John Davis about the Bitcoin
I am definitely the wrong guy, even though I am flattered that Josh had reason to believe I might be Satoshi. Unfortunately, in the article, there are several inaccuracies (e.g.: my involvement with AIB was through an undergraduate project; I was not an employee), but my main concern is that more background and qualifications are required for some quotations. My mention of identifying Satoshi, in particular, was not intended to be so seriously construed. In my email to Josh, I referred to this as recreational speculation - just some fun. It is much more appropriate to say that I figured I could identify some Satoshi leads (and I even mean that very lightly). There are certainly far too many possibilities for Satoshi to consider, not to mention the many extensive inquiries that have been conducted. It seems, however, that even restricted searches produce candidates who fit the profile much better than I believe I do.
On many grounds, I had questions about the nuclear-attack quotation (the quotation came from a discussion about decentralization). As I wanted to word it differently, I attempted to replace the quote, but the editors insisted on retaining it in the end.
With regard to the undergraduate project with the AIB, as part of the coursework, this was a compulsory community-based (unpaid) project in college, and our group was randomly assigned to work on the project suggested by the AIB, which was possibly the least interesting project possible. The reality is far from being "hired" to improve their software for currency.
I am a humble student of science with an interest in cryptosystem; I am very far from being any sort of professional in anything. I've never worked in a bank, as described earlier, and I'm definitely not an economist (I've received emails to this effect. My interest in bitcoin stemmed from its architecture and its cryptographic properties, etc. At Crypto 2011, Josh originally approached me about a paper I was involved with related to p2p, and I met him out of curiosity as to why he would be interested. We spoke about it for approximately 20 minutes. I remember we had a brief casual chat when bitcoin came up; I was naturally surprised when he thought I could be Satoshi, and there were some laughter and regrettable errors on my part. However, along with some inaccurate summaries in further studies, numerous misinterpretations and losses of meaning, unfortunately, helped cause the whole thing. In the article, there are small items that often give a different impression, e.g.: glasses brand (frames) (Incidentally, as much as it seems dumb to say, I wasn't even aware of their brand before the article, they were a gift, etc.) I might go on with other aspects too, but it's too trivial to concentrate on. I'm sorry to have bored you, but hopefully, this page will help clear up some details.
COPYRIGHT_WI: Published on https://washingtonindependent.com/ebv/clarification-on-the-article-of-john-davis-about-the-bitcoin/ by Alberto Thompson on 2021-02-24T04:01:32.486Z
I want to re-emphasize that in relation to its economics, any knowledge/interest I have/had in Bitcoin is limited to its use of crypto and its p2p existence. That's enough to claim that I don't like free-market capitalism. Although I believe in the extension of civil liberties (I share the values held by the Pirate Party and the EFF), politically, I have leftist views. Some of the (right-) libertarian philosophies about cryptocurrencies make me feel uneasy for these reasons. I've noticed a few socialists, however, who see some benefits in Bitcoin; this is very promising. Others appreciate his declaration against bank corruption, which is also nice. And others see it as a non-political instrument that makes transactions easier. I still have many reservations about it as a progressive, but I have had an understanding of aspects of its architecture from a technological point of view from the outset.