What's up, everyone? This is Anthony Pompliano. Most of you know me as Pomp. You're listening
to the Pomp Podcast, simply the best podcast out there. Now let's kick this thing off.
Jameson Lopp is a cypherpunk software engineer, columnist, and Bitcoin advocate. Lopp is also
the co-founder and CTO of Bitcoin security provider, Kasa. Pete Rizzo is the editor at
Bitcoin Magazine and editor-at-large at Kraken. In this conversation, we discuss Bitcoin,
Satoshi Nakamoto, the launch of Bitcoin, Patoshi, and Satoshi's email communications. I really
enjoyed this trek through history with both Jameson and Pete, and I hope you enjoy it
as well. Before we get into this episode, though, I want to quickly talk about our sponsors.
First up is Elmax Digital. Elmax Digital is the number one institutional crypto exchange.
They offer clients the deepest pool of crypto liquidity on the planet, all underscored by
100% uptime track record through volatility spikes. They leverage Elmax Group's liquidity
relationships and ultra-low latency technology. Elmax Digital is the market-leading solution
for institutional crypto trading and custodial services. If you're an institution, you got
to be using Elmax Digital. They have a central limit order book streaming spot Bitcoin and
other cryptocurrencies, all paired with US dollar, euro, and yen. Elmax Digital is the
number one institutional crypto exchange. They're secure, they're liquid, and they're
trusted. You can learn more about Elmax Digital at elmaxdigital.com. Elmaxdigital.com. Next
up is Compass Mining. Compass Mining is the world's largest marketplace for mining hardware
and hosting. With Compass, everyone can mine Bitcoin. Their team makes it easy to start
mining wherever you want, at home, or in one of their 23 hosting facilities around the
world. Through the Compass marketplace, retail miners can access mining hardware with similar
prices and purchase plans, as the world's largest mining companies. Compass miners own
their machines, they choose whatever mining pool they want, and they can mine directly
to their own wallet. Miners who don't want to host their machines can order ASICs directly
to their doorstep as well. Simple and low-cost hosting agreements, coupled with best-in-class
customer service, are the reasons why Compass is the simplest and most popular way to mine
Bitcoin. You can start mining your own Bitcoin by visiting compassmining.io today. Compass
mining.io today. Last but not least, many of you constantly DM me, email me, yell out
to me on the street. How do I get a job in Bitcoin or crypto? Well, I've got some solutions
for you. We started a new product. It is called Pomp Crypto Jobs. It's a marketplace where
you can go and apply for hundreds of open roles at the industry's leading companies.
Everyone from Coinbase to Gemini, Kraken, BlockFi, Strike, BTC, Inc., and many, many
others have open roles listed there. All you do is you go to pompcryptojobs.com and you
start applying. It's completely free to apply for those roles. So go to pompcryptojobs.com
if you got a job that you don't like and you want a new one in Bitcoin or crypto. There's
nothing better than focusing full-time on Bitcoin or crypto. So go to pompcryptojobs.com.
And if you feel like you're not prepared yet to actually apply and get the job, we have
a training program that you can also go ahead and check out. If you go to Pomp's Crypto
Course dot com, Pomp with an S, Crypto Course dot com, you can go there. It's a three week
intensive course. We teach you everything you need to know about the industry. And then
we hand you off to the HR teams at various leading companies. We've worked hand in hand
with those leading companies to create the curriculum. So we know this works. People
have been hired at everywhere from Coinbase, Gemini, BlockFi, Kraken, Anchorage, BTC, Inc.,
Strike, and many, many others. So if you want an open job, go to pompcryptojobs.com. But
if you want to go through the training program, go to Pomp's Crypto Course dot com. We'll
see you there. All right, let's get in the episode with Jameson and Pete. I hope you
guys enjoyed this one. Anthony Pompliano runs Pomp Investments. All views of him and the
guests on his podcast are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of Pomp Investments.
You should not treat any opinion expressed by Pomp or his guests as a specific inducement
to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression
of his personal opinion. This podcast is for informational purposes only. All right, Jameson
Pete, you guys there? No. How are both of you? Good. Excited to be rekindling ancient
Bitcoin debates with you all. We got a whole bunch of stuff to talk about. So here's my
suggestion is where we can maybe start is Jameson, maybe we can start with you in terms
of the actual launch of Bitcoin. Can you walk us through just like a high level of the sequence
of events from your understanding in terms of how that launch went? And then people will
come to you in terms of what the importance of some of that was.
Yeah. So Bitcoin prehistory is basically, you know, October 30th or Halloween really
of 2008 was when a new anonymous entity emailed this white paper to the cryptography mailing
list and basically said, hey, I've designed this new cryptocurrency system. And of course,
almost everybody who responded to it told them why it would never work and why the game
theory was broken and it would never scale and so on and so forth. And then I forget
if there were more communications in between that. I think there were some, you know, early
beta releases and code that was shared privately amongst a few people. But then around January
3rd, I was actually I was looking at the timestamp just a few seconds ago. It was the afternoon
of January 8th, 2009, at least in America time zone, was when Satoshi released the Bitcoin
V 0.1. So that's when people could actually download the software and start running it.
And it was almost 24 hours later on the 3rd of 2009 around 1 p.m. GMT when the first real
mind block appeared. And of course, one thing that I think people get confused about is
the fact that the Genesis block was actually minted with a timestamp. Oh, no, the Genesis
block was minted with a timestamp of the 3rd and then the next block was minted. I mean,
I'm looking at it right now, the 8th of January, very late in the evening. So, you know, there's
a number of days difference here. I think people get confused as to whether or not this
was something that was taken advantage of by Satoshi. But we'll go into the details
of why the timeline is actually about as fair of a launch as you could get. Got it. So James,
what you're basically saying here is on January 3rd, there was the Genesis block. And if we
go all the way back, right, the Bitcoin dot org was registered, I think it was in August
or September of 2008. Then in October 31st of 2008, we get the white paper. January 3rd,
2009, we get the Genesis block, which Satoshi got. There's 50 Bitcoin there. And we'll talk
about those 50 Bitcoin in one second. But then the second block, which I think a lot
of people didn't know, is that the second block doesn't come to actually January 8th,
which is also the same day that Satoshi ends up emailing the cryptography list and saying,
Hey, there is the V, V zero dot one Bitcoin. There's this public client. You can now go
and participate. Pete, before we come to you, maybe James can also explain the 50 Bitcoin
that came out in that first Genesis block. Why are they not spendable? I don't think
a lot of people understood either. So the first 50 Bitcoin can't be spent. Why is that?
It's just an eccentricity. It's an oversight in the software itself. So the Genesis block
is hard coded. Like it's actually in the code of whatever Bitcoin node software that you're
running. And that's really what bootstraps the ability to then go out and ask the network
for the rest of the blocks and transactions. And just due to a simple oversight, or maybe
Satoshi didn't care because they didn't intend on needing to spend it, the database of spendable
Bitcoin, which we call the UTXOs, the unspent transaction outputs, that database only starts
getting created when you start downloading and verifying new blocks. So Satoshi could have
coded it to process the Genesis block and add in those transactions, but it didn't happen.
Therefore, they effectively don't exist from any Bitcoin node standpoint. Got it. And Pete,
there's two questions I have for you to start. The first is, I think I saw you tweet at one point
that you are like a January 8th public launcher, right? Meaning that like you recognize that as
the actual public launch of Bitcoin, not January 3rd. If you read Wikipedia and many other sources,
they'll say January 3rd, that was the Genesis block. But obviously everyone else starts
participating on the 8th. So one, maybe you can talk a little bit about that, but also two is
that's the day that Satoshi emails the list. And you can maybe mention a little bit in terms of
what those emails said and why that was so important that the same day that the first block was
available, the email actually went out as well. Sure. Yeah. I guess I'll break this down and
talking about like what Satoshi did and didn't do kind of looking at that whole period from
October to January. So a few things, maybe just backtrack a little bit. So one, you know,
Satoshi is very publicly communicative, right? He's putting out emails and messages to the
scientific cryptography community that he has engaged with, and he's getting feedback from
there. Right. And he's also, you know, putting proof that he is doing things when it wouldn't
be obvious that, you know, that proof was maybe harder to verify. Right. So for example, he mines
the Genesis block on January 3rd. What does he do? He puts the headline of a newspaper from that
time in the block so that everyone can publicly verify that that's when he did that. Right. So
he's talking, he's engaging, and there's a very big list of things that he didn't do also. Right.
And we would associate them with other cryptocurrency launches that we know today.
You know, Satoshi wasn't selling Bitcoin. He wasn't making statements about the value of Bitcoin.
He wasn't taking money to produce Bitcoin that we know of. He wasn't pricing Bitcoin. You know,
he spoke a little bit about Bitcoin's potential and about the software, but for the most part,
he was, you know, releasing code publicly. Right. And so I think to your second part of your question,
why do I like to focus on January 9th as, you know, really when Bitcoin begins? Because if you
look at the date sequence, you know, October 31st, he mails the white paper to the cryptography
mailing list. January 3rd, he creates the Genesis block, which is really, you know, compiling the
program necessary to launch it. January 9th is really when he, you know, launches the blockchain
and releases the software for anyone to download. And so for me, that really is the point at which
Bitcoin becomes a decentralized distributed network. Right. That's essentially, I think,
prior to that point, there was no code for you to run. Therefore, I think you can make the argument
that Bitcoin, you know, didn't really exist in any meaningful way. It was an idea at that point.
Whereas on January 9th, the blockchain that we know and run today and continue to update with
transactions, that's when that began. Got it. And so when you think of that launch date,
maybe Jameson, you've got some research I think you've done into Patoshi. Talk about the difference
between Satoshi and Patoshi and are they the same person? Are they not? What is the evidence for or
against that argument? So we don't have nearly enough time to go into all the minutia. There's
about a dozen really technical blog posts that have been written researching this issue, most of
them by Sergio Lerner. He was, I think, one of the first people to service it. A few others have also
dug into various aspects of it. I myself have been digging into some completely different aspects of
it, trying to get a little bit closer to answer this question. But suffice to say that along with
the eccentricities in the software that made the Genesis block not spendable, there are other
eccentricities around mining and at least how the early CPU-based miner and the Bitcoin client worked
such that it's bad for your privacy. There are ways to analyze certain aspects of the blocks,
specifically the extra knots field, which is one of the things that gets incremented by the miners.
And you can find certain patterns in these blocks and say, well, there's a decent chance that this
set of blocks were actually all produced by the same miner because we can see certain patterns
in the extra knots fields and also in timestamp fields of these blocks. So suffice to say that
the result of looking at these patterns and also finding some specific slopes in these blocks and
their nonces over the first year or so of mining, there seems to be one particular miner that stands
out as having mined a very large number of those early blocks. I think around 40% of the first
of the first 50,000 blocks are possibly attributable to this miner. And this is one of
the things that Sergio has really been digging into is, well, what can we learn from this?
Does it seem to be Satoshi or could it be someone else? And there are a number of reasons why
it looks like the entity who mined this large number of blocks, they really, really knew what
they were doing. They probably understood the protocol better than almost anyone else,
which is one reason you might suspect it's Satoshi. Also, it looks like they were running
essentially a custom miner that was parallelizing the mining to use multiple cores of a single
processor, which I don't believe the default mining software was doing at the time.
And additionally, we can see that it appears that this miner was actually shutting off their
mining activity for about five minutes after each block that they mined. So they weren't trying to
mine as quickly as possible. It seems like they were just trying to keep the network going and
helping it get bootstrapped. And when you talk about this idea of like throttling, right? Like
shutting down the blocks or shutting down mining for five minutes after every block mined,
is this because they were intentionally trying to limit the number of Bitcoin that they mined?
Or was there some other reason that they could be doing that?
I think it was really just that, well, back then, most of the blocks were empty. There wasn't really
a need to have a lot of blocks. If you were only trying to get transactions confirmed approximately
every 10 minutes, then why bother mining a block after a minute or two? Because there's probably
not even going to be any transactions in there. Similarly, if you actually look at the slope
of the rate of block creation by this particular miner over a long period of time, you can also
see that they appear to back off their hash rate in about four discrete increments. As the entire
hash rate of the network increases over that first year or two, they're slowly backing off.
Even though they could have kept going at the same rate and mined more coins. This is just another
indication that they were just trying to keep the network going. They weren't in it from a financial
perspective. Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. Pete, the Patoshi figure, whether it's a Satoshi or
not, mined about 700,000 Bitcoin in the first year. We ever think those are moving? Does it matter if
they move? How do you think about that treasure chest, if you will, of Bitcoin that's sitting
there? I'll start with jumping off where Jameson started. He was saying, this is what we know based
on the data from Satoshi. A lot of my research has gone into what Satoshi actually said while he was
maintainer of the project. If we look at his public messages, you have this idea that Patoshi
may have phased out his mining and that he may have been altruistic in trying to support the
network and not money motivated. I think, again, going back to the launch, what do we know?
Satoshi didn't behave as a profiteer. This might map with that. But also, there's some
messages from him that suggest that he wanted more people to mine and for Bitcoin to grow.
There's a famous message from Satoshi in which he refers to the gentleman's agreement that various
Bitcoin, people who run Bitcoin should make not to increase the hash rate too much. I think people
were mining with Bitcoin. They're mining on their computers back then. There was this idea in
Satoshi's messages, I think, even now that he foresaw an age like today where we're mining
Bitcoin with large data centers. I think he was very keen to suppress that activity or to
slightly discourage it. There's a somewhat famous story where Bitcoin pizza day really originates.
I think Laszlo is the one who said that Satoshi discouraged him in his activity. He had upgraded
his mining system. He was mining more coins and that Satoshi may have encouraged him to give back
to the community. That's just a little bit of extra evidence about why I think Satoshi,
what we know from what his written messages say, would map to a figure like Patoshi. As far as the
actual Satoshi coins, that's the driving motivation for this is for people to understand
how much wealth Satoshi might have accrued in setting up Bitcoin. But again, I would go back to
the idea of thinking about the wider how cryptocurrency network launches happen today and
they're being very profit motivated. Satoshi just has a lot of behavioral characteristics that are
completely opposite. He didn't go to Silicon Valley, didn't go to VCs, didn't try to sell this idea.
He wrote a computer program. He released that online. He looked for scientific
feedback. He ultimately tried to get people to participate in furthering that network.
But Bitcoin had no value for a whole year post the launch. In the case where this Patoshi figure
was mining, they were actually spending money on electricity and effectively losing money to acquire
these Bitcoins at the time. Again, it took a while for the Bitcoin economy to be bootstrapped.
I think within the lens of the times, you could look at this as an altruistic activity.
Yeah. Jameson, when we think about the Patoshi research and that miner, we obviously see the
email communications that Pete's done a ton of work on in the same time period. What's your thought
process in terms of Patoshi? Are there any major takeaways that you have, any surprises as you've
gone deeper and deeper in the research? And then do you have an opinion in terms of whether Patoshi
is Satoshi or if it could be somebody else? Well, suffice to say that of all of the research
that I've done so far, the research that I have not published yet is basically taking the opposite
approach at Patoshi. And I have been trying to identify as many of the participants in the early
network as possible and figure out which blocks they likely bind and see if any of them look like
Patoshi blocks. And so far, I have not found evidence of any conflicts there. This Patoshi
miner does seem to be very self-contained. And there are only, I think, about 10 known Satoshi
transactions where Satoshi sent funds to other people. And it seems like, and I haven't, you know,
fully sussed this all up, but my working theory is that Satoshi had a different machine, a different
wallet that they used for spending. And then they had this special optimized miner, which they
considered to be more of the, like, keeping the heartbeat of the network alive. So that's mainly
interesting because it just shows, like, how much care Satoshi really had to nurture the network
when it was in its infancy, when it was really weak. And I think that they understood how weak
it was and that, you know, they needed to coax more people into using the network so that it
would be more decentralized, because certainly having one person that was mining, like, 40% of
the blocks on a single CPU was not a very robust network at the time.
Yeah. Pete, I know that you've thought a lot about how this launch can't be replicated,
kind of what makes Bitcoin so special. One of the things is the launch. What are the things
you identify that you're like, yeah, these are the specific things that probably cannot be replicated
now that everyone's kind of paying attention to the space?
Yeah, I would say that there is a lot of data, people who have tried to kind of compete with
the launch. If you look at different cryptocurrencies, there's different ways that
they can be different. And one of them is this idea that they can be launched, quote, fairly.
So I think that's what a lot of people focus on. And we have seen fair launch coins come to market.
People did early on post Bitcoin try to launch new coins. And I think a lot of the stigma towards
this idea of pre-mining, I think this is kind of the term that's kind of lit the fire on the
conversation is really that early other alternative cryptocurrencies, they were sort of forced with
this idea of how do they get their product to market? And can they rely on the same things
that Bitcoin did? If you look at coins like Zcash or Mimblewimble, there are other examples of this
that haven't gone as well. If you look at Zcash, they tried to do sort of a fair mining launch.
Instantly, the price kind of skyrockets because they're unable to kind of get all the machines
online. So if you look at the price for Zcash, I mean, the dollar price of it has been kind of
descending almost since inception because it was so valuable to this launch. So again, I think that
people have tried to recreate the fair launch. There's even WorldCoin, I think, recently,
which is one of these things where their idea is to kind of scan the ideas of everyone in the world
and distribute cryptocurrency that way. Ultimately, I think there's a debate about
whether what Satoshi did could be even replicated again. That's one of the reasons why I think
alternative cryptocurrencies today, they largely operate on the basis that this can't happen,
right? If their idea was so good and they actually released it in public, they wouldn't
benefit from it or the market would instantly be cornered on their new product or service.
So this whole cottage industry has evolved where new projects looking to raise money
will go to venture capitalists. They'll raise money from venture capitalists, oftentimes
promising kind of some tokens in this new chain as a compensation for that, right? So I think
if you look at the cryptocurrency market as a whole, yes, there is still some competition
for fair launch, right? People are always going to try to get this idea, oh, maybe we can recreate
the magic of Satoshi's original launch. That seems very hard, again, because of the way that
this idea was just new and nascent and allowed to develop over time. And there seems to be people
who have just completely want to move away from that, right? They're just accept this idea that
we can never have a fair launch like Bitcoin again. And therefore, you know, they feel like
the best way to progress is to just choose another tactic, right? And I think we've found
in practice that that other tactic looks a lot like what you would imagine venture capital to
look like. Yeah, it's fascinating when you start to think about kind of the non-economic actor
mentality to do some of this. And I think James and you talking about kind of the throttling of
the mining, the encouragement of other people getting on the network, right? Almost inviting
the competition, looking for durability and long-term sustainability rather than short-term
economic gain is pretty incredible. I've got two of my brothers here, Joe, what questions do you have?
Yeah, maybe I'll ask one for James in the start. So the tap group update obviously just went live.
I just want to kind of get your opinion on what it means for Bitcoin, what it means for the
average individual holding Bitcoin and kind of just your opinion on how it'll accelerate kind of
the space. Yeah, I mean, it's going to have a lot of similarities, I think, to SegWit four years ago,
where this isn't something that immediately becomes a user-facing change to most people.
It's going to take months and years for developers to write new applications, to make
modifications to wallet software, to take advantage of these low-level changes. And, you know,
we've seen, like with SegWit, I think it wasn't until just a few months ago that some of the
biggest wallet providers in the industry finally got around to implementing it. So it will become
user-facing, I think, for the power users who seek it out. For most people, they probably won't
notice much. Now, it's very interesting to me and to other multi-signature provider services,
specifically from the aggregated signature standpoint. That's going to improve both the
privacy and decrease the cost, decrease the amount of data that is going on the blockchain for our
users. But once again, even with the aggregated signature stuff, that's still kind of in flux
on the specific standard that I think is going to get implemented. We have seen, I think,
Moon Wallet already rolled out with a new SIG 2 support, but I'm still waiting to see what other
providers, what the various hardware key management device manufacturers end up settling on.
We have a lot of dependencies as a wallet provider on different libraries, on different
hardware and firmware. So it's going to be a slow, methodical process, but also it's going to be
a slow process. But also, we're going to see more people just starting to tinker with completely new
types of things. I think I have seen that this should enable better discrete log contracts that
you would be able to execute over Lightning. That's something that I hope to see rolled out
sooner rather than later. But the main thing that I caution against is the use of the term
very, very broad term. You can make an argument that Bitcoin has had smart contracts for its
entire existence. It just has a very different way of going about doing code execution than
some of the more Turing complete or expressive contracting platforms out there like Ethereum,
Solana, and what have you. The ability for people to do more complex scripting on Bitcoin and do
that more privately and more scalably is what Taproot really enables. But you should not expect
that all of a sudden you'll be able to go out and start doing the same type of liquidity providing
decentralized exchange type of dApps that just execute on the Bitcoin blockchain. That's kind
of antithetical to Bitcoin development practices in general. Just for privacy and security
standpoints, you'll see that the preference is to execute things as much as possible off chain
and instead put proofs of what happened on chain. Got you. Thank you. John, what questions you got?
Yeah. I guess this would probably be more directed to Pete. Pete, can you talk about
the early people in Bitcoin besides Satoshi and what their roles were as Bitcoin got started and
kind of rolled out? Yeah. Interesting. Well, there weren't really roles. So there was a small group
of people who definitely gravitated the projects. I think you can look at it as a few stages. So
once Satoshi was primarily interacting with people on the cryptography mailing list,
so other cryptographers, academics, people who were studying and interesting in the field
of decentralized cash or internet cash. From there, he sort of goes out to different groups
that he thinks, I think, his message would resonate with. So he goes to the peer-to-peer foundation.
He goes to their message board and he writes, here's why I believe in Bitcoin. Here's why you
should be interested in it. You could actually go back to that archive and kind of look at all those
comments. And there are even people at the time who say, wow, this is a great idea. So I think
Satoshi knew that he had to get his idea first to people who would be receptive to it. While there
was some initial excitement, Hal Finney is a great example of the early excitement on the cryptography
mailing list. Certainly there were detractors as well. But Satoshi ultimately had to build his
own community. So one of the greatest resources that we have for understanding what happened with
Bitcoin is the Bitcoin mailing list, which Satoshi created and wrote his emails on thereafter, and
the Bitcoin forums. So he created ultimately his own kind of online message board for people to
meet, discuss, and talk about Bitcoin. And I think that's important because that's also where
the early economy starts to develop. Satoshi didn't price Bitcoin. He didn't make an exchange.
He didn't trade Bitcoin from what we understand. All this was done by the users and that community.
And I think that's really the first important contribution of those early users is they do
create the economy around Bitcoin. And that was something that Satoshi himself didn't do.
And if you think about other cryptocurrencies today, those processes are very intertwined.
Oftentimes the founders and developers are also sort of creating this economy. And in many cases,
even as I mentioned, how these things start to look like venture capital, they're pricing,
valuing, making statements about the value of these tokens, and then having those conversations
with people with money or interest or even people within the cryptocurrency community who might be
likely to support their project. So the economic and development actors within these ecosystems
are much more tightly coupled. And Bitcoin, you can kind of, I think, look at Satoshi as this kind
of steward who wanted to create conversation. But from his actions, we know that he didn't take
anything that would have profited him, right? So that's why Satoshi, I think, has this altruistic
lens on him where we can look at him and say, okay, maybe this is someone who did have this
idea that they were creating this ultimately digital economy that would expand to be as large
as we still think it will be and was cognizant enough to do it on the right footing.
Pete, do you have any thoughts on religious motifs that can be found throughout the story,
such as the immaculate conception and the sort of disappearance of the messiah figure and so on?
Like thoughts being other than that, the comparisons should be kind of obvious?
Do you think that that's why it's also difficult for other networks to do the same thing?
Well, I mean, I think one of the core debates really is what is Bitcoin and what are other
cryptocurrencies, right? If you look at the history of the space, oftentimes the people who are
creating other cryptocurrencies have a myopic view of what Bitcoin is, right? So you might remember
that in 2013, 2014, it was very popular Bitcoin as a centralized PayPal. It was the example of
a company that was being disintermediated and distributed and all these users were recreating
this PayPal-like service, right? This idea that Bitcoin is a sound money, that was a new economy,
that we're building something that's antithetical to fiat money really wasn't widespread, right?
So I think that certainly I think within these other cryptocurrency communities, like I wonder
how much they even kind of think about Bitcoin in the same way that we do today, right? They're
oftentimes using kind of older ideas and older concepts. And I think really the narrative in
the whole industry is that this is still what creates most of the conflicts.
I've got two more questions, one for each of you. Jameson, when you think about
Satoshi, the early coins, et cetera, do you have any fear of the coins moving or do you think that
there's anything specific that you would get really worried about if they did move?
Mainly from a quantum computing standpoint. So there is an issue where the first style of
Bitcoin addresses were called pay to public key. Most of the addresses that have been used
in the past eight years or so have been paid to public key hash. There's an important distinction
here because when you're actually putting the public key directly on the blockchain, you are
you're making that potentially attackable by quantum computing. And so theoretically,
a quantum computer that was generalized and sufficiently had a sufficient number of qubits,
which is how we measure the processing power. Theoretically, that could reverse engineer from
a public key to a private key and thus spend any funds that are in pay to public key addresses.
Whereas funds that are in a pay to public key hash or pay to script hash address that have never
been spent from and those actual public keys have never been revealed on the blockchain. They have
this additional layer of protection that gives them that quantum resistance. So it may be,
and I don't think this is going to happen tomorrow or next year or even several years from now,
but this is the way that cryptography in general works is that over many years,
we get better and better at breaking certain cryptographic algorithms. And you tend to have
a fair amount of heads up that certain types of cryptography are going to be broken
in the mid to near future. So it's, I think, quite likely that at some point, we will have
to have a conversation where we say, look, we know that generalized quantum computing is coming.
This will result in really a lot of cryptography having to be upgraded and change how it's using.
And one of those things that we'll have to decide as well, what do we want to do? What does the
what does the world or at least the Bitcoin ecosystem believe is the appropriate thing to
do regarding all of these early coins that have never moved? Because they will essentially become
minable in a new sense. And that I expect that an entity that gets a powerful enough quantum
computer early on when nobody else has them, they will be highly incentivized to use that
to break various types of cryptography. And the one of the most straightforward things that they
can do will be to basically grind away and try to mine the private keys to that early stash.
That's a wild view of you. I've not heard anyone talk about that before.
All right, Pete, we'll let you take us home. When you think about all of this,
in terms of the launch of Bitcoin, is there one email, one correspondence, one thing that Satoshi
said that really sticks out in your mind as if somebody wants to go and kind of learn about the
early days of Bitcoin or learn about Satoshi's kind of intentions, this one thing sticks out
as a great kind of indicator for it? Well, I mean, Satoshi wasn't the most
quotable person, right? I think maybe I would end it with just saying with, you know, Satoshi,
I think the market has moved beyond Satoshi to a certain extent, right, in terms of how we're
developing Bitcoin as a technology. And, you know, in many respects, we've evolved away from him and
his beliefs. I think it's definitely helpful for anyone who's interested in learning about Satoshi
to go back and read the archives from BitcoinTalk.org. You can go to the mailing list,
which is still I think held by the Linux Foundation. You can look at what Satoshi
wrote and his ideas. But, you know, again, Bitcoin's evolving. We have to build this,
you know, ecosystem and move forward. And, yeah, I know, as much as I like to talk about Satoshi
and research's work, and I do think it's worth noting that, you know, we're going in direction,
we've got to chart our own course. And, you know, I don't know how relevant Satoshi is to issues
like quantum computing, as Jameson just said, and the potential scenarios that we face as people
who are trying to look for Bitcoin. Yeah, I appreciate both of you guys coming on.
Where should we send folks? Maybe Jameson, you first. You want people to just follow you on
Twitter? You bet. Can't miss me at lop l-o-p-p. You also have maybe just very quickly the URL
for the Bitcoin resource. What is it? lop.net slash Bitcoin? I think it is. Or Bitcoin.page
will take you directly there. Bitcoin.page. Are you impressed that I knew that it was lop.net
slash Bitcoin, like off the top of my head like that? I sent so many people there. I'm probably
responsible for about 25% of your traffic. Nice. Bitcoin.page. And then Pete, where do you want us
to send people? Pete Rizzo, editor over at Bitcoin Magazine. You know, you can find my work over
there. Definitely recommend you guys checking out the new print magazine. That'll solve our issue
hitting newsstands soon. I'll let you guys read all the great articles in there. Awesome. I dropped
both of your Twitter accounts in the chat, so make sure you guys go follow these guys. I appreciate
you guys coming on. This is a wealth of knowledge of the early days, and I think that the further
and further we get away from the early days, the less and less people know, and there's all kinds
of nuance around the 50 Bitcoin not being able to be spent from the Genesis block to the second
block actually coming days later is all fascinating stuff. So I appreciate it and we'll all have to
do it again in the future. Thanks, John. See you. Thanks, guys.