That would be a bitcoin start. That would be just too much of a black swan. The video was grigori. Personally, if I had Perelman dollars worth perelman bitcoin laying around I'm probably buy some beer and wiki some girls over. Do not post your Bitcoin address unless someone explicitly asks you to. Archived from the original on September 17, That is why Wiki had grigori quit.
I think most of us would agree that whoever Satoshi is, he doesn't behave like a normal human being. News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. Mochizuki" listed at DBLP. Here is an article on Shinichi Mochizuki and his work in theoretical mathematics. The value of Bitcoin surged at the beginning of Or a gold meteor shower could hit the earth. Perelman is quoted in an article in The New Yorker saying that he is disappointed with the ethical standards of the field of mathematics.
Wiki July 1, The analogous result has been known to be true in dimensions greater than or equal to five since as in the work of Perelman Smale. Here is a list of some vulnerabilities that bitcoin. CuSithBell 14 Grigori In PerelmanCao and Zhu published an erratum disclosing that they had failed to cite properly bitcoin previous work of Grigori and Lott published in Bitcoin does one specific thing very well. Crypto and hashing just makes it work and is probably something he already well understood but wiki he had to create.
That should be obvious, right??? It is if you're knowledgable enough to understand it. Given how poor the general commentary about bitcoin can be, that's not exactly a common trait. Appeal to authority works quite well for the masses. Look what it's done for Paul Krugman with his Nobel Prize. This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.
If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey , or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script. Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe hint: I don't have anything in life that I would be afraid of being spotlighted I don't think this is likely because of the time zones.
During the times Satoshi was most active would have been in the middle of the night in Japan. Also, Shinichi does not seem to have an interest in economics which Satoshi clearly did.
One reason this theory is ridiculous is that Mochizuki has a very unique mathematical style. To quote the number theorist Jordan Ellenberg, regarding Mochizuki's work on the ABC conjecture, "Looking at it, you feel a bit like you might be reading a paper from the future, or from outer space.
Before certain flaws in Mochizuki's work on ABC were pointed out http: But none, to my knowledge, had success, which is why the proof has yet to be accepted by the community. If you know something about arithmetic algebraic geometry, you'll recognize how out-there his ideas in this field are: In the past, Mochizuki has done exceptional research in number theory and algebraic geometry of a less outlandish sort.
But his ABC work suggests, to me, that his interests have led him in the direction of conducting work that is more trailblazing, rather than continuing an established line investigation. My limited understanding is that Bitcoin, while an amazing achievement, doesn't involve any bizarre new ideas from cryptography, but rather amounts to a clever implementation of known cryptographic concepts combined with an insightful approach to the economics of cryptographically-secured digital currency.
Please correct me if you think this is not the case. So on an intellectual level, Bitcoin is not particularly akin to Mochizuki's current mathematical research.
Furthermore, Satoshi clearly communicated his ideas on Bitcoin in the early days, writing a whitepaper and even developing an implementation that anyone could look at and try to understand, and going so far as to participate actively in the online community of people interested in this project. Mochizuki has not made such an effort to encourage the dissemination of his ideas, as regards his research on the ABC conjecture. It's all well and good to characterize both Satoshi and Mochizuki as behaving in a "reclusive" manner, but this glosses over a real distinction in the degree to which they have engaged in community discourse about their respective bodies of work.
All told, I find it completely implausible that Satoshi and Mochizuki are one and the same. I did read that Mochizuki is more than willing to take questions by email about his conjecture, but he just doesn't want to lecture on it. That isn't that far off from Satoshi behavior. The video was strange. Not necessarily in a bad way, but speaking to him like a Deity felt kind of awkward.
Like if if he's right and that video goes viral, and that becomes the first thing people see of Mochizuki, he might receive some unwarranted and undeserved mocking. Is it more commonplace in Japanese culture to treat people you respect like Deities? If so, then this might be a bit less weird than I'm making it out to be. Why do you say he treated him like a deity? He just called him "sensei" teacher , bowed very common in Japan , and said thanks.
I kind of got the vibe when he was asking him which world problems to focus his energies on. Perhaps my interpretation was flawed, given how little I know about Dr.
Yeah, i can just imagine the scene. Ha ha, you created a billion dollar virtual currency! I would totally mock the shit out of him. Mochizuki had created so many new mathematical tools and brought together so many disparate strands of mathematics that his paper was populated with vocabulary that nobody could understand.
It was totally novel, and totally mystifying. Well, Perelman did that with the Poincare conjecture! In fact there are probably dozens of shy and reclusive geniuses in the world, and you don't have to have made famous contributions to be a potential Satoshi Nakamoto. This is a great paper to read about the guy. He is really something else. He looks like Stan Lee I find this theory incredibly unlikely.
Satoshi was a computer programmer, and a damn good one at that. It's true I'm a programmer who has now been doing web design and if my client does not tell me exactly what they want they will get a piece of crap like this. Bootstrap is a godsend, I don't care if half the web uses it, it makes "programmer graphics" easy! It's like saying you can speak english fluently but why can't you speak more than hello in Spanish? It also contains an odd mix of boost and C-style macro hackery.
The use of a Forth-like scripting language is also intriguing and it may be the work of a different programmer than that of the rest. I'd guess that a simpler system with payments to addresses rather than scripts came before the first publicly known version.
You're clearly not a programmer. Every single programmer in the world thinks every other programmers code is shit, and that theirs is clean and nice. Coding style isn't what matters, its the fact that his code is bullet proof from a functional and security standpoint. Amateur coders don't write bullet proof code, period. Highly paid professional coders don't write code like this.. I know because I work for a major tech company and we have armies of programmers and testers trying to accomplish what Satoshi managed to do all on his own somehow.
Here is a list of some vulnerabilities that existed. This bug enabled someone to create a "valid" transaction that gave themselves billion bitcoins. It happened while Satoshi was still active.
Could it be that he worked with another programmer together? I would be more than surprised if a single person was able to understand economics, systems theory, social engineering, programming, distributed systems, and cryptography to a sufficient extend to create a bulletproof system. That would be just too much of a black swan. For fuck sake, that would actually be the equivalent of Newton developing calculus to create Newtonian physics He just needs to be a cypherpunk programmer with professional skills in programming.
He stood on the shoulders of giants for everything except he originated the idea of the public blockchain to solve the double-spend problem. Essentially he did this by merging the long-tackled e-currency ideas with modern P2P systems. Crypto and hashing just makes it work and is probably something he already well understood but nothing he had to create. With the blockchain idea in place it became just a matter of implementing the system and coding a bulletproof system, which he must have already had the skills to do.
It was undoubtedly an idea so compelling that he worked feverishly on it. Creating bitcoin then was probably something he realized he could do with his skills-set at some point, and he just set about doing it, excited by the idea. Probably he was employed as a professional programmer, or perhaps an academic of some sort. People call him a world-class programmer for a reason. I wasn't trying to minimize his accomplishment at all, I was trying to describe what kind of person he'd need to be to find himself in a position to create bitcoin.
The one thing in life I have learned to be true is that the resolve and resourcefulness of a individual person is often underestimated. I reimplemented the full Bitcoin standard by myself over 2 years: Have a look, it may look good to Satoshi and to you, but others will see flaws in it, but the systems security is not dependent on the code.
What really matters is not the code, but the idea and the protocol, people like to say that Satoshi is a genius akin to Newton and Einstein, but all the intellect in the world is worthless without an idea to work on.
Satoshi could very well just be any average programmer who had an idea, implemented it and who now wants some peace. As a network admin, I know my coding is shit. If nested if statements and do while statements were people, I'd do a threesome with them. I just write code read: Well, I wouldn't say that everyone thinks everyone elses code is atrocious If these programmers didn't exist, there wouldn't be so many of us.
I have looked at some absolutely terrible coding and I know I have written some absolutely terrible coding The worst in my opinion is when you have coding that is essentially open source and has no commented code whatsoever along with cryptic coding, that shit drives me nuts. Few people in the world can write a program in a non-memory managed language that listens on an open port that isn't completely riddled with security exploits. Just ask Dan Kaminsky. Satoshi's code is bullet proof from a security standpoint.
Massive corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Adobe etc with armies of highly paid professional coders with decades of experience and testers have consistently failed at this.
I know because I work for one of those companies. This is not something some mathematician accomplishes in his spare time. This only depends on the complexity of what is being communicated on the port. When the inputs are simple and small, verifying validity of the delivered package is simple and hard to mess up.
The complexity is put into the ledger, not the application. Bitcoin does one specific thing very well. That reduces a lot of the complexity that larger programs have. But it only takes one. What is true genius? How do the few geniuses we've been granted differ from the rest of us? Newton, Einstien, Edison, Tesla, and so forth. Programming is something that primary school children are able to grasp. To someone truely gifted, rising above the accomplishments of merely "highly skilled" coders is not hard to fathom.
I think most of us would agree that whoever Satoshi is, he doesn't behave like a normal human being. Personally, if I had M dollars worth of bitcoin laying around I'm probably buy some beer and invite some girls over.
He's just sitting on the original bitcoin. Maybe our expectations for him shouldn't include him sharing our abilities and limitations.
I still find it very suspicious that it was the Microsoft Research Lab that published 2 of the most important practical and systems theory oriented research papers on Bitcoin. Personally, I found this video a little bit annoying, but that's just me. However, at the very end he made a good point: If anyone deserves the Nobel Prize in Economics, it's Satoshi and very few people would ever say no to a Nobel Prize except for the Peace one which let's face it, is a complete joke.
So this genius put together THIS his own website? He did publish an unusually high number of papers on elliptic curve math And his writing style is very consistent with Satoshi's. If that's not a compelling clue I don't know what is. The mathematics behind crypto and crypto system design are very different skill sets. And some of Satoshi's posts suggest he is more familiar with protocol-level crypto than with the mathematical nitty gritty.
These are not things one simply picks up out of the blue. Satoshi is a programmer, and a damn good one. Motizuki has absolutely no background whatsoever in programming, and learning the things required to create bitcoin is not something one does alongside being a mathematical genius. Everything we know about Satoshi, according to the things he's written, indicate he is a programmer, not a mathematician.
No, he is not a software developer by trade. Any professional programmer who's examined the Bitcoin sourcecode can tell you this. It wasn't well implemented in many places. Bitcoin was likely made by an academic. His white paper indicates a good grasp of statistical distributions and mathematical knowledge. The code looks like the work of a self-taught non-professional programmer, or perhaps an academic.
But the whole range of different ideas behind the system crypto, PoW, P2P, economics, political philosophy is what makes it brilliant. The structure of the code itself is far from brilliant.
Also consider the use of VC6, which was already ancient when I last used it in Seems like something one could very easily do as a mathematical genius. His entire argument was based on the fact that he's looking for a man that does what some consider a life's work in years. Which seems consistent with this. If he knew mathematically what he wanted to do would it seriously be that inconceivable that he could've learned how to program it without having 'official' programming background?
The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that Motizuki even knows how to program, so its a bit of a stretch to claim he could be a world class programmer because he's a world class Mathematician. Maybe Magnus Carlsen created bitcoin, because he is the greatest Chess player that ever lived, and clearly a genius..
FYI, this is important because the digital signatures used for bitcoin transactions use elliptic curves. Bitcoin uses Git-Hub, so maybe Linus Torvalds created bitcoin? Bitcoin is also heavily dependent upon HashCash, so maybe the creator of hashCash created bitcoin? I agree - the real satoshi would not have any trouble making pretty html or just paying someone to do it.. He would likely have been using emacs or vim to make his webpage not something that is probably worse than frontpage I find it hilarious that so many people think this.
The first version of bitcoin was created for Windows using Visual Studio. Satoshi was clearly familiar with Linux, as he worked on later porting it, but it started out as a Windows Only project. My immediate thought is that he refers to the fact that understanding of the world means control of the world, to the extent of your understanding and limit of possibility.
Thus the saying "knowledge is power" which, oddly, the public doesn't really think seems to apply to science. I also see the point of refusing to communicate with the media, which manifestly does not care about science but rather about celebrity I'm not guilty!
But his other comments - about the "boundless", for instance - sound more wild-eyed and vague, so maybe he's thinking of something else. Also, what is this nonsense at the end? I think it's probably a misinterpretation by a reporter. Or wild exaggerations by Perelman. Or are we all doomed to be folded?
The scientist has learned some super-knowledge which helps realize creation. Special services need to know whether Perelman and his knowledge may pose a threat to humanity. With his knowledge he can fold the Universe into a spot and then unfold it again. Will mankind survive after this fantastic process? Do we need to control the Universe at all?
The Pravda article is a secondary account of an alleged interview with Perelman published recently by Komsomolskaya Pravda, another historic Russian Communist Party newspaper that has turned into a tabloid since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The KP article is here if you can't decode Russian, automatic translation should give you the idea: It's hard to tell how credible any of this is. To make it even weirder, the article is accompanied by what looks like a stalker video of Perelman walking around town.
AndrewHickey's comment notwithstanding, it wouldn't surprise me if he did say that, and if he meant it very literally, like in the batshit crazy sense. Famous mathematicians have a long and celebrated history of going off the deep end. Though there's always the even smaller chance that he isn't totally crazy, and actually has a working solution for stochastic optimal control which is indeed total control for certain values of "control the universe".
I'd actually be a bit surprised if this were true. My guess is that intelligent madmen are more interesting, so we just pay more attention to them. Now I'm tempted to go looking for statistics.
To expand, it may be that intelligent madmen are the ones who accomplish enough to get famous. Well, also artistic madmen - and we also have a cultural expectation that artists are crazy! Though I should disclaim the likely bias induced by my personal experience with several creative schizophrenics.
Well, given that schizophrenics suffer from hallucinations and delusions, they're probably going to appear compulsively creative simply as a consequence of sharing their reality with other people. That doesn't necessarily mean that their creative works are going to be any good. Witness the website of my schizophrenic former lab partner. It's also something like people with recessive genes for mental illness get some of the benefits increased creativity without the debilitation.
I have a family history of mental illness but am not mental ill, and I definitely recognize benefits from whatever it is about me that isn't neurotypical. Perhaps a reason why evolutionary selection pressures in favor of intelligence didn't make us all geniuses.
Ashkenazi Jews actually demonstrate something similar in a pretty fascinating manner- a lot of the hereditary diseases that are more common among them appear to be linked to higher intelligence. I'd expect it's much more likely that developing intelligence requires an evolutionary trade-off with other useful things unfavorable at some local areas of genespace , and that it's more efficient to have some intelligent people, and that these factors drown out such a putative correlation in the evolutionary calculation.
I'd expect it's much more likely that developing intelligence requires an evolutionary trade-off with other useful things. Either this is a missunderstanding on my part, or alternatively I would recomment re? Because if the answer to who it is efficient for isn't "really, really close kin" I can't think of anything else that could be a valid answer.
And how did the reproductive success of brothers and sisters benefit from having a highly intelligent nerd as a sibling? Actually I can think of another answer now that seems more plausible than the kin idea involving an evolutionarily stable strategy. But thinking it through that sounds quite implausible as well. If we are talking about the evolutionary advantages of intelligence we are almost exclusively talking about the advantages that intelligence could possibly have for the reproductive success of the individual, not the society or the group s he's a part of.
The kind of intelligence that was probably most heavily selected for is social intelligence, aka. The kind of nerd intelligence you witness in Perelman and around here seems to be an evolutionary by-product of that at best, because let's face it - highly intelligent nerds are weird outliers and rarely seem to posess high attractiveness to the opposite gender in a way that would be able to make their genes outcompete other spunk floating around in the gene-pool.
That's why nerds didn't take over the gene-pool in the past, which is why we're still so stupid and overly concerned with all the "wrong" things. In other words, if we're talking about the evolution of human intelligence, I think we're talking about a very narrow set of mainly social intelligence that evolved by being directly selected for, while general intelligence skills like mathematical prowess and rationality are more of a by-product that weren't ever directly selected for.
If anything I'd guess they were rather selected against. In this vein, I often observe that our entire technological civilization was a side-effect of the human urge to gossip. Moreover, it seemed "impossible and bizarre" for the blogger that Perelman was speaking about the "Poincare conjecture" in the interview. Looks also like there are some aspects of the "interview" not shared in Pravda, like this stuff about nanotechnology.
· Recent Posts. The Remarkable Dirac Delta Function; The Rise of Bitcoin; Fun with Functions! A geometric proof for the arithmetic and Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and wearebeachhouse.com · Recent Posts. Grigori Perelman Bitcoin Wiki. The Remarkable. 13 May Grigori Perelman was that reclusive Russian mathematician who proved the Poincaré conjecture, and refused the $1,, prize. He has reportedly said that he refused the reward because he knows "how to control the universe" (full quote below; article linked at end). When asked why he refused from. Grigorij "Grisja" Jakovlevitj Perelman (Григорий Яковлевич Перельман), född 13 juni i Sankt Petersburg, är en rysk matematiker som har lämnat.