- Bitcoin Basics 101-Part 1 - Mypr
- Alleged Secret Google Antitrust Proposals Leaked - Slashdot
- Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters
- Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters
- 100% Complete Bitcoin Price History Graph + Related Events

This has probably been discussed before, but I don't see how Bitcoin can be a safe method of storing wealth, given our current situation where the NSA observes EVERYTHING. Not just that, the NSA has installed backdoors in nearly all of our hardware. Both Intel and AMD processors likely have hardware backdoors for the NSA.

Back in 2010, the NSA broke a variety of cryptographic standards. In addition, we know that the NSA has lobbied organizations to implement weak cryptographic standards. Furthermore, we know that the NSA has pushed for flawed random number generators. Weak random number generators have previously led to the theft of large numbers of Bitcoin on mobile devices.

Bitcoin completely relies on the integrity of the SHA-256 algorithm, which was developed by the SAME NSA that intentionally pushes flawed cryptographic standards. Bruce Schneier no longer trusts the NSA's elliptic curve cryptography standard, as he believes they may have intentionally chosen a weak elliptic curve that the NSA can use. The numbers used are supposed to be random to make it unlikely that anyone could exploit a weak curve, but the NSA provided different numbers, that are non-random.

Vitalik Buterin argues that we can expect Bitcoin not to use a weak curve, as the numbers used in Bitcoin are fairly simple to calculate, whereas arbitrary numbers would create the possibility of Satoshi using an intentionally weak curve.

However, it seems to me that we can argue the exact opposite as well. For p, Bitcoin uses 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007908834671663, which is arrived at by calculating 2^{256} – 2^{32} – 977 and seems fairly arbitrary to me as well.

Perhaps the main cause of my worries is the fact that the NSA in 1996 created a document outlining how to make a digital currency based on cryptography. Thus we know that the NSA has been studying the possibility of cryptocurrencies for a long period. Considering how the NSA manages to keep control over cryptography by releasing weak standards itself, is it possible that the NSA attempts to do the same with cryptocurrency?

Finally, I'm very worried about who this anonymous hacker who calls himself Satoshi Nakamoto might be. The Bitcoin source code contained different incomplete ideas that were never implemented, such as a decentralized marketplace (this is from memory, can't find the link). It all seems very ambitious to be the product of a single individual.

What is most worrying about Satoshi Nakamoto however is what is found in the blockchain. There's a non-random distribution of nonces in the early blockchain. What this means is that Satoshi Nakamoto was mining Bitcoin with a mining rig that was completely different from what everyone else was using back then.

It seems that he used 58 different computers, all with a different ID and all programmed to use different nonces to avoid checking the same possible solution multiple times, and at some point some of the computers broke down and were not put back up. This is not a genius amateur, but rather, someone with access to a lot of equipment. What makes all of this worse, is the fact that

Back in 2010, the NSA broke a variety of cryptographic standards. In addition, we know that the NSA has lobbied organizations to implement weak cryptographic standards. Furthermore, we know that the NSA has pushed for flawed random number generators. Weak random number generators have previously led to the theft of large numbers of Bitcoin on mobile devices.

Bitcoin completely relies on the integrity of the SHA-256 algorithm, which was developed by the SAME NSA that intentionally pushes flawed cryptographic standards. Bruce Schneier no longer trusts the NSA's elliptic curve cryptography standard, as he believes they may have intentionally chosen a weak elliptic curve that the NSA can use. The numbers used are supposed to be random to make it unlikely that anyone could exploit a weak curve, but the NSA provided different numbers, that are non-random.

Vitalik Buterin argues that we can expect Bitcoin not to use a weak curve, as the numbers used in Bitcoin are fairly simple to calculate, whereas arbitrary numbers would create the possibility of Satoshi using an intentionally weak curve.

However, it seems to me that we can argue the exact opposite as well. For p, Bitcoin uses 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007908834671663, which is arrived at by calculating 2

Perhaps the main cause of my worries is the fact that the NSA in 1996 created a document outlining how to make a digital currency based on cryptography. Thus we know that the NSA has been studying the possibility of cryptocurrencies for a long period. Considering how the NSA manages to keep control over cryptography by releasing weak standards itself, is it possible that the NSA attempts to do the same with cryptocurrency?

Finally, I'm very worried about who this anonymous hacker who calls himself Satoshi Nakamoto might be. The Bitcoin source code contained different incomplete ideas that were never implemented, such as a decentralized marketplace (this is from memory, can't find the link). It all seems very ambitious to be the product of a single individual.

What is most worrying about Satoshi Nakamoto however is what is found in the blockchain. There's a non-random distribution of nonces in the early blockchain. What this means is that Satoshi Nakamoto was mining Bitcoin with a mining rig that was completely different from what everyone else was using back then.

It seems that he used 58 different computers, all with a different ID and all programmed to use different nonces to avoid checking the same possible solution multiple times, and at some point some of the computers broke down and were not put back up. This is not a genius amateur, but rather, someone with access to a lot of equipment. What makes all of this worse, is the fact that