It has been an open secret in the cryptography community that Hal Finney was the designer of BitCoin from the very start. Hal died in 2014. Or at least he was frozen in liquid nitrogen so not talking either way.

Besides being the first person to be involved in BTC who didn't hide behind a pseudonym, Hal published a paper that describes essentially the whole BitCoin scheme two years before BTC was launched. And Hal never once accused Satoshi of stealing his work.

The reason Hal had to hide behind Satoshi is simple: The Harber Stornetta patent didn't expire until about 9 months after BTC launched. That covers the notion of the hash chain. There is absolutely no way anyone working in the field did not know about that patent or its imminent expiry. Hal certainly did because I discussed it with him before BTC was launched.

So the big question is why BTC was launched when it was, why not wait 9 months to have free and clear title? Well, Hal got his terminal ALS diagnosis a few weeks prior: He was a man in a hurry.

Having launched prematurely, Hal had to wait six years after the original expiry of the patent term to avoid a lawsuit over the rights to BTC from Surety. He died before that happened.

Oh and I have absolutely no doubt Hal mined the genesis blocks straight into the bit bucket. The key fingerprint is probably the hash of some English language phrase.

The real inventor of BitCoin wrote a paper describing the architecture two years earlier under his own name, Hal Finney. He got a terminal diagnosis of ALS a few months before he launched the BitCoin service, the pseudonym being necessary at the time because of the Haber-Stornetta patent on the BlockChain.

No, Hal, did not keep the coins. He invented BitCoin because he was a crank with weird ideas about inflation, not to get rich. Mining the coins and keeping them would have been a betrayal of his principles.

The proof of this is given by the fact that Hal did not in fact get rich from BTC despite being the ''second' person to join the project. Nor did Hal ever complain that Satoshi took the credit for what was very clearly his work. If Hal had been just another person coming along, there would have been every reason to keep the cash.

And we do in fact know Hal ran mining servers from the start and that he ended up in serious financial trouble due to his ALS. The freezing his head thing came from donations.

Craig Wright does seem to be the last of the three early advocates alive but that doesn't make him Satoshi. Wright has never shown the slightest sign of being the sort of person who builds such a thing and in any case, Hal's name is on the much earlier paper.

The people who buy electric cars are hip urban professional types. The people who support Brexit are pensioners and skin-heads.

Dyson's public support for Brexit meant that most people in his target market wouldn't ride in a Dyson car, let alone buy one. And of course buggering off to Singapore because the Brexit he campaigned for would make assembly in the UK a disaster only made things worse.

It was a stupid idea anyway. Musk was there ten years ahead of him and was already churning out electric cars as a new entrant. It is far from clear Tesla can survive as VW and the major manufacturers enter the EV market. Dyson stood no chance. Sticking an electric motor in a vehicle instead of a petrol engine is not a huge feat of engineering. There are significant design differences but the bulk of the design and assembly technology is unchanged.

Electric vehicles still have doors, monocoque, windows, seats, suspension, in car entertainment, etc. Ford, GM and the rest only need to change one small part of the package. Sure, they have been slow to adapt. But nobody is making EVs at a profit yet. VW and BMW look set to change that this year.

Only it will automatically update itself unless you stop it.

This is irritating as it upsets my plans for end-to-end Web encryption. By which I mean encryption of the data on the server so that the server has no access to it. The only things that are on the server are encrypted data blobs and a pile of random numbers.

By end-to-end Web I mean that you will be able to set up comment forums like slashdot, read email in a Web browser and everything else you are accustomed to doing on the Web but without any of the plaintext content being accessible to the server.

The technical basis for this scheme was worked out in the 1990s and then patented by a completely unrelated company which merely sat on the patent till it expired last year. It uses meta-cryptography which is a property of the Diffie Hellman schemes that if you add two private keys, the corresponding public key is the product of the public keys, etc. Matt Blaze, Torben Pedersen and others worked out how to apply these effects to achieve an effect they considered interesting but insufficient. My contribution is merely to show that the simple scheme is more than enough to do interesting things.

So now I need to work out how to hook into the browser. One possibility is to present the decryption module as a new compression scheme. It looks like a compression scheme in other respects. It just requires the host to have access to a private key capable of completing the decryption.

Any help would be appreciated: hallam@gmail.com

The project site is mathmesh.com but that is of the previous approach which has been superseded in the reference code but not yet documented.

[Oh and yes, I do know what I am doing sort of, I have probably considered the corner case you have just thought up. This has been in discussion for many years with serious protocol design people.]

Obama didn't release his birth certificate for one very good reason, he is very clever and Trump is very stupid.

The fact is that the Republicans will always invent some crazy idiotic 'scandal' that they obsess about and endlessly throw up smoke. The birther conspiracy was mind numbingly ridiculous. It would require someone to go back in time to plant the birth notice in the papers. Or for some group of conspirators to go to an enormous amount of trouble in order to make a particular black kid president.

So rather than release the birth certificate and let the Republicans invent a new scandal, Obama held onto it and let them obsess about a scandal nobody else thought made the slightest sense, knowing that he could knock their house of cards down any time he chose. Which of course he did a week before the Bin Laden raid which was guaranteed to end the story.

George W. Bush opened torture chambers across the world and collected photographs for a sick sexual thrill. Yet nobody ever talks about that. None of the people complaining about Hilary ever complained about GWB refusing to comply with Congressional investigation or the deletion of 5 million emails.

So here is what is going to happen. Trump is going to go down to the biggest defeat since Carter and he is going to drag the rest of his party down with him. And afterwards there is going to be a new civil rights act that prohibits Republican voter suppression tactics and the gerrymandering that give them a 5% advantage in elections. And by the time it is all done the Republican party will have two choices, either boot the racist conspiracy theorists and Trumpists out or face two decades in the wilderness.

>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

Issuing for .test and .local are strictly prohibited by the CABForum EV requirements. They will soon be outlawed for DV under the basic requirements.

What seems to have happened is that instead of issuing all test certs for test.verisign.com as the procedure manual required, they had to modify the procedure when Symantec took over and they no longer had verisign.com.

So instead of doing what they should have done and using test.symantec.com or a test domain bought for the purpose, they typed the first name that entered their head.

Actually it doesn't. DANE certificates are not self-signed for a start, they are signed by the DNSSEC key for the zone.

The problem with DANE is that you swap the choice of multiple CAs for a monopoly run by ICANN, a shadowy corporation that charges a quarter million bucks for a TLD because that is what the market will bear. What do you think the price of DANE certification will rise to if it takes off?

ICANN is the Internet version of the NFL only with greater opportunities for peculation and enrichment.

Damn right they should. The CPS has a long section on the use of test hardware.

The problem is that all the original team that built VeriSign have been gone for years. A lot of us left before the sale of the PKI business to Symantec. The PKI/DNS merger was not a happy or successful partnership. The original point of the merger was to deploy DNSSEC. that effort was then sabotaged by folk in IETF and ICANN which has delayed the project by at least 10 and possibly 20 years. ATLAS was originally designed to support DNSSEC.

Unfortunately, in PKI terms what VeriSign was to IBM, Symantec is to Lenovo.

They apparently remember the ceremonies we designed but not the purpose. So they are going through the motions but not the substance.

One of the main criticisms I have heard is that we built the system too well. From 1995 up to 2010 it worked almost without any issues. So people decided that they didn't need things like proper revocation infrastructure. The only recent issue the 1995 design could not have coped with was DigiNotar which was a complete CA breach.

There are some developments on the horizon in the PKI world that will help add controls to mitigate some of the issues arising since. But those depend on cryptographic techniques that won't be practical for mass adoption till we get our next generation ECC crypto fully specified.

A pre-certificate is created for use in the Certificate Transparency system. Introducing pre-certificates allows the CT log proof to be included in the certificate presented to an SSL/TLS server.

The CT system generates a proof that a pre-certificate has been enrolled in it. The proof is then added to the pre-certificate as an extension and the whole thing signed with the production key to make the actual certificate.

If the CT system logged the actual certificate, the proof of enrollment would only be available after the certificate had been created.

Super-Micro has 36 and 72 drive racks that aren't horrible human effort wise (you can get 90 drive racks, but I wouldn't recommend it). You COULD get 8TB drives for like 9.5 cent / GB (including the $10k 4U chassi overhead). 4TB drives will be more practical for rebuilds (and performance), but will push you to near 11c / GB. You can go with 1TB or even 1/2TB drives for performance (and faster rebuilds), but now you're up to 35c / GB.

That's roughly 288TB of RAW for say $30k 4U. If you need 1/2 PB, I'd say spec out 1.5PB - thus you're at $175K .. $200k.. But you can grow into it.

Note this is for ARCHIVE, as you're not going to get any real performance out of it.. Not enough CPU to disk ratio.. Not even sure if the MB can saturate a 40Gbps QSFP links and $30k switch. That's kind of why hadoop with cheap 1CPU + 4 direct-attached HDs are so popular.

At that size, I wouldn't recommend just RAID-1ing, LVMing, ext4ing (or btrfsing) then n-way foldering, then nfs mounting... Since you have problems when hosts go down and keeping any of the network from stalling / timing out.

Note, you don't want to 'back-up' this kind of system.. You need point-in-time snapshots.. And MAYBE periodic write-to-tape.. Copying is out of the question, so you just need a file-system that doesn't let you corrupt your data. DEFINITELY data has to replicate across multiple machines - you MUST assume hardware failure.

The problem is going to be partial network down-time, crashes, or stalls, and regularly replacing failed drives.. This kind of network is defined by how well it performs when 1/3 of your disks are in 1-week-long rebuild periods. Some systems (like HDFS) don't care about hardware failure.. There's no rebuild, just a constant sea of scheduled migration-of-data.

If you only ever schedule temporary bursts of 80% capacity (probably even too high), and have a system that only consumes 50% of disk-IO to rebuild, then a 4TB disk would take 12 hours to re-replicate. If you have an intelligent system (EMC, netapp, ddn, hdf, etc), you could get that down to 2 hours per disk (due to cross rebuilding).

I'm a big fan of object-file-systems (generally HTTP based).. That'll work well with the 3-way redundancy. You can typically fake out a POSIX-like file-system with fusefs.. You could even emulate CIFS or NFS. It's not going to be as responsive (high latency). Think S3.

There's also "experimental" posix systems like ceph, gpfs, luster. Very easy to screw up if you don't know what you're doing. And really painful to re-format after you've learn it's not tuned for your use-case.

HDFS will work - but it's mostly for running jobs on the data.

There's also AFS.

If you can afford it, there are commercial systems to do exactly what you want, but you'll need to tripple the cost again. Just don't expect a fault-tolerant multi-host storage solution to be as fast as even a dedicated laptop drive. Remember when testing.. You're not going to be the only one using the system... Benchmarks perform very differently when under disk-recovery or random-scatter-shot load by random elements of the system - including copying-in all that data.

Git is an excellent system, but is less efficient for large files. This makes certain work-flows difficult to put into a git-repository. i.e. storing compiled binaries, or when having non-trivial test-data-sets. Given the 'cloud', do you forsee a version of git that uses 'web-resources' as SHA-able entities, to mitigate the proliferation of pack-file copies of said large files. Otherwise, do you have any thoughts / strategy for how to deal with large files?