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.

"....how the hell do I stop him?"

Stop fetching resources from his servers. He can't track you, if you stop giving him the data to do it.

Why did eBay even have a thousand employees to lose? What could these people have been working on?

The key word is "try." They try through the art of persuasion, to make buyers think copyright law says something other than what it says.

Google is free to completely ignore these bullshit requirements and stop doing business in Europe.

For whatever reason, they have chosen to keep transacting with Europeans. Perhaps they chose poorly, and should have instead consulted Slashdot posters about whether or not making tons of money is worth the outrageous indignity.

Doesn't adding the disclaimer truly fix the problem, though? Apparently nontechnical users didn't understand what incognito does, so a sufficiently-well-written disclaimer ought to be able to fully correct the misunderstanding.

On the techie side, we all know that a browser setting isn't going to somehow magically keep other peoples' computers from remembering users' requests, but non-techies didn't understand that magic isn't a thing, so Google's understandably under some pressure to better-document the incognito feature.

Imagine the [unlikely?] case where someone wants to implement FACstamp on their own computer. Can they?

They'd end up facing a similar problem as DRM standards: whoever backs it can't allow any independent implementations, because that would undermine the purpose: preventing people from signing the "wrong" data.

So this FACstamp idea requires proprietary software for every step of the process, with a key obfuscated or hidden inside a TPM chip or something like that. Wanna write something that is interoperable with it? You can't.

Authors can license textbooks instead of selling them, but do they?

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if kids these days (yes, I'm old) are agreeing to EULAs when they open their textbook apps. But I know for sure that tens of millions of people still alive today, purchased textbooks instead of licensing them. If those textbooks still exist, then the knowledge is attainable without any contracts, so there's no means of discriminating against computers.

Just avoid the weird textbooks (ones that require special software to read) and anyone's LLM can get around the problem you're describing.

Wow, Google advocates that I should be able to maintain a media player without any particular weird dependencies?

Maybe you can really get this stuff moving fast toward the midpoint, but how do you stop at the destination?

With onboard propulsion you would just flip the craft at the halfway mark, and fire the rocket (or whatever) in the other direction, but if this is using the momentum from Earth photons to go, I'm drawing a blank on how to decelerate. Do I have to .. *shudder* .. RTFA?

Looks like they are jelly of Alexa's driving features and care more about upselling their AI in cars than selling consumer AI speakers.

I fully expect Google to sunset all their home automation eventually. It is what they do best.

Yep, never trust Google with your time or data.

My rips from 20ish years ago are all in Vorbis and so I still play Vorbis files occasionally, but it's slowly becoming less frequent. For the last few years I've been re-ripping all my old CDs to FLAC, but I'm super-lazy. Every few months I have a burst of giving-a-fuck and I'll rip another boxfull, but then I put it aside for another few months. I suspect it'll be years until I get rid of the last Vorbis file, if ever.

Everything new is FLAC.

I do still use Vorbis for Navidrome's on-the-fly transcoding for my remote players (i.e. phone), but probably ought to upgrade to Opus.

Stop making jokes about us, or else a customer service agent will be with your shortly.