Unfortunately my French is not too good, parle in petit peux…but the John Nash theory seems interesting. Wasn’t that the Nobel prize winner for the „Nash equilibrium“?
But he was not into money theory and those things, was he? But he probably was a brilliant mind that could handle cryptography.
These days they discuss again that this Len Sassaman (RIP) could have been Satoshi. In my view this riddle about the identity of Nakamoto should remain unsolved. It’s a big part of the decentralization narrative of Bitcoin. What do you think?
John Nash received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994 for his work on game theory, which he had presented in his thesis written in 1950. This thesis, which was only 27 pages long, contained two citations, one of which was from himself.
Recently, the question of Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity has been a major topic of discussion. Names like Len Sassaman, Adam Back, and Nick Szabo are often mentioned, but according to my research, I believe Satoshi was probably not an active member of the cypherpunk movement. For example, he was not aware of the concept of b-money proposed by Wei Dai until Adam Back introduced it to him. However, some cypherpunks did contribute to improving Bitcoin's code.
Between September and December 2008, there were numerous technical discussions to refine the code, particularly regarding the 21 million bitcoin cap and the halving mechanism every four years. Unfortunately, neither Nick Szabo, Adam Back, nor Len Sassaman actively participated in these early exchanges. In fact, Len even openly criticized Bitcoin . As for Adam Back, he only became seriously interested in Bitcoin when it started gaining popularity, around 2012-2013. He has always been honest in acknowledging that he is not Satoshi, even though his work has been significant in shaping the concepts behind Bitcoin.
The true pioneers of the project, those who contributed from the very beginning, include figures like Ray Dillinger, Hal Finney, Martti Malmi, and Gavin Andresen, who joined a little later.
For the translation, check on https://www.deepl.com/en/translator
Ok got that but what makes you think it’s Nash?
There are numerous writings on the concept of the "ideal currency" that you can find on his personal website. He made about ten updates between 2002 and 2009. As I went through these studies, I clearly saw elements describing Bitcoin. One particular passage, where he talks about gold extraction, truly expanded my perspective. In summary, he explains that in the future, gold extraction will become easier thanks to technological advancements, making mining much more accessible. In Bitcoin, there is a mechanism that adjusts mining difficulty every 14 days.
If Satoshi isn’t Nash, why didn’t he mention him in the white paper? Especially considering that he cites Wei Dai's "b-money," even though it wasn’t directly responsible for the creation of Bitcoin. The white paper also mentions W. Feller, who was a professor at Princeton when Nash was studying there, and even his teacher. In a 2004 interview, Nash stated that he was working on a currency project based on game theory and hoped to live long enough to publish it. He never published this work on game theory, but five years later, Bitcoin appeared.
from 2000 onward, he participated in many university forums to explain his vision of the ideal currency, promoting ideas very close to Bitcoin’s philosophy. He defended all the principles that Bitcoin represents today. Additionally, he gave up any potential wealth or recognition that could have come from this invention. He lived his best life, residing near Princeton and going to work until his death. He didn’t need more recognition since his Nobel Prize had already given him enough. In 2015, he received the Abel Prize, and it was on the way back from his trip to collect this honor that he had an accident between the airport and his home. He and his wife lost their lives in the accident.
Here is a video where he actually talks about Bitcoin