Talk:Nick Szabo

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

GWU[edit]

a former version of this page says that he worked at George Washington University. The university has no record of him working there. per the WSJ. I couldn't find any evidence he worked there either, other than the fact that he gave out a supposed email address of @law.gwu.edu elsewhere on the net.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/04/16/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-unmasked-again/

Ferenstein (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC) @Ferenstein[reply]

On the wayback archives of his blog, says he's a student there:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060203060803/http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/

"Nicholas Szabo is expecting a Juris Doctor degree (law, that is) from the George Washington University in 2006."

circa 2006

-KaJunl (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Nakamoto - blog posts[edit]

This may be too much speculation for a wikipedia article, but is it worth bringing up that bit gold -related posts on his blog had the dates of the blog posts subsequently changed to appear to be after the bitcoin paper release, for no apparent reason? -KaJunl (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's too much, it's innuendo that in effect speculatively accuses the BLP subject of dishonesty. That implication the reader is supposed to infer from the innuendo is contradicted by the subject's announcement that he was posting reruns (which would naturally update the dates of the posts): http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/08/reruns.html Pendletonian (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very useful information. -KaJunl (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Forefathers" of Bitcoin?[edit]

There are multiple sources attesting that Szabo, Hal Finney, and Wei Dai were the main academic influences in blockchain technology before the release of Bitcoin. Would "forefathers" be an acceptable word to use to describe that fact?

Power~enwiki (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin speculation[edit]

What sort of reference is this?: Frisby, Dominic (2014), p. 147 Retimuko (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

I do not see a reason for the rollback [1]. The idea that Szabo is influential is supported by the news references. I can personally attest that "appearances are discreet but influential", yet there are no references to that, so it could be removed. I also don't even know what the "cypherpunk" community is, and I guess it could be removed. I suggest the following:

Szabo remains an important voice in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community. Inclusion in his twitter name the [NO2X] tag against the Segwit2X ^[1], or tweeting his opinion about the Rootstock(RSK) smart contract project ^[2] are signals which are rapidly analyzed ^[3]^[4].

References

^ "Nick Szabo opposition to Segwit2x". 8 November 2017. Retrieved 8 November 2017.
^ "The next big thing: RSK Smart Contract Sidechain". 9 November 2016. Retrieved 9 November 2016.
^ "Segwit2x cancelled". 9 November 2016. Retrieved 9 November 2016.
^ "Segwit2x hard fork abandoned. What happened and why". 9 November 2016. Retrieved 9 November 2016.

What do you think? Sanpitch (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed text represents editorial opinion, which is a violation of the basic rules of Wikipedia. Phrases like "remains an important voice", "signals which are rapidly analyzed" are not neutral at all, and the cited sources don't say anything like this, so we cannot even rephrase like "according to such and such ...". Besides, the sources look dubious, except, perhaps, Bitcoin Magazine, which is about Rootstock and mentions Szabo in passing. I my view, in case this is notable enough to be mentioned, the facts from those articles are: "On <some particular date> Szabo declared his opposition to Segwit2x by placing a No2X tag on his twitter profile and criticized the lack of replay protection." I doubt this needs to be mentioned in the short article about Szabo as if it is one of the most important facts of his biography. Perhaps, it might be mentioned in the SegWit2x article, but I don't see any discussion about supporters and opposition there at all. Retimuko (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point the editor was trying to make is that not only *was* Szabo notable in the past, but he *remains* notable. Do you think the articles support his notability? Sanpitch (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If sources don't say something explicitly, but editor makes conclusions based on the sources, this is called original research. See WP:OR. Retimuko (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Do you think the articles support his notability? Sanpitch (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is notable, and ,therefore, there is an article about him in Wikipedia. There is no need to periodically confirm in articles that the subject remains notable. Retimuko (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors update articles all the time in ways that are essentially 'periodically confirming notability'; this is just keeping the articles up-to-date. Maybe there is no *need*, yet I don't think we can refuse an edit just because it uses the word 'important'. BTW, Dictionary.com [2] defines 'notable' as being 'important'. Could you explain what about the proposed text other than 'important' is objectionable? What original research or opinions are in *my* proposed text above? Sanpitch (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we are repeating the same arguments over and over. The proposed text does not quote or paraphrase the cited sources. So it is against the policy. What is so hard to understand here? If a reputable source says "Szabo is important", we can write something like "According to such source Szabo is important". If you want to draw a conclusion that Szabo is important because reputable sources mentioned him, but did not say so explicitly, this is editorial opinion and original research. Retimuko (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm leaving it alone. Sanpitch (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing starting a separate section for smart contract[edit]

WDYT? Xinbenlv (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Xinbenlv (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the "governence koan"[edit]

Can someone please enlight us unworthy with the meaning of Szabos Koan on blockchain governance? It souds like everything or nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.45.12.194 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Szabo says something in 2021[edit]

As the article notes from the New York Times post says, Szabo is and has been a bit of a recluse.

Just ran into a source where he has apparently spoken about some thoughts on monetary matters and bitcoin in 2021. ... and is apparently giving a talk with more at a conference. Might be good to find coverage in whatever sources Wikipedia finds acceptable and use them to improve this article, with info more recent than 2018/2017 or 2012 as it stands at present. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source for date of Bit Gold[edit]

Many articles take 1998 as the origin of Bit Gold, but I cannot find a primary source for this date. The original blog article (from 2005) talks about "A long time ago", but no specific date is given. Is there a source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romerrn (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing[edit]

It would seem that various crypto chains wants their project associated with Szabo. Some could construe this as an attempt at marketing. For example, is it wise that Ethereum is mentioned before Bitcoin in this article? Clearly Szabo's work was influential for both, but the OG is of course Bitcoin. 46.15.189.224 (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of a daughter named "Kara"[edit]

I have removed the unsupported reference to "Kara" as progeny of Nick Szabo. kanzure (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bitgold quote[edit]

Hi @Greyfell:, you removed this quote about the subject's connection to bitcoin from the Nakamoto Institute. This I would think would be an WP:IS. I would think the article subject's notability is mostly derived from the subject's connection to a predecessor to bitcoin. I am not sure if this quote is a good one or not, just wondering your logic on this. I wonder if satoshi ever mentioned the subject, that would I think be due. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Nick Szabo opposition to Segwit2x". 8 November 2017. Retrieved 8 November 2017.

[2] "The next big thing: RSK Smart Contract Sidechain". 9 November 2016. Retrieved 9 November 2016.

[3] "Segwit2x cancelled". 9 November 2016. Retrieved 9 November 2016.

[4] "Segwit2x hard fork abandoned. What happened and why". 9 November 2016. Retrieved 9 November 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]