Talk:Nick Szabo

GWU
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


 * 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)

Satoshi Nakamoto - blog posts
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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, very useful information. -KaJunl (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Forefathers" of Bitcoin?
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)

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

Rollback
I do not see a reason for the rollback. 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, or tweeting his opinion about the Rootstock(RSK) smart contract project are signals which are rapidly analyzed.

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


 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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  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)


 * 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)


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

Proposing starting a separate section for smart contract
WDYT? Xinbenlv (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Xinbenlv (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Explain the "governence koan"
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)

Szabo says something in 2021
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)

Source for date of Bit Gold
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)

Marketing
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)

No evidence of a daughter named "Kara"
I have removed the unsupported reference to "Kara" as progeny of Nick Szabo. kanzure (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

bitgold quote
Hi, 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)