Today is the 17th anniversary of the Bitcoin white paper. Satoshi Nakamoto published it on October 31, 2008. The title is Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System. It is a nine page document with under three thousand words including references. It explains a system for direct online payments without banks. It solves the double spending problem with a network of computers using proof of work. Many people talk about Bitcoin today. But few read the full paper. Media add ideas and terms that are not there. This created myths and missconceptions. The paper is simple and focused on technical details like hashing, signatures, and CPU power. It uses exact words for its concepts. Here are 21 things people now associate with Bitcoin that are not in the paper. No word blockchain. The word block appears 37 times, often as "block of items" or "block header." The word chain appears 24 times, like in "chain of digital signatures." But blockchain as one word never appears. The paper presents the core idea in different ways to build trust in transaction order. It starts with a timestamp server that hashes a block of items to timestamp them. Then it describes hashing transactions into an ongoing chain of hash based proof of work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof of work. It calls this a proof of work chain, where the longest chain serves as proof of the sequence of events. In a figure caption, it shows the solution to the double spending problem as a chain of blocks. The term timechain appears once, referring to the proof of work chain that timestamps transactions. These phrases describe the linked structure without a single buzzword. The modern term blockchain as a single word, now used for many techs beyond Bitcoin, came years later. No claim of total invention. People often say Bitcoin invented digital cash from scratch. But the paper cites earlier work to show it builds on them. The references section lists eight sources, like Wei Dai's 1998 b money paper which proposed a distributed system for creating and transferring digital cash without a central authority. Adam Back's 1997 Hashcash for proof of work to stop email spam by requiring computation. Others include Merkle trees for timestamping from 1987, and digital cash ideas from 1983 and 1993. The abstract says "we propose a solution to the double spending problem using a peer to peer network." This humility shows Bitcoin as an improvement on unsolved issues in prior systems, not a lone genius idea. No word decentralized. Bitcoin is hailed as the ultimate decentralized money. But the paper never uses "decentralized." It describes a "peer to peer distributed timestamp server" to generate proof of chronological order. The network has "minimal structure," with no central authority. Nodes broadcast messages on a "best effort basis" and can leave or rejoin at will, accepting the longest proof of work chain as what happened while gone. This setup avoids trust in one party but focuses on technical reliability, not politics. No mining. Miners are central to Bitcoin stories now, with rigs and farms. But the paper says nodes "generate new coins" as the first transaction in a block, owned by the creator. This happens by solving proof of work, which requires scanning for a nonce so the block hash starts with zero bits. It adds incentive to support the network. No "mining" term, no rewards explained beyond new coins. The analogy to gold mining appears only briefly. No full anonymity. Bitcoin is often called anonymous money for dark web use. But the paper says "the necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes full anonymity." It keeps public keys anonymous so people see amounts sent but not who. Public keys act as pseudonyms, and using a new key pair per transaction breaks links. But multi input transactions can reveal if inputs belong to the same owner. This basic pseudonymity is like stock trade tapes showing size and time but not names. No 21 million cap stated. Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million is a key selling point for scarcity. But the paper mentions "once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation," then incentives shift to fees for inflation free system. No number given, no math for total. The 21 million comes from later code: starting at 50 coins per block, halving every 210,000 blocks (50 210,000 (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... ) = 21 million). The paper implies a cap but leaves details out, focusing on incentives. No specific coin issuance schedule or halving events. The paper talks of "steady addition of a constant amount of new coins," like gold miners adding to circulation via CPU and electricity. It transitions to fees after the predetermined number. But no initial 50 coins, no halving every four years, no block count like 210,000. These are in the 2009 source code, represented as a mathematical formula where reward = 50 >> (blocks / 210000). The paper keeps it high level for the incentive model. No Sybil attacks term. Proof of work is said to stop fake node floods now called Sybil attacks. But the paper explains it prevents subversion if majority was "one IP address one vote," as anyone could allocate many IPs. Instead, proof of work is "one CPU one vote." The majority is the longest chain with greatest effort. No "Sybil" word, coined in 2002 for network fakes. This IP focus shows early internet threats; the broader Sybil idea applied to Bitcoin later in academic papers. No unbreakable security guarantee. Bitcoin is touted as unhackable. But the paper assumes "honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes." Security holds if honest majority exists. Section 11 models attacker catch up as binomial random walk, like gambler's ruin. Probability of catching from z blocks behind is (q/p)^z, where q is attacker fraction, p honest (over 0.5). It drops exponentially. Without majority, an attacker could rewrite history for his transactions. The "unbreakable" hype ignores this conditional security, that bitcoin is secure as long majority of honest nodes exist. No store of value focus. Bitcoin as "digital gold" for holding is huge now. Nations are considering startegic reserve of it. But the paper calls it "electronic cash" for peer to peer payments, protecting from fraud with irreversible transactions. The gold analogy is only used to describe incentives: steady new coins like miners adding gold via resources. Satoshi's vision was peer to peer spending, not HODLing. No forks defined. Forks split the chain in debates now. The paper says if two blocks arrive at once, nodes save the other branch and switch to the longer one later. This resolves ties naturally. But no "hard fork" (rule change) or "soft fork" (backward compatible) terms. Those arose later, where groups disagreed on rules and created new versions, such as Bitcoin Cash, for example. No wallets. Wallets are everyday Bitcoin tools now, like apps or hardware for keys. But the paper describes electronic coins as "a chain of digital signatures," where owners transfer by signing the previous transaction with their private key and adding the next owner's public key. No software, no seed phrases, no hot/cold storage. Transactions use new key pairs for privacy. No exchanges. Trading Bitcoin for dollars on centralized trading platforms is core now. But the paper focuses on direct peer to peer transfers: send payment by broadcasting a signed transaction to the network. No buying/selling markets, no order books, no fiat on ramps. It assumes users hold coins for spending. Exchanges started in 2010 with Bitcoin Market, exploding post 2013 with Mt. Gox and others, turning Bitcoin into a tradable asset class. No smart contracts. Bitcoin scripts enable basic conditions now, but full DeFi apps are core to some other cryptocurrencies that are not compatible with Bitcoin. The paper covers only simple value transfers via signatures, with inputs/outputs to split/combine amounts. The paper says transactions are irreversible once confirmed in the chain. The idea of smart contracts, which are automatic agreements that run on computer code, was first named in 1996 by Nick Szabo. Bitcoin has a basic version using OP codes. These are small commands built into Bitcoin transactions, but those are still simple and limited. No NFTs. Unique digital art on Bitcoin via Ordinals is trendy now. But the paper treats coins as fungible units in signature chains, all identical. No unique tokens, no metadata in transactions. Fungibility is key for cash like use. A satoshi is the smallest part of a bitcoin, like one hundred millionth of a coin. In 2023, Ordinals started a new way to number each satoshi and add data like pictures or text to one satoshi. This makes that tiny piece unique, like a special collectible card. Some call it a hack because it uses Bitcoin's old rules in a new way to store this data on the main network, not planned in the white paper. No mempool. Unconfirmed transactions wait in the "mempool" now, causing fees spikes. But the paper says nodes relay transactions and add to blocks if valid. No queue term, no spam protection details. It assumes honest relay. Mempool concept from 2010 code, debates on full/rb mempools in 2015 scaling wars, where too many waiting transactions clogged the system and raised costs. No difficulty adjustment. Block times drift now, adjusted every 2016 blocks. But the paper targets 10 minute intervals via proof of work difficulty, scanning nonces until hash meets zeros. No formula for retargeting. Adjustment in 2009 code to stabilize, preventing too fast/slow blocks as more computers joined, keeping the network steady over time. No SegWit or upgrades. Segregated Witness, or SegWit, is a change from 2017 that fixed a problem called malleability, causeing issues for building other tools on Bitcoin. The white paper uses simple transaction IDs based on hashing the whole transaction. Transactions have inputs and outputs with scripts for signatures. SegWit fixed the ID change problem by moving the signature data to a separate part. This makes transactions safer because IDs no longer change easily. It also lets more transactions fit in each block by counting the separate data differently. No quantum resistance. Everyone talks about how quantum computers threaten ECDSA keys now. But the paper relies on SHA 256 for hashing and ECDSA for signatures, top standard in 2008. No future proofing. Quantum risks discussed later, as faster computers could break old math locks. No green energy debate. Proof of work's power use is criticized often by green washers. But the paper sees electricity as proof cost, like gold mining, assuming Moore's Law scales computation. No environmental angle. With hashrate growth, the electricty consumtion peaked, as total energy consumed by the bitcoin network matched some countries. No KYC or regulations. Bitcoin ETFs and licenses are top news now. But the paper assumes consensus on valid blocks via honest majority, no legal nods. Nodes verify independently. Regulations hit 2013 with FinCEN guidance, evolving to 2024 ETF approvals and MICA, forcing users to prove identity for trades. The paper went to the cypherpunk mailing list for privacy advocates. It was not sent to Wall Street or journalists. Bitcoin's simplicity is facinating, but all the complicated stuff came from the Wall Street speculants and mainstream media. Read the nine pages, if you want to understand, it's the real Bitcoin origin.

I (used to) love sports. Growing up, they shaped me in ways I’m still grateful for. Playing as a kid helped me develop mentally and physically. It taught me teamwork, leadership, and a winning mentality. My trainers and teammates played a huge role in building my personality and skills that came in useful later in life. But sports betting overtook the sport spirit. Where I grew up, sports betting was unavoidable. Sports betting was on every corner, especially near schools. It was the main topic of conversations, requiring hours and hours of reading and analyzing statistics. Countless hours were spent watching various sports events, not because you enjoy the match, but because you had skin in the game. Why would you watch the game if you didn’t have a stake in the outcome? It became implicit that you should bet on a game if you planned to watch it. Sports clubs depend on sponsors, who are most often sports betting platforms. In some countries, gambling companies aren’t allowed to sponsor sport competitions, but in most, they’re the main source of income. Despite a clear conflict of interest. There are numerous examples of civil initiatives proposing law changes to protect fair-play, kids, and vulnerable people from being exploited by the gambling industry. Even though those initiatives had major public support, in most cases they didn’t go through, meaning the gambling industry has politicians in their pocket too. My first internet ventures were related to sports. I built websites and communities for different sports niches. As those ventures grew enough, there were only two options for monetization: either to integrate gambling affiliates, or to sell the website to well established gambling affiliates looking for a source of traffic. Later on, I was super active in building the startup ecosystem across Central and Eastern Europe. It was a great experience to participate in an entrepreneurial renaissance across a region where private business was diminished not so long ago. But the truth is, the whole thing was funded with foreign aid and economic development funds, and there were almost no private investors. I realized a pattern across Eastern Europe that the only true business angels were individuals and companies who made money from building gambling related businesses or vendor services serving the industry. Was their motivation honest goodwill, reinvesting gray capital into white, or simply an appetite for risk capital? But certainly, it was one of the main sources of funding the startup boom across the CEE. But startup hubs were mostly in the capitals and big cities. When I traveled to smaller places, I realized the same pattern. In the communist era, small town and village social life was tied to cultural centers and churches. Even though religion was prohibited, churches were full. Now, when religion is allowed, churches are mostly empty, cultural centers are completely gone, and the only place for socializing is gambling related places. No matter how small and underdeveloped the place is, it has its local gambling spot as a central hub. Later, I worked with the crypto industry. I was genuinely motivated by the idea that I was contributing to bitcoin mass-adoption. But the more I worked in that industry, the more I realized they don’t care about bitcoin and its sentiment. They’re just using hype around bitcoin as marketing to lure users and serve the gambling industry. The whole crypto and fintech industry is largely funded by gambling industry money. Crypto traders are also gambling addicts; there’s no other explanation for why they would over leverage their trade other than their gambling addiction. I can’t forget a story about how proud I was when creating a bitcoin paper wallet in an envelope as a gift for my friend’s wedding day. The paper wallet is a printable temporary bitcoin wallet that you can use as a form of physical bitcoin, but the idea is that it should be withdrawn to a safer wallet. I thought I had made a symbolic gesture of gifting generational wealth to a new family. But a few days later, I got the disappointing truth that those bitcoins were withdrawn to a crypto casino wallet and were gone faster than a bitcoin lightning transaction. As a representative of crypto companies, I was often invited to gambling-related conferences. It’s a ridiculous amount of money spent on high-end entertainment, flashy decorations, expensive freebies, cocaine, hookers and much more. I wanted this post to be against gambling, to say it’s bad and you shouldn’t do it. But now I’ve come to the conclusion that gamblers’ greed and delusion are putting bread on the table for many families. The gambling service workers, athletes and trainers, startup ecosystems, politicians, crypto platforms, fintech operators, cocaine dealers, pimps and many more. Thank you, gamblers, for your generous contribution. Your greed hunger feeds a lot of hungry mouths.

Bitcoin in more than a tarding asset, it is the world's largest and safest monetary network. Bitcoin has its own metrics to measure its health, things like computing power hashrate in zH/s, transaction fees in sats per vB, and all that you can track on sites like mempool.space. But those sites do not show Bitcoin's price in dollars or any other fiat money. Why? Because Bitcoin doesn't set the fiat value. It's only a matter of fiat doing that. Back in the beginning, Bitcoin had no set price at all. A small bunch of early adopters mined it and kept the network alive. They sent Bitcoins back and forth to each other, but the rest of the world didn't know it existed, let alone care. Everyone talks about that famous case: Laszlo paying 10,000 BTC for two pizzas. The order cost $25, so in that deal, it worked out to 1 BTC = $0.0025, or 1 dollar buying 400 BTC. But it wasn't the merchant who accepted Bitcoin. It was Laszlo, a guy on the Bitcoin forum, who just wanted to prove he could buy a pizza with it. Another forum user, Jercos, took the 10,000 BTC payment and ordered the pizzas to Laszlo's door. No real market price got set there. It was just two people agreeing on a fun swap. For years, miners stacked up their rewards without much way to sell or spend them. The real worth? Watching the network grow stronger, not chasing dollars. Then things changed. As more ways to use Bitcoin popped up, interest spread beyond the mining crowd. New people came who wanted to buy Bitcoin for fiat instead of mining it. Miners finally had buyers. They started selling based on what it cost them, electricity bills, gear, all that. Demand picked up, and the first Bitcoin exchanges appeared. Simple idea: buyers name their bid price, sellers like miners name their ask. When they match, the exchange makes the trade happen. Soon exchanges started buying as much Bitcoins for themselves, so they can sell Bitcoins from own liquidity pools without waiting for seller. Liquidity pool is just stock of Bitcoin that exchange keeps ready to sell right away. That is how exchanges started to control and manipulate Bitcoin price market. Bitcoin price in fiat, not the Bitcoin network itself. Once multiple exchanges popped up, the real action started. Market makers spotted chances for price arbitrage. They buy Bitcoin low on one exchange and immediately sell high on another, make profit from difference. Price isn't set by miners or exchanges anymore. Market makers, typical Wall Street fiat speculants who don't know anything about Bitcoin tech, balance prices across platforms. They play with fiat, set Bitcoin price by what the fiat dictates. Bitcoin eventually grew into a giant, speculants found new toys to play, crypto market with millions of other coins, tokens, digital assets who may or not have some technology behind. Market makers don't care as long as there's buyer and seller need for intermediary because they couldn't agree on price directly. Exchanges, market makers can manipulate short term price movements, make jumps up and down with trades, pool moves, or bets. They might use opportunities to control fiat price of Bitcoin in short time, but over long run Bitcoin price keeps rising. Bitcoin has limited supply, only 21 million coins, while fiat is endless. Other scarce commodities raise in fiat price because of scarcity of supply, look at gold, oil, water, coffee, cacao, you name it, it grows, which leads to an increase of prices of everything else. Most people have impression everything gets more expensive, but truth is fiat worth less every second. Centralized governments and central banks keep piling on debts and money printing out of thin air, so price of Bitcoin and everything else will keep increasing in fiat. Over time Bitcoin price grew so much, it was hard to show price in decimals. Early days, 1 BTC worth fraction of a dollar, but now Bloomberg terminal shows that Bitcoin price is a fraction of million dollars,1BTC=$0.1M. To avoid decimal confission, people started to name price in satoshi (sats) instead, smallest unit of Bitcoin. 1 Bitcoin is 100000000 sats. It is more convient to name a price 10000 sats, not 0.0001 BTC. When you say crypto trading market is corrupted, that doesn't mean Bitcoin network is corrupted. Bitcoin hashrate is at all time high, network is stable, doesn't care about AWS blackouts. Bitcoin scarce, less available, so fiat keeps price goes up, no matter what. Speculants, gamblers make buck on price difference and volatilty. Bitcoin doesn't care about dollar, euro or gold. 1 BTC is 1 BTC. Interesting way of viewing value is flipping the price chart, like at pricedinbitcoin21.com, and see prices of other stuff in the base currency, Bitcoin. Some say they don't sell Bitcoin below $600 billion, that's their price when they find buyer for it. They named their price and are waiting the order to execute. Others say Bitcoin worth $0, but in order for that to happen, they need to find someone willing to sell it for that price. True Bitcoiners are passionate about Bitcoin, because they aren't blinded by hype or price. They have come to realization how fiat system is corrupted and find Bitcoin as an exit strategy. Their goal isn't to make quick bucks on price change and buy lambo, but rather to protect themselves and their family from hyperinflation and fiat driven deterioration of value. If you really want to understand bitcoin, start learning about it from technological and fundamental levels, leave the price chasing to gamblers and speculants. Bitcoin gives you power to build a more hopeful future. It is money that no one can control or print more of.