Amendments to the Bitcoin paper

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

I've been noticing that the Bitcoin paper at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is getting a lot of traffic (mainly from people searching for "bitcoin paper", or probably seeing it cited by other papers). Almost all the people reading the paper are probably reading it for the first time, and using it as a learning resource. However since the paper is so outdated, I believe it doesn't do a good job anymore of giving people a firm understanding of Bitcoin (at least the modern version). There is no mention of things like pools, and the Privacy and SPV sections could probably be updated.

The paper links to bitcoin.org, but I feel like the Bitcoin described in the paper and the Bitcoin described on bitcoin.org are starting to diverge. At some point, I think the paper will start to do more harm than good, because it tricks people into believing they understand Bitcoin. I have seen people promote toxic and crazy ideas, and then cite parts of the paper in an effort to justify it. Academics are also regularly citing the paper and basing some of their reasoning and arguments on this outdated paper.

Normally issues like this in other projects would be solved by regularly updating the learning resources, and documents, such as producing new editions or versions of the document to keep it in line with the current status of the project. I'd be interested to know the community's thoughts and opinions on this issue, since I know it's likely to be a divisive but some rational debate would be good, because it could become more of a problem in the future.

There are already a few different versions of the paper out there, so Satoshi has already set the precedent that the paper should be updated to reflect the current realities of the software. I believe the paper was always designed to be a high level overview of the current reference implementation, and that we should update it now that the paper is outdated and the reference implementation has changed significantly from 2009.

[harding]

I think the paper remains a fairly accurate high-level overview of the system, and I think many people will continue to want to read and cite the original even if an updated version were available. Also important, I think many people have linked directly to https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf because they want to link to that particular version of that paper; changing the content on them could be considered inappropriate.

The current paper does not contain a date; I would support modifying the document to include a date (perhaps based on its PDF metadata), which could help people realize that it's old and may not be representative of the current system. We could maybe make a notice to that effect explicit, but that seems ugly to me.

I would also support creating a page on this site which lists errata in the paper (such as Nakamoto saying "longest chain" rather than "chain with the most POW") as well changes to the system since the original paper. I started re-reading the paper a few minutes ago in order to inform this reply, and the main thing that seems changed so far is terminology---we have different names for many things than those Nakamoto used and we've decoupled some things that started out coupled (like mining and validation). For the most part, the paper describes the system in such abstract terms that the paper remains accurate today.

Perhaps beyond that, it would be useful to create an annotated version of the paper which can help connect its high-level overview to the details of the current implementation.

As I'm re-reading the paper, I'm making notes for a possible errata. I'll post them here in a few minutes.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

The terminology is all screwed up for sure. Someone reading that paper is going to get the impression that "nodes" are the ones that mine blocks, but when they go on other Bitcoin sites, they will get a totally different meaning for what a "node" does.

Also, I'm sure most people are linking to the paper to try to educate other users, I see it frequently that people just throw out a link to the paper to try to help a new user understand Bitcoin. Most people aren't reading the paper for its historical significance, they're doing it to learn about Bitcoin. So to me it makes sense for us to adapt the paper to be more suitable for this purpose.

By modifying the paper, I don't suggest a complete rewrite. What I mean is changing the terminology, doing minor changes such as removing Satoshi's compromised email, improving sentences, and reworking some sections to make the paper a more useful learning resource to the people reading it (otherwise people are just getting misinformed). This new version can then become the new Bitcoin paper, and we can deprecate the old one.

[luke-jr]

Sounds reasonable as long as it's clear it isn't the original paper. Maybe an updated HTML version, with a clear link to the original at the top?

[harding]

A list of errata, implementation differences, and terminology notes based on my critical re-read of the paper tonight can be found here: https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3

By modifying the paper, I don't suggest a complete rewrite. What I mean is changing the terminology, doing minor changes such as removing Satoshi's compromised email, improving sentences, and reworking some sections to make the paper a more useful learning resource to the people reading it (otherwise people are just getting misinformed). This new version can then become the new Bitcoin paper, and we can deprecate the old one.

I think the gist linked above shows that there are not too many errors or inconsistent implementation details in the paper (although I may have missed or been unaware of some). Removing the GMX address is perfectly fine to me; converting the paper to HTML sounds like a good idea to me too. Changing the terminology is a bit stickier, I think, but maybe ok. But I'm still a bit uncomfortable with making more significant changes and hosting it at the existing URL. I think an significantly updated version should get its own new URL and should thrive or die based on its own merits.

[theymos]

Interesting suggestion. The paper is definitely outdated, and I do often see people saying "just read the whitepaper!" as if the paper is still a good way to learn about Bitcoin. On the other hand, the paper is an important piece of history. It's still an impressive document, even if not the most useful nowadays, explaining most of how Bitcoin works in only a few pages.

Maybe it would be best to stick several pages of errata and explanation to the front of the PDF, but leave Satoshi's pages untouched. Having bitcoin.pdf redirect to an HTML page would also work, though then people might get annoyed if they're expecting to receive a PDF (for example, if people right click a link to the PDF and "save").

https://gist.github.com/harding/dabea3d83c695e6b937bf090eddf2bb3

That looks pretty good, though I suspect that some other experts will have additional things to add.

Bitcoin was implemented in such a way that the amount of POW can vary between blocks, so instead of saying "the longest chain" it is more correct to say "the chain demonstrating the most POW"; this is often shortened to "strongest chain".

Bitcoin 0.1 actually did just compute the longest chain by number of blocks. Satoshi fixed this pretty early IIRC.

I'd strongly emphasize that Satoshi at this time tended to speak of nodes as if they pretty much corresponded one-to-one with miners. So when he says "node", sometimes he means "mining full node", sometimes he means "non-mining full node", and sometimes he means both. (He never means "miner without a full node", since the idea of pooled mining hadn't occurred to him.) This has been a major point of confusion for people. It is clear that Satoshi implicitly recognized the difference between miners and other full nodes; for example, from the paper's SPV section:

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes [miners] control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes [full nodes] can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network [ie. other miners]. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts [fraud proofs] from network nodes [full nodes] when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes [full nodes, not necessarily mining] for more independent security and quicker verification.

Many dictatorships rewrite history to suit their political goals.

[illuzen]

Where are these "different versions of the whitepaper out there" that you speak of?

Why not write your own whitepaper? You seem really worried about the ignorant masses being "misinformed" by the founding document.

[ftrader]

I have seen people promote toxic and crazy ideas, and then cite parts of the paper in an effort to justify it

Tell us, which part of the paper do you want to censor in order to prevent people quoting them?

[ChainQuery]

Agree with Harding that the original link which thousands have linked to should always be the "Original Bitcoin Whitepaper" which interestingly is how it is most often linked and referred to.

Any alterations to this historic document to adapt it to what you believe it should be also ought to be clearly marked as such in any future edition.

[ASICseer]

If you want to change Bitcoin's whitepaper, make an altcoin. Isn't that your beloved argument?

[Feri22]

I think there should be clearly visible what is and what is not original paper from Satoshi and the original we should never change...If anything, do edited and updated version, separated from the original whitepaper...

If you edit the original paper, people calling you names for censhorships etc would have just more fuel in the fire...

I agree there should be updated version of paper or new users, BUT only clearly explaining what paper is what and why there is a updated version, explaining there were changes along the way etc...if you want to write it, it must be with 100% transparency, 100% honesty and 100% separation from the original...

The original paper should always be on the link bitcoin.pdf

PS: Please don't change the original, at least not !NOW!, in these times of ununited community it would make things just ultra-worse...Make a separate "updated" whitepaper

[dgenr8]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be sure to point people to a more reliable source, the blockchain, where the full document is included in 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713

[btcdrak]

This is crazy. If you want to make an updated paper citing the old one sure that makes sense, but one simply does not update other people's academic work. You build upon other's work through citations.

[justfathi]

This is madness!

[Feri22]

PLEASE DON'T UPDATE the original Satoshi's work...

It would really make the things even worse

Do a separate version with citations, as btcdrak is proposing...if you touch the original whitepaper, it will divide community even more...