Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Satoshi Nakamoto · Self-published white paper (bitcoin.org) · 2008 · economics · record nakamoto2008-bitcoin
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The text is clean apart from the loss of figure content (diagram labels appear as runs of words such as 'Owner 1's Public Key Hash ...'); no quote was taken from those runs. Method is recorded as system-or-tool-building because the paper's core is a proposed system design; it also contains an analytical component (Binomial Random Walk / Poisson calculation of attacker success probability with C code), which the single method facet cannot express. No empirical evaluation, deployment data, or replication is reported, hence replication status untested. Only one claim_relation is recorded: Hashcash is the sole prior work the paper names by author and explicitly positions its own mechanism against; the remaining references ([1]-[5], [7], [8]) are bare numeric citations. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
nodes 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 9 concept tags on this paper, 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

blockchain proof-of-work double-spending peer-to-peer network cryptocurrency electronic coin chain of digital signatures longest chain timestamp server proof-of-work blockchain: hash transactions into a chain secured by proof-of-work so the honest majority of computing power extends the longest chain and the record becomes practically immutable, preventing double-spending without a trusted third party network hash chain transactions nodes block timestamp peer-to-peer Merkle Tree system-or-tool-building

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 5 · content_tags 4 · controls 1 · limitations 9 · mechanisms 1 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3 · transfers 1

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 1 of 2 relations here carries that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	double-spending in electronic cash Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	system-or-tool-building Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: system-or-tool-building	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proof-of-work blockchain: hash transactions into a chain secured by proof-of-work so the honest majority of computing power extends the longest chain and the record becomes practically immutable, preventing double-spending without a trusted third party	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	security holds only while honest nodes control the majority of CPU power (the 51% assumption) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every security claim in the paper: Quotation withheld	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Security holds only under the assumption that honest nodes control the majority of CPU power. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - the majority-honest assumption	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Simplified payment verification can be deceived while an attacker overpowers the network. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: simplified payment verification specifically: THE VERIFICATION IS RELIABLE AS LONG AS HONEST NODES CONTROL THE NETWORK, BUT IS MORE VULNERABLE IF THE NETWORK IS OVERPOWERED	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The privacy scheme cannot prevent all linkage between transactions of one owner. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the privacy claim: SOME LINKING IS STILL UNAVOIDABLE WITH MULTI-INPUT TRANSACTIONS, WHICH NECESSARILY REVEAL THAT THEIR INPUTS WERE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The security claim is conditional on a distributional fact about who owns computing power, which no participant can check. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that this system removes the need for trust: it is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes, a condition about the distribution of hardware rather than a property of the cryptography	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The deterrent is economic rather than cryptographic: it assumes an attacker who prefers the more profitable option. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that an attack is infeasible: an attacker with a CPU majority is argued to be deterred by preferring to generate new coins over defrauding people, which is an assumption about the attacker's motives and not about what the attacker can do	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Privacy is pseudonymity, and the paper names the exact way it fails. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any description of this system as anonymous: privacy is maintained by keeping public keys anonymous, and the paper states that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal the other transactions belonging to that owner	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The lightweight verification method is defeasible for as long as an attack lasts. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a payment accepted through simplified verification: the paper states	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The feasibility argument for storage rests on a hardware extrapolation made in 2008. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that block headers can be kept in memory: it rests on 2008 machines shipping with 2GB of RAM and on Moore's Law predicting growth of 1.2GB per year	`limitations[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	using cryptographic proof (hashes, digital signatures, proof-of-work) to build a currency and payment system with no trusted third party Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`		the tagger's words
controls	an adversarial calculation of the probability that an attacker generating an alternate chain overtakes the honest chain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a slower attacker could rewrite the transaction history by catching up with the honest chain · outcome: held	`controls[0]`	0.75	the tagger's words
concepts	proof-of-work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proof-of-work	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	electronic coin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electronic coin	`concepts[5]`		the paper's words
concepts	chain of digital signatures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chain of digital signatures	`concepts[6]`		the paper's words
concepts	longest chain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: longest chain	`concepts[7]`		the paper's words
concepts	timestamp server Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: timestamp server	`concepts[8]`		the paper's words
senses	the chain - NEVER 'blockchain': the paper's own names for its central object are a chain of digital signatures and a chain of ownership, and the compound the entire field later settled on appears nowhere in the document that introduced the thing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	majority - AS CPU POWER, NOT AS HEADS: the paper rules out one-vote-per-participant explicitly, so 'majority decision' and 'consensus' here mean the greatest expenditure of computation and not what those words mean in any deliberative sense Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	privacy - AS A BREAK IN THE FLOW OF INFORMATION, NOT AS SECRECY: everything is announced publicly and privacy is obtained only by keeping the keys unattributed, which the paper likens to a stock exchange tape that prints every trade without the parties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → the trusted-third-party (financial-institution) model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Adam Back's Hashcash [6] Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	electronic coin —operationalised-as→ chain of digital signatures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · the relation stated: the coin IS the signature chain - the paper defines it that way outright also in: electronic coin · chain of digital signatures	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	longest chain —operationalised-as→ proof-of-work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says the longest chain has the greatest proof-of-work invested; operationalised-as is a loose reading. also in: longest chain · proof-of-work	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	A peer-to-peer network solves the double-spending problem by timestamping transactions into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work that cannot be changed without redoing the work. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The system stays secure while honest nodes together hold more CPU power than any colluding group of attackers. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	proof-of-work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proof-of-work	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Merkle Tree Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Merkle Tree	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.