<p>It looks like a factual error. It was introduced in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&amp;diff=401835241&amp;oldid=401833245" rel="nofollow">this edit</a>. The editor should be contacted about what lead him to this information.</p>

<p>Also, the mailing list post was from Nov 1 and not 11 as you wrote.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-20T08:27:48.717Z
Factual errors galore :)
I'll edit the article.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-20T08:30:54.260Z
1. How did you find the exact edit btw? 2. Do you think the citation should be changed to the publication in the cryptography mailing list? (It took me some digging to find it, it's perhaps a better citation and it references the whitepaper itself)
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-20T08:32:27.533Z
3. I see you contacted the author of the revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L3lackEyedAngels#Bitcoin_whitepaper_date
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-20T11:20:43.197Z
@ripper234:
1. I manually did binary search on the history. I know of no better way and was successfully nerd-sniped.
2. The paper itself is a better citation for content. The mailing list archive is a better citation for history (e.g., "the Bitcoin whitepaper was first released on Nov 1 2008").
3. I did.
Meni Rosenfeld
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-20T12:21:43.807Z
Added a ref to the crypto mailing list.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-08T22:39:11.440Z
@MeniRosenfeld In case you 2 are still interested: The user replied a year after you posed the question on their talk page.
UTF-8
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-08T22:40:11.647Z
@ripper234 Mentioning you, too, just to be sure, even though you should've gotten a notification anyways.
UTF-8
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-09T08:49:23.557Z
@UTF-8: Thanks. I vaguely remember seeing that reply before, I must have stumbled upon this question and checked back in the time since.
Meni Rosenfeld
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-09T00:45:22.963Z
Seems October 31st, 2008 (see answer below by @brianjason) is actually correct.  This is the date listed in Wikipedia now.
Jonathan Cross
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-19T21:27:38.273Z
2013-08-19T21:27:38.273Z
Meni Rosenfeld
<p>That is clearly incorrect. His whitepaper was released on October 31st, 2008 via the <a href="http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014810.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">metzdowd mailing list</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper</p>
  
  <p>Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com<br>
  Fri Oct 31 14:10:00 EDT 2008</p>
  
  <p>Previous message: Fw: SHA-3 lounge 
  Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author]</p>
  
  <p>I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.</p>
  
  <p>The paper is available at: <a href="http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf</a></p>
  
  <p>The main properties:  Double-spending is prevented with a peer-to-peer
  network.  No mint or other trusted parties.  Participants can be
  anonymous.  New coins are made from Hashcash style proof-of-work.  The
  proof-of-work for new coin generation also powers the
      network to prevent double-spending.</p>
  
  <p>Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System</p>
  
  <p>Abstract.  A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would
  allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
  without the burdens of going through a financial institution. Digital
  signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are
  lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending. 
  We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a
  peer-to-peer network.  The network timestamps transactions by hashing
  them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a
  record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.  The
  longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events
  witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. 
  As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network,
  they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers.  The
  network itself requires minimal structure.  Messages are broadcasted
  on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at
  will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what
  happened while they were gone.</p>
  
  <p>Full paper at: <a href="http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf</a></p>
  
  <p>Satoshi Nakamoto</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He <a href="http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">realeased Bitcoin v0.1</a> on Thu Jan 8 14:27:40 EST 2009 -- more than 2 months later. By May, he had ceased all communication on the mailing list.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-08T20:21:20.643Z
2017-01-08T20:21:20.643Z
holaymolay
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&amp;oldid=569201957#cite_note-whitepaper-1" rel="nofollow">first citation</a> in Wikipedia's Bitcoin article is of <a href="http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" rel="nofollow">Satoshi's original whitepaper</a>. It is worded:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nakamoto, Satoshi (24 May 2009). "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Retrieved 20 December 2012.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Satoshi's whitepaper <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html" rel="nofollow">was released on 1 Nov 2008</a>, not on 2009.</p>

<p>What am I missing here? Did anything relevant happen at 24 May 2009? Is this a factual error in the Wikipedia entry? (It's there for a long time, so it's not any recent vandalism).</p>

<history><satoshi-nakamoto>
Why does Wikipedia's Bitcoin entry imply Satoshi's whitepaper is from May 2009?
ripper234
# Why does Wikipedia's Bitcoin entry imply Satoshi's whitepaper is from May 2009?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-19)

The [first citation](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=569201957#cite_note-whitepaper-1) in Wikipedia's Bitcoin article is of [Satoshi's original whitepaper](http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). It is worded:

> Nakamoto, Satoshi (24 May 2009). "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Retrieved 20 December 2012.

Satoshi's whitepaper [was released on 1 Nov 2008](http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html), not on 2009.

What am I missing here? Did anything relevant happen at 24 May 2009? Is this a factual error in the Wikipedia entry? (It's there for a long time, so it's not any recent vandalism).

**Tags:** history, satoshi-nakamoto


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-08-19. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

It looks like a factual error. It was introduced in [this edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=401835241&oldid=401833245). The editor should be contacted about what lead him to this information.

Also, the mailing list post was from Nov 1 and not 11 as you wrote.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Factual errors galore :) I'll edit the article.  
> **username_0**: 1. How did you find the exact edit btw? 2. Do you think the citation should be changed to the publication in the cryptography mailing list? (It took me some digging to find it, it's perhaps a better citation and it references the whitepaper itself)  
> **username_0**: 3. I see you contacted the author of the revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L3lackEyedAngels#Bitcoin_whitepaper_date  
> **username_1**: @username_0: 1. I manually did binary search on the history. I know of no better way and was successfully nerd-sniped. 2. The paper itself is a better citation for content. The mailing list archive is a better citation for history (e.g., "the Bitcoin whitepaper was first released on Nov 1 2008"). 3. I did.  
> **username_0**: Added a ref to the crypto mailing list.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 In case you 2 are still interested: The user replied a year after you posed the question on their talk page.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Mentioning you, too, just to be sure, even though you should've gotten a notification anyways.  
> **username_1**: @username_2: Thanks. I vaguely remember seeing that reply before, I must have stumbled upon this question and checked back in the time since.  
> **username_3**: Seems October 31st, 2008 (see answer below by @brianjason) is actually correct.  This is the date listed in Wikipedia now.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-01-08. Score: 4

That is clearly incorrect. His whitepaper was released on October 31st, 2008 via the [metzdowd mailing list](http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014810.html)

> Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper
>
> Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com  
> Fri Oct 31 14:10:00 EDT 2008
>
> Previous message: Fw: SHA-3 lounge
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author]
>
> I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.
>
> The paper is available at: <http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf>
>
> The main properties: Double-spending is prevented with a peer-to-peer
> network. No mint or other trusted parties. Participants can be
> anonymous. New coins are made from Hashcash style proof-of-work. The
> proof-of-work for new coin generation also powers the
> network to prevent double-spending.
>
> Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
>
> Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would
> allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
> without the burdens of going through a financial institution. Digital
> signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are
> lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending.
> We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a
> peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing
> them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a
> record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The
> longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events
> witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
> As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network,
> they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers. The
> network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcasted
> on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at
> will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what
> happened while they were gone.
>
> Full paper at: <http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf>
>
> Satoshi Nakamoto

He [realeased Bitcoin v0.1](http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html) on Thu Jan 8 14:27:40 EST 2009 -- more than 2 months later. By May, he had ceased all communication on the mailing list.


---

