Exclusive Interview with the "Father of Blockchain": Blockchain was born for NFTs, not cryptocurrencies

Interview: Jason Bailey

Interviewees: Scott Stornetta and Stuart Haber

Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News

When Scott Stornetta and Stuart Haber invented blockchain, they were thinking of something akin to NFTs rather than digital currency. Jason Bailey (founder of the art and technology blog Artnome.com) had an in-depth conversation with Scott Stornetta and Stuart Haber about the vision of blockchain at its inception over thirty years ago and its subsequent evolution.

Translator's note: Scott Stornetta and Stuart Haber implemented the blockchain architecture in code in 1991, and it has been in commercial use since January 1995.

Jason Bailey: I often introduce you two as my good friends, the "inventors of blockchain." Then, I usually see a look of disbelief, "No, it was Satoshi Nakamoto who invented blockchain," even from those who have studied Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies for years. Can you help people better understand your contributions and how they laid the groundwork for Satoshi to build the Bitcoin network?

Stuart Haber: Well, let me tell this story by looking back at about thirty years of history, which, from my perspective, marks the beginning of blockchain. It all started in 1989 when Scott Stornetta and I were young scientists at Bellcore.

I was a cryptographer, and Scott had just joined Bellcore. He wanted to find a solution to ensure that the integrity of digital records could be proven, guaranteed, and maintained through certain programs or algorithms. Scott strongly suspected that cryptography would play a role in this. So, we wrote several papers with Dave Bayer and created an architecture to address this issue.

Scott Stornetta: Stuart and I developed a unique collaborative style characterized by a yin-yang dynamic and constant exchange of ideas. I tend to focus intensely on such problems. The challenge was that I didn't understand the underlying mathematics or cryptography that could be used to solve this problem. I had a question but didn't know how to find the solution. This knowledge gap has always been the driving force behind our productive collaboration.

SH: For those familiar with these concepts, digital signatures and cryptographic hash functions were proposed, implemented, and well understood in the fall of 1989. These tools presented a relatively simple solution that required a trusted entity (whether a person, software, or hardware) to ensure the integrity of records within a specific domain. For many, this solution was considered satisfactory. However, Scott and I were not satisfied because the solution we sought did not require trusting any party, nor did it require trusting as few individuals, entities, and mathematical assumptions as possible.

We ultimately developed a solution, which I explain using a metaphor: "digital fingerprints." In fact, every blockchain project globally relies on cryptographic hash functions, mathematical algorithms, with input and output processes that can effectively generate a digital fingerprint of a file. When you apply this process to the same file multiple times, you always get the same fingerprint output. This is an efficient process, even for large files, especially when we forget to turn it off and let it run continuously.

Now, another important property of cryptographic hash functions is that when you take two different files and calculate their fingerprints, you get two different results. In fact, even a tiny change to a file, such as changing a 0 to a 1, will cause the final fingerprints of the two different files to change significantly and unpredictably. For example, when it comes to financial records, even minor changes can profoundly affect the meaning of the file. For instance, changing the leading digit from 0 to 1 may be more profitable for one party than the other. Thus, the fingerprint recognition metaphor is apt here: two different fingers have two different fingerprints.

Another important property of fingerprints is that my fingerprint does not reveal details about me. You cannot discern my height, hair color, or even whether I have more than one finger from my fingerprint. Similarly, the fingerprints in cryptographic hash functions are just a sequence of numbers and letters that do not disclose any information about the original file. However, if you have the fingerprint and a file that claims to match that fingerprint, you can easily verify its authenticity by "getting its fingerprint" again. This ability of digital fingerprint recognition is known as cryptographic hash functions, and these concepts were already established at that time.

JB: Let me summarize to ensure my understanding is correct. The hash or fingerprint is a concept that is easy to grasp. Your team's goal is to prove the integrity of records and ensure they cannot be tampered with. Are these hash values or fingerprints somewhat similar to the blocks in a blockchain? Did you find a way to connect these fingerprints into a blockchain?

SS: You're right. As Stuart mentioned, we realized that hash values could not only represent files more concisely and efficiently. The key innovation was to combine them (and build each block as a Merkle tree) and then link these blocks together, all using the same hash function. With Dave Bayer's involvement, we were able to link groups of records in such a way that each participant and their documents became part of the proof of the records, acting as early nodes. This means that all records are uniquely connected and widely distributed, containing many of the fundamental elements that Satoshi later created Bitcoin from. We do not take anything away from Satoshi and his creation, but we view Bitcoin as an application built on early blockchain technology. It is commendable that Satoshi explicitly cited all the publications related to the foundational work we participated in. Our work was referenced three times in the Bitcoin white paper, which cited eight external documents in total, of which we accounted for 3/8.

JB: So, for all the cryptocurrency enthusiasts who view Satoshi as the founder of blockchain, how can we help them bridge the gap between your work in the late 1980s and early 1990s and today's Bitcoin?

SH: When you mention your contributions to blockchain to the general audience, they often immediately associate it with Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies in a broader sense.

Scott and I were not trying to invent electronic currency. In fact, the cryptography community had already begun working on creating pure digital currency back in the 1980s. Our focus was broader: we were genuinely concerned with the integrity of all records, including electronic records.

SS: This also includes financial records, but our scope expanded to every significant record ever created, and we believe all these records can be registered on a blockchain.

SH: Since it is impossible to predict which records will become important years later, why not include every record ever created?

JB: Essentially, you align more with the concept of NFTs rather than cryptocurrencies, right? When we view NFTs as tools for verifying artworks, contracts, patents, and various applications, it seems to align with your original goals.

SH: That's right. When discussing the algorithmic approach to digital records, we used the term "provenance." We focused on various types of records. However, when Satoshi aimed to establish a digital currency system that required a method to ensure the integrity of financial transactions within the system, he directly adopted our solution. The data structure of Bitcoin transactions precisely reflects the data structure of our timestamp system, which began to be implemented in experimental code in October 1991 and was commercially used in January 1995.

The longest-running blockchain began in 1995 and is still operational today, with the timestamp circled in red.

SS: I want to reiterate the point Stuart made. Essentially, our vision for blockchain is not the same as Satoshi's. Satoshi introduced an innovation in the realm of currency, but he needed a robust record-keeping system. He seamlessly integrated this layer and built Bitcoin on top of it.

I want to emphasize that we do not overlook Satoshi's contributions. On the contrary, he built Bitcoin on a blockchain connected by widely distributed Merkle trees, and he publicly acknowledged that this concept had already been invented. He then used the same cryptographic hash functions or digital fingerprints to directly create the mining mechanism.

An interesting aspect is that ordinal inscriptions in Bitcoin have recently gained popularity. If people delve into the footnotes of the Bitcoin white paper, they will find that in our third joint paper, we hinted at the concept of using blockchain inscriptions or ordinals to create unique, non-fungible records. This resonates with today's concept of NFTs.

Your observation about cryptocurrencies and NFTs hits the nail on the head. To some extent, we view NFTs as a more significant long-term realization of our original goals.

It indicates that everything important, not limited to various cartoon primate poses, may ultimately need to be uniquely registered on the blockchain as NFTs. Perhaps we should delve into our latest NFT series?

JB: I would love to hear more, especially now that we have clarified your contributions and their continuity with Satoshi's subsequent creation of Bitcoin. It is fascinating that the blockchain you invented is more geared towards NFTs rather than cryptocurrencies, which may surprise some. How did you decide to collaborate with artists and use illustrated news as the art for your NFTs?

SS: The primary challenge early on was reaching a consensus, which became even more daunting due to the lack of the World Wide Web or similar technologies. Our solution was to regularly create snapshots of the blockchain (a kind of fingerprint) and widely distribute them to prevent manipulation.

To achieve this, we chose to publish this snapshot weekly in the national edition of The New York Times. This edition is preserved in libraries and archives around the world. Imagine the daunting effort required to tamper with a single element in the chain; it would be like infiltrating every library globally and changing their copies of The New York Times.

This aligns with our approach to the NFT collection. We released the initial 12 NFTs, each representing one of our 12 consecutive publications in The New York Times. We collaborated with an artist to curate weekly events, selecting whimsical, historical, or noteworthy items and illustrating them.

Additionally, our plan includes releasing subsequent collections on various chains and protocols to foster greater collaboration and unity within the blockchain community. We have received inquiries from different blockchains and artists interested in retaining a set of 12 consecutive blocks. Our goal is not to centralize everything on a widely used blockchain like Ethereum. Instead, we aim to demonstrate that individual communities can have a segment of blockchain history.

Our goal is to gradually encourage greater interoperability and collaboration. We aim to provide opportunities for a wide range of artists, including graphic artists, to interpret the 12 value-related historical pieces published by The New York Times during these weeks. This initiative is intended to invite creative artists and blockchain founders to join us in commemorating the history of blockchain, rather than simply promoting NFT sales.

JB: Fascinating! I think some people might be confused when they hear you used The New York Times as a blockchain because they typically associate blockchain with computer technology rather than traditional media like newspaper advertisements. However, the newspaper is a means of ensuring widespread distribution in a tamper-proof manner, and no individual can maliciously alter it without infiltrating every library in the world…

SH: You could mess up our ad copy in The New York Times by scribbling on it or something like that. But the key point is that if something goes wrong, you can find your own copy of the record and verify it against others' records. This plan was initially Bellcore's experimental code but eventually evolved into a company called Surety, whose primary goal is to protect clients' digital records.

JB: Did your personalities or political leanings influence the invention of blockchain?

SS: Yes. We did not need any annoying central authority to decide what is real or not. We once humorously claimed that our system was essentially distributed, and even if the Mafia was overseeing it, it would still be a trustworthy system. However, we quickly realized that this description was not appropriate since we were located in New Jersey, so we stopped using it.

Personally, I greatly appreciate the inherent decentralized nature of blockchain. While I acknowledge the existence of power concentration, especially in Bitcoin, the fundamental premise remains: each participant shares the responsibility of trust, so the documents are trustworthy for everyone. I find this concept very important and believe it can serve as the foundation for many institutions with a similar spirit.

SH: In the design of what is now called blockchain, our philosophy is to ensure the integrity of records without needing to trust a central authority.

SH: It is worth noting that some blockchain maximalists claim that blockchain, especially their own, will overthrow all forms of government and central entities. Personally, I find this assertion overly simplistic and unrealistic. I may be more pessimistic than Scott about the transformative potential of blockchain. Under the influence of economic forces, seemingly decentralized systems (including Bitcoin and Ethereum) have become centralized.

SS: Indeed, Stuart and I have had multiple discussions on this topic. Whether we agree or not is not important; what matters is recognizing that blockchain technology represents a turning point, a form of creative destruction as described by Schumpeter. It introduces a healthy tension between the desire for decentralization for trustworthiness and the need for centralization to improve operational efficiency. This tension is more desirable than mere decentralization because it can achieve greater balance and diversity.

JB: In the cryptocurrency community, people often exhibit strong extremism towards specific blockchains, almost to a religious degree. However, it is clear that you support a multi-chain future; can you share more of your thoughts on this?

SH: Certainly. One aspect we have not discussed is that we chose to launch the original series of NFTs on the Kadena blockchain platform, which we appreciate for various reasons in its design. However, as we expand our NFT offerings, we not only encourage but require any other NFT products to have interoperability. Our goal is to promote interoperability between different blockchain networks, just as we have done ourselves.

SS: I believe that various blockchain networks can coexist in the future and can be distinguished based on factors such as on-chain/off-chain functionality. This diversity of functionality is a positive indicator of a thriving ecosystem. Stuart and I, in our own way, aim to promote interoperability between these blockchain networks and foster a sense of community. So, if you represent a blockchain network that wishes to voice its opinion and is willing to collaborate, please reach out to us. Perhaps the next NFT collection (containing 12 weeks of blockchain history) could be launched on your blockchain platform.