It still baffles me that the Nobel Prize for Economics was not awarded to Satoshi Nakamoto albeit a pseudonym for real person/people.
Giving an award for Bitcoin right now would seem more like giving an award to the financial institutions that created securitized loan products before the housing crisis. Right now it seems more like a novelty technology that hasn't yet made itself relevant for long-term innovation except to generate excitement about it.
And you underestimate that you still can't give someone an award who does not exist to receive it.
> And you underestimate that you still can't give someone an award who does not exist to receive it.
Which is what baffles me. I thought we should be honouring ideas and the people who created/discovered them (whether or not they exist to receive the award). It's weird that people get more precedence over ideas. What's worse is that the prize isn't awarded posthumously as well!
It would justify a Nobel in software engineering, not economics.
If there was no new economics in Bitcoin, can you explain why the paper would be nominated for Nobel Prize for Economics in the first place? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshi-nakamoto-nomina...
It's quite clear that the nomination was rejected on flimsy grounds of not awarding the Prize for "unknown people" because there is no such "precedence".
The main innovation was the combination of ledgers with proof of work to prevent Sybil attacks in the face of a system with unidentified participants.