> "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. That's the first time I have heard that one. I

> "...computationally impractical to reverse" was found in both the patent application and bitcoin's whitepaper. That's the first time I have heard that one. If there are no other textbooks / papers / patents were this phrase is used, this seems like a pretty strong indicator to me. A search on Google Scholar for that exact phrase gives (at the time) the two expected results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally+impractical+to+reverse%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computationally... Alternative hypothesis: (a) Nakamoto paid close attention to research, read the patent and liked the phrase. (b) The phrase is common lingo, but Google Scholar doesn't index it. For example, it could be used in a private mailing list. Both (a) and (b) seems like they could quite easily be investigated by someone with domain knowledge together with some knowledge of how patents are distributed. This seems like too simplistic a reasoning. Anyone care to explain what I am missing? EDIT: The exact phrase "computationally impractical" seems to be very common, with thousands of citations before 2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impractical%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2008 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22computationally+impra... It seems to me that reversibility might simple have been a "theme" in crypto circles around that time, which could explain the coincidence that two different groups independently glued the phrases together.