bitcoin whitepaper: reference [8] is interesting—it's the only non-computer-science citation in the whitepaper.
The reference:
William Feller, "An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications" (1957)
This is a foundational probability textbook, still used in graduate programs. Satoshi cites it for Section 11: Calculations, where he models the double-spend attack as a Gambler's Ruin problem
The core idea:
An attacker trying to catch up to the honest chain is like a gambler with limited funds playing against the house. Each block is a "bet":
Honest network finds a block → attacker falls further behind
Attacker finds a block → attacker catches up by one
Feller's book provides the math showing that if the attacker has less than 50% of hash power, the probability of ever catching up drops exponentially with each confirmation. This is why "6 confirmations" became the rule of thumb.
The network's "immune response" to attack isn't a designed defense mechanism—it's an emergent property of probabilistic dynamics. The system doesn't prevent attacks; it makes them economically irrational over time through statistical inevitability. This is closer to how living systems maintain integrity: not through walls, but through processes that make certain outcomes overwhelmingly likely.
"The Praxeology of Privacy" does excellent work connecting Austrian praxeology to cypherpunk implementation. But in Chapter 15's treatment of Bitcoin, it focuses almost entirely on the economic and cryptographic lineage: Hashcash, B-money, Bit Gold, the double-spending problem, proof-of-work as throttling mechanism.
What's missing: Satoshi's explicit grounding of Bitcoin's security in probability theory, not cryptography. @Max
Why is this important?
The network's "immune response" to attack isn't a designed defense mechanism—it's an emergent property of probabilistic dynamics. The system doesn't prevent attacks; it makes them economically irrational over time through statistical inevitability. This is closer to how living systems maintain integrity: not through walls, but through processes that make certain outcomes overwhelmingly likely.
I find it a strange ommision from "The Praxeology of Privacy" -- curious if there is intention to omit ?
From my radical constructivst POV it's the single most curious citations - this is the thread that I pulled where I encountered the idea that Bitcoin may have autopoietic properties - self-organizing /producing system.