If you’ve read the Bitcoin whitepaper in Korean, I strongly recommend comparing one sentence in the introduction with the original English text. In a widely circulated Korean translation, the meaning of this sentence has been inverted—and it happens to be the very sentence explaining why Bitcoin was necessary. [Original] "With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable." [Translated] "Due to reversibility, demand for trust increases. Merchants must carefully handle customers so as not to harass them for more information than necessary. A certain percentage of fraud is regarded as unavoidable." [Original Meaning] Because payments can be reversed, the need for trust expands. Merchants must be cautious of their customers, and thus burden them with requests for information they wouldn’t otherwise require. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as inevitable. The translation misrepresents the second sentence as a cautionary advice—"merchants must be careful not to harass"—when the original is a descriptive statement: merchants actively do harass customers. Why? Because payments can be reversed. [Common Scene for Koreans] Mobile phone verification texts, additional authentication pop-ups during card payments, ID photo uploads when signing up for exchanges, 1-won bank transfer verification. These are exactly the kinds of "hassling" Satoshi referred to. While regulation plays a large role, the underlying logic is identical: since you can’t trust the other party, you demand more information. The costs of safeguarding that information, the risks of leaks, and the unavoidable fraud—all get baked into transaction fees and product prices. [Why This One Sentence Matters] If you read this sentence as “merchants must be careful not to harass,” you lose sight of what Bitcoin was trying to fix. The whitepaper’s logic flows like this: reversible payments require trust; trust demands information and incurs fraud costs. Therefore, the introduction concludes: “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof rather than trust, allowing two willing parties to transact directly without needing a trusted third party.” By proving irreversibility through cryptography, you reduce the information you need to collect about the other party. Bitcoin targeted not merely a few percentage points in fees—but the entire cost of mutual suspicion. [Looking in the Mirror Today] To buy or sell BTC in Korea, you need an exchange account verified with real-name bank accounts and identity authentication. While regulation is part of this, it’s not the whole story. Money that’s hard to use directly on-chain inevitably ends up being traded through accounts. If Bitcoin’s costs are being rebuilt on top of the very costs the whitepaper identified, that’s not just a translation error—it’s a far greater misreading. [Addendum] This translation is overall diligent work, and I frequently refer to it myself. I have no intention of dismissing the entire translation because of one mistake. But for this one sentence—please read it in the original. #Bitcoin #BSV #BTC