Edit - WTF does Nick Szabo have to do with this

.
Already told you, those that are familiar with "Szabo's" works already know. Bitcoin was not a whim, it was decades of contemplation and study and advancements of the systems needed for its implementation. Szabo's blog is that vast encyclopedia of puzzle pieces put together that finally point to the implementation of the solution. It covers right down to the invention of the time keeping devices that changed our culture and the value of it up until the creation of bitcoin. So much past history and technology covered just to explain what we have today.
Whoever created bitcoin knew they had to become a lawyer to make sure it was fully created above law. "Lawyer" Nick Szabo describes also the entire significant history of law right up until the non delegation doctrine and the implications that are above our national constitutions. He taught us all how to be lawyers, because you need this to be free.
Lecture (apparently not from szabo or satoshi):
The special commodity or medium that we call money has a long and interesting history.
Although money itself is merely an artifact of practical usefulness in human societies
and/or civilizations, there are some traditional or popular views associating money with sin
or immorality or unethical or unjust behavior.
Retweed by Szabo:

Szabo on the history of money from the nakamoto institute
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/Szabo "came up with" the technology that will become ethereum, smart contracts, contingent on Satoshi's work he never knew would be produced? Smart contracts come about because bitcoin is the beginning of the completion of a Kula ring, a unifying solution that bridges among other things, game theory, encryption, economics, finance, programming, and law... there are not multiple random people capable of this...
Every line from the cryptic lecture "ideal money" has a linking paper from szabo's blog. http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/
You have to read it all though, you can't just "not" read it, and then judge.