Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I fear gwern has gone off the deep end on this one, situation is getting ridiculous: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3vzgnd/bitcoins_cr...

Parent comment links to a Reddit comment by kanzure dated 2015-12-09 01:24:30 UTC which contains what could be reasonably interpreted as a death threat:

> "gwern's gonna get doxxed and left for dead"

Quoted to create an enduring record in case the comment is edited. Kanzure, you should probably step back and reconsider what you're doing here.

(EDIT: There are some good points in the ensuing discussion below. I don't know what to think yet, but my comment here was unfair. Sorry, kanzure. And thank you to everyone who responded.)

As far as I can tell, you're bullying gwern. Please stop.

If you have a point, then make it clearly. Leave out speculation about "what would happen if it was a US no-knock raid."

What, precisely, did gwern do? Their replies address your points, from where I'm sitting. What am I missing here?

Gwern has a long history of obsessive and misdirected behavior on this subject which is likely to cause harm to others. This particular case is Gwern's N-th accused "satoshi"... and this time the evidence consists mostly of counter evidence.

For example, these pgp signed emails are signed with the key with short ID 5EB7CB21 which is not the well known key, does not exist in old keyserver dumps, and has a pref-hash-algos list of "8 2 9 10 11", which is the list that GNUPG started generating a year (commit e50cac1d848d332c4dbf49d5f705d3cbbf074ba1) after the date on the key. The well known key, which the new key claims to be generated within 24 hours of, has "2 8 3" which was an the prior list of hashes.

And you have a history of jumping the gun in declaring evidence as false or not true which likewise likely caused/causes harm.

Such as your public and forceful "rebuking", in an authoritarian manner, of the then revelations, with evidence, that gox had 200k btc, which latter of course was shown to be true and showed that you were in no way rebuking anything, but abusing your position.

One would think you would have learned and keep your mouth until the dust is settled and you are in a better position to judge, but it seems that you like far too much making authoritarian, seemingly conclusive when not warranted, proclamations instead.

That is not to say, of course, that this guy may not be satoshi, but I'd take care hours after the announcement especially if I was in your position.


If you believe that gwern has done something to warrant this criticism, I would really love to understand that.

Does gwern's reply on Reddit address what you just wrote?

And as I pointed out in my subsequent replies which you have left out, I am perfectly aware that PGP public key metadata (not pgp.mit.edu timestamps, since the keyservers are only reading what the keys say!) can be backdated at creation, and this is why we put our effort into nailing down the creation and modification dates of the blog post in third-party archives like the IA and Google Reader.

Our case was not based on the key creation dates and it is bullshit for you to imply that it was or that their unreliability torpedoes the article.

Can you point out which part of the gizmodo or wired articles were based on mistaken evidence from gwern's investigation?

Basically every piece of evidence that can falsified in this case is falsified. The PGP key used to sign the emails: Backdated with almost complete certainty. The blog posts? edited in 2013 to include the 'bitcoin hints'.

What is more likely: Someone who is Bitcoin's creator in hiding, went and created a pile of provably falsified information that they were Bitcoin's creator, plus left some circumstantial evidence that can't be decided .... Or someone who _wasn't_ Bitcoin's creator, went and created false evidence and had some circumstantial evidence by chance (or falsified too but not proven yet)?

In any case the complaint isn't even so much about this particular drama-fest, it's about the repeated behavior. This time it looks like it may have precipitated a raid on someones house (otherwise the timing is more coincidental than most of this evidence), had it been in some places in the US perhaps the victim (or at least their dog) wouldn't even be alive now.

> This particular case is Gwern's N-th accused "satoshi"

Not with this degree of certainty.

What certainty? Here's what they have: possibly backdated keys; edited blog entries; leaked emails. All from same, untrustworthy source. That's not certainty or concrete. It would probably be tossed out of court in the U.S. the second the defense brought up the blog editing.

As others have pointed out - it's arguable that publishing any claim about the identity of SN - puts the target in considerable, potential danger.

Now I can understand that there is a public interest component in knowing SN's identity. And I'd even be willing to accept (but really only for sake of argument) that this public interest overrides SN's own right to privacy and safety.

But to make these accusations when you yourself admit - as the article does - that there is a substantial degree of doubt, is to put at risk the safety and privacy of a person who doesn't deserve it in the least.

This is an absolutely appalling thing to do to anyone. And it should be prima-facie obvious to you as to why.

While I don't condone bullying of any sort - it really is the least of what these authors deserve. I personally don't feel Kanzure is bullying - merely pointing out how appalling this behaviour is, and this absolutely needs to be pointed out.

Not the parent, but,

>What, precisely, did gwern do?

Publicly accused someone of being Satoshi Nakamoto, which is quote serious, and predictably would have negative consequences.

It's especially bad if you do it with unreliable evidence, because then it's just some poor unrelated person.

Whether he is or not, he clearly seems to want to be associated with Satoshi. So this is not exactly the Dorian case. This guy practically asked for it at the conference.

So the guy, out of narcissism or whatever, made some imprudent edits to old blogposts. Taking advantage of that to publish an unsubstantiated article that potentially puts someone's life at risk is, for lack of a stronger word, wrong.

Which part of http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-frie... do you believe is unsubstantiated?

The situation is just confusing. Help me understand what's going on here. If part of that article is unsubstantiated, then everyone would be interested in that.

We have no way to independently verify the authenticity of the leaks, the key "evidence" is a dead-end, so are the edits to the posts, as the authors admit in the Wired article.

I used to like the guy (this is crossing a line, for me) and I think he has lots of potential, but there's no reason for civilized society to tolerate anons recklessly calling in raids based on the accumulated weight of lots of non-evidence. When you make an accusation that someone is the richest person of all time, you are putting their life in danger and hanging your reputation on it. Standards of evidence here need to be extremely high because raids are going to happen, stuff's going to get stolen, lives ruined, and people are going to get killed. Leaving out and glossing over the lack of merit of the cryptographic "evidence" is ridiculous (even for the extremely low standards we have to hold journalists to); he should have withdrawn consent earlier but to be complicit with that sort of editorial distortion field is, like I said, crossing a line where his behavior needs to be explicitly pointed out. This ain't bullying.

"recklessly calling in raids"

There is no evidence Gwern "called in" a raid. The Australian Federal Police deny that the raid had any connection to recent media reports, and say the timing was a coincidence: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/bitcoin-mystery-home-o...

Let me try again.

I chose my words carefully. What, precisely, did gwern do? Describe their actions as if your Reddit link didn't exist.

Are you upset about the contents of that IRC transcript? Because gwern already said that had nothing to do with the investigation, and I believe them. They mention the Internet Archive as one way of verifying the authenticity of various internet posts / timestamps, for example.

Perhaps what's going on here is that bitcoin enthusiasts are upset that Satoshi may have been identified.

Listen, I believe in the principle of charity. I know you're smart, so there's something that I'm missing here. But you haven't described specific things that you believe should tank gwern's reputation. Again: What specifically are you upset with? Those signatures have nothing to do with the investigation. So I'd like to understand what else there is.

> I chose my words carefully. What, precisely, did gwern do? Describe their actions as if your Reddit link didn't exist.

I also chose my words carefully. I pointed out that he was involved in making this accusation. He used faulty reasoning from poor misevidence to draw a conclusion that can bring tremendous harm to others. Article states his involvement, plus private correspondence of ~30 days of work on this article, plus I have known him for years and we talk about Satoshi speculation a bunch thus how I know that he has actually looked at the misevidence. I suppose the other issue is that he's from the "lesswrong" community which claims to be better at reasoning, but the only kind of reasoning that would be complicit with glossing over such substantially useless "evidence" is ... motivated reasoning.

> Perhaps what's going on here is that bitcoin enthusiasts are upset that Satoshi may have been identified.

Nah, I am just as curious as anyone else. I also know that finding Satoshi 4realz is going to bring tremendous danger to whoever that person was.

Yeah, good points. Thanks for your patience, and sorry that my replies were blunt. It's late, but there's really no excuse. Have a good evening.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact