> "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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Not with this degree of certainty.
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.
>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.
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.
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...
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 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.