I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.
(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)
Having the "founder" anonymous and silent has been good for Bitcoin. Even if it didn't have any effect on the market (it would) everyone can fantasize and speculate about the motives for Bitcoin's creation, about the next moves, etc. So such founder is a superposition of anyone's idea. If that superposition collapses into one drug cartel boss, that would change many people's view about Bitcoin and it's purpose, legality and of course market price
> I want this to be true so we can stop having stories written about it once and for all.
Yup, I'm with you. At this point I don't care what the truth is, it would just be nice for it to be out in the open so the nonsense articles we get every single year stop.
It doesn't matter on a personal level to anyone not related, but it's a big deal for the BTC market. If sentencing ends up light, and Satoshi is free in a couple years, that's a huge number of BTC that could be then sold, crashing the market...
>(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)
Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright? Both of them have been actively craving recognition and courting notoriety of their own accord, for differing reasons ─ either due a flaw in their character or empty spots in their souls, probably not related to their genius. Regardless, they are not seeking any kind of redemption or permission from anyone, nor do they have any desire for privacy; although Paul Le Roux is already semi-anonymous due to his status as an asset.
> Are you talking about Paul Le Roux or Craig Wright?
Neither. I was talking about Satoshi Nakamoto.
It disturbs me that so many people are willing to unmask Satoshi.
More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?
One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy (whether or not it ever delivered, other people can debate). But there's a special kind of horribleness in working so hard to unmask someone who is in part famous because they helped build a privacy-protecting payment system.
Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not personally get to know the real world identity of one famous person understand how much it undercuts every other argument they will ever make about privacy? Shouldn't the Bitcoin community be collectively the biggest and most forceful group of advocates for leaving Satoshi the heck alone?
The hypocrisy of a website called "Invest In Blockchain" popularizing what is essentially a giant doxing campaign is apparently lost on this article's writers/editors.
"One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy"
Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi, who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things were created).
As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment privacy, since anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.
> the fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy
:shrug: I would take it as a strong indicator. Who else other than someone who cares about privacy uses a remailer? I'm not sure I buy the argument, "they were just anonymously registering domains for fun because they liked cryptography."
That being said, my point wasn't that Satoshi himself listed privacy as a selling point of Bitcoin, but that the community listed privacy as a selling point (and still often does). The hypocritical part isn't about what Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be -- it's seeing people who have argued that part of Bitcoin's importance is privacy then turn around and say, "except for this guy."
>It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy.
I agree that it is unsettling to watch a once in a lifetime concept that has privacy at it's core with a potential to empower so many in the future being ripped apart. At present, there is absolutely no information available other than speculation on whether it is a person(s), group(s) or a state-actor involved. Which coupled with no movement on the genesis block, with so much at stake ─ unfortunately, the attempts to de-anonymise or the prospect of more charlatans, will only increase and become even more bizarre.
>More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?
I'll be concerned about Satoshi's privacy when privacy is a concept that applies to anyone in modern society.
As it is, Satoshi is being treated no differently than anyone else the internet finds interesting.
(I mean, why does it matter? Someone desires privacy, and we as a community are hellbent on depriving them of any... what does that say about our moral character?)