[bro-stick]

There is a strong incentive for SN to stay anonymous now: extortion, GBH threats, kidnapping, tax evasion, etc.

This could be some guy feigning humblebragging to fool prospective customers, or the vaguest individual Wired decided to hoist the label onto because it garners eyeballs in a Daily Mail way that's hard to repute.

The raid is explained because many governments want evidence for tax evasion and evading the conventional banking system... control SN = control BTC.

[aianus]

> control SN = control BTC

It's a decentralized, open-source protocol. SN couldn't do anything to it if he wanted to.

[Fuzzwah]

He could sell off his massive holdings of BTC and cause another crash.

[api]

A few hundred mil would cause a dip, perhaps a pullback for a bit, but not doomsday.

[xorque]

and then he would get stolen his fiat immediately

[prawn]

Hasn't that incentive always existed?

[snewk]

Many governments are interested in finding Satoshi. They need a scapegoat to pin this bitcoin thing on. They still believe finding him/her might be effective method of getting rid of bitcoin. It's like trump wanting to go ask bill gates about locking up the internet.

[oh_sigh]

Proof for these ludicrous statements please.

[snewk]

i admit i don't have conclusive proof. however, is it really 'ludicrous' to speculate that those in power seek to destroy bitcoin in any way possible? especially when taking into account how vocally anti-establishment the bitcoin community has become.

[krapp]

> is it really 'ludicrous' to speculate that those in power seek to destroy bitcoin in any way possible? especially when taking into account how vocally anti-establishment the bitcoin community has become.

No one is that afraid of the bitcoin community, or of bitcoin itself. The bitcoin fringe is only novel in their application of the blockchain towards the problem of reducing the risk in organized crime. The world has heard the anarchist, anti-bank rhetoric before, and for that matter, from groups that actually blow up banks and murder people to further their goals.

There seems to be no evidence of any government seeking to "destroy bitcoin in any way possible." One would expect there to be fewer bitcoin based companies openly operating if that were the case. Rather, it appears that governments have reacted to bitcoin by defining it in terms of their existing regulatory frameworks, and deciding whether or not, and how, it can legally be used and taxed.

So yes, it does seem a bit ludicrous.

[Retra]

It's as ludicrous as any other baseless, unfounded conspiracy theory. What you are doing looks an awful lot like rationalization, and despite it's name, it is not very rational at all.