[eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7]

EDIT: Please explain in the comments - because I seriously do not understand that - why on earth you are downvoting this!? You're advocating something cruel. WTF? What is the problem about saying "leave a person alone who apparently WANTS to be left alone?". You're advocating stalking.

The people who trying to figure out who Satoshi is and make it public should realize this:

What they're effectively doing is trying to completely destroy someone's life just for them having written a piece of software.

Because then everyone will assume (EDIT: not *know*, see the comments) that the person is insanely rich. And beyond the glorification of being rich everyone forgets what it actually means:

You're a prisoner of your money.

Want to go to a pub and have a beer? Not possible, you might get kidnapped or at least harassed by paparazzi.

Want to go outside for a walk? Same as above.

Want friends? Nope, how are you gonna find them if you cannot go outside? How can you trust anyone? Maybe they just want your money?

Of course, the rich can mingle among each other. But this very much limits your possible circle of social contacts, and there's no law of nature which says that someone like Sathoshi might even want to be friends with Justin Bieber etc., or vice versa.

Hobbies? Only those you can do alone.

Want a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse? See above.

Also as a bonus a large portion of the public will HATE you, no matter what you do. Just see how much HN hates crypto.

You might get tortured for money, lynched or whatever cruel imagination you can come up with. Enough people know you = anything is possible.

Satoshi apparently wants to be left alone so you should do just that.

They gave you a software for free which spawned a whole industry, they don't deserve to be harassed for that. If you don't like it then don't use it, but don't destroy the developer's life. Nobody forces you to use it - and even if someone did then go harass them, not the developer.

[fairity]

Well, to start with, you're exaggerating. His life will meaningfully change (perhaps for the worse, by his standards), but his life won't be "destroyed" -- at least not by any reasonable standard. There are plenty of well-known billionaires who are perfectly happy.

To put this another way: is the search for knowledge immoral, if discovering that knowledge will inadvertently harm a person? That's sort of a deep question -- one which doesn't have a definitive answer, but your comment preaches as though it did.

[eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7]

Thanks for taking the care of explaining!

> but his life won't be "destroyed" -- at least not by any reasonable standard. There are plenty of well-known billionaires who are perfectly happy.

1. The person has actively signaled that they do NOT want to be known by trying to stay anonymous. You're acting against their will. It is thus false to assume that they would like it. They have basically told you that they won't.

2. Destruction, in a minimal definition, means changing something so much it is completely different from what it was.

So to prove this is not destructive, name me the aspects of their personal life which will NOT be affected by suddenly the whole planet assuming they are rich.

There are probably none. Everything of their existing life will likely change.

So this is quite destructive isn't it?

And sure, their new life afterwards (if they don't get murdered) might be likeable as well.

But is it your right to replace the whole of someone's life with something different and expect them to like it?

It's a pretty intrusive attitude.

> To put this another way: is the search for knowledge immoral, if discovering that knowledge will inadvertently harm a person?

Yes in this case, because that knowledge is completely worthless for producing any real usable thing. So there is no benefit of the knowledge to value its harm against.

You can read how Bitcoin works in the source code, and deduce all necessary financial decisions from that. No need to know about the developer is needed. Bitcoin is trust-less so they have zero power on what it does. The code is its law.

So overall, what people are seeking is not knowledge but entertainment.

And it is super cruel to hurt someone for entertainment.

[nullc]

> You're a prisoner of your money.

Moreover, all these claims of Satoshi having a lot of money are pretty much just speculation -- all they do is show that some early miner mined a few hundred thousand bitcoin. They don't show that miner is Satoshi, that's just a plausible guess because the people speculating know of few other early Bitcoin users. They also don't show that whomever mined those coins hasn't lost the keys for them.

Any person 'identified' as Satoshi may not actually be Satoshi anyways, people have shown that they're remarkably able to believe utter drivel.

So now imagine all the problems you listed but apply them to someone who isn't actually wealthy because because that early miner wasn't them, they're not Bitcoin's creator, or because the assets had been lost back when they were worth very little. They'd still be subject to all the assumptions and thus threats, but not be able to buy their way out of them to the extent that it's possible to do so-- e.g. they couldn't afford the multi-million dollar a year security.

(Someone might reply to you that if their problem was wealth they didn't want they could always dispose of it, but that just reduces to the problem above: people wouldn't believe they did so it wouldn't solve the problem, it would only remove the best tool they have to ameliorate it)

> They gave you a software for free which spawned a whole industry, they don't deserve to be harassed for that. If you don't like it then don't use it, but don't destroy the developer's life. Nobody forces you to use it

Not just that, the very premise and fundamental design of Bitcoin was to give its creator no particular control or authority over it. So their identity doesn't really matter. The fetishization of the identity of Bitcoin's creator is a stupendous act of missing the entire point.

People shouldn't delude themselves that they're not engaging in a mean and harmful act against someone who never caused them harm. It's gross and creepy. If Satoshi is still alive and wanted to be known, he would be. Not only did he expressly complain about the speculation about his identity when he was around (in the last message he sent before disappearing), his continued silence shows he isn't interested in now.

[petertodd]

> What they're effectively doing is trying to completely destroy someone's life just for them having written a piece of software.

Also, in the process, they could easily destroy someone else's life through a mistaken identification.

[dghlsakjg]

I say this only partially in jest: not just harassed, but harassed by crypto nerds

[VWWHFSfQ]

Or harassed by that supposed journalist who tried to expose that old guy she tracked down just because he was Japanese and was formerly some kind of engineer

[bcrosby95]

Paparazzi don't care about Satoshi. Neither does the public, which is why the paparazzi doesn't.

He might have a person or two recognize him in a month. Most of them would never approach him.

[eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7]

Even if that is true there is no guarantee it will stay like that:

Bitcoin has amassed a $1T valuation in like what, 10 years?, of existing.

Who knows how popular it will be in another 10 years, 20 years? Could be gone. Or could have replaced the dollar.

If you de-anonymize the person now, they will be affected by that forever, not just now.

[wallacoloo]

i agree with the sentiment, however, it’s wishful thinking.

Bitcoin exists in a space within game theory where everyone is in a constant adversarial relation with everyone else. it’s an explicit design, and that relationship is the only way we really know that the software and cryptography are sound. but you can’t completely isolate the protocol from its surroundings. the adversarial challenge of trying to break the bitcoin protocol is going to leak into the adjacent challenge of trying to de-anonymous the person who explicitly wanted to remain pseudonymous. in a twisted sense, if SN remains pseudonymous under the extreme pressure of thousands trying to de-anonymize him, that’s the only way we can really be sure that anonymization is still possible in the modern age.

[nullc]

> remains pseudonymous under the extreme pressure of thousands trying to de-anonymize him, that’s the only way we can really be sure that anonymization is still possible in the modern age.

Other unwilling human beings aren't appropriate test subjects for your conjectures about security and privacy. If you'd like to test a security hypothesis, offer up yourself or your family for attack-- don't nominate other people.

[wallacoloo]

see:

> i agree with the sentiment, however, it’s wishful thinking.

if you’re trying to persuade me that i shouldn’t use SN as an unwilling test subject, save your breath: i’m not engaged in any effort to de-anonymize him. his project is founded on adversarial mechanics within an extrajudicial (i.e. lawless) space: it’s naive to think those mechanics won’t bleed over from the project to its adjacencies. that’s the point i’m trying to make.

[nullc]

Thanks for clarifying.

Your comment still could be read as justifying "he was asking for it", or at least "he should have expected it". I'm not sure if that's what you intend, but I don't agree with that.

When Satoshi left Bitcoins were worth essentially nothing (and obviously when it was created). There is no shortage of example 'experts' from back then that were convinced that Bitcoin would always be worth nothing or nearly so. In such a state Bitcoin is just some random obscure open source P2P application (in fact, Wikipedia initially deleted the article on it exactly as such).

[MrMan]

finally someone speaking my language

[krm01]

Nice try Satoshi

[xqoiu]

Example: Warren Buffett's personal security budget

> Keeping the boss safe has cost [Berkshire] an average of US$339,000 a year since 2008, or US$4.4 million in total.

https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/style/luxury/article/3126736/...

[triceratops]

No sarcasm, that honestly sounds pretty cheap. About the price of a mid-level FAANG SWE.

[johannes1234321]

Comparing it to an SWE is not a good comparison.

However that sum is low. You need 24/7 security people at watch, both guarding him and the home and then also key family members.

It is possible that he prefers a low attention detail, which reduces cost. But we're still easily talking about a mid two digit number for full-time personal.

It is however likely that different aspects are accounted differently (general company estate security etc.)

[eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7]

If you had to be constantly followed by security people the whole day, would your complete loss of privacy be alleviated by them being cheap?

Include in the equation that Satoshi additionally likely is a person who puts a high value on privacy, given that they ensured to be anonymous up to now.

[triceratops]

I think you misinterpreted the meaning of my comments. $339k is a bargain for Berkshire (or whoever pays it) considering who they're protecting. That's all.

[db65edfc7996]

Seems cheap for a man worth $100B?