[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