[dotancohen]

  > Pretty compelling story. Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all.

When is the line crossed from journalism into doxxing? Whoever created Bitcoin has a legitimate safety reason to stay anonymous. Anyone suspected of holding that much wealth becomes a target - as does their family.

[tptacek]

There is no such line. The actual line is whether someone is newsworthy; the safeguard you have against journalism abusing random people (which it has done, often, over the last 150 years) is that journalists ordinarily don't write intrusive stories about random people.

(There are some other safeguards, but they're highly situational.)

The conflict between journalism and "doxxing" is a Redditism that people are frantically trying to import into real life. Maybe Reddit norms will upend the longstanding norms (and purpose) of journalism! But nobody should kid themselves that the norms have always been compatible.

[Topfi]

But are they themselves newsworthy or is it what they created and that they hold a lot of coins?

There are many people, both FOSS devs and working for major corporations, that have contributed or singularly been responsible for very impactful technologies, but in general, if that person wants to keep their persona discreet and there is no evidence they have done anything of public interest, the reporting remains purely on what they have done. Akin to why Wikipedia generally has rules for notability (I’d argue Satoshi falls under ONEVENT if we are strict here).

To me, the way you describe it, the line appears to be less in whether there may be a public interest and more whether there is public attention. In other words, is the line in the sand whether people should know this or whether they want to (and thus buy copies)?

Genuinely asking, is there a rule set on this the NYT should adhere to? What is the APs position for dem asking a pseudononymous character only notable for a specific thing?

[0xbadcafebee]

I agree, in that Journalism has always been an unethical business masquerading as moral imperative.

But I think this "Redditism applied to real life" is actually society grappling with the ethics of public safety and social accountability in the 21st century. Is it okay to dox a 16 year old Twitch streamer? Or a wealthy Satoshi? Or a crypto-Nazi? Laws only define so much, and we (society) have to fill in the gaps, which is messy. I think we're figuring out where the line is in real time.

[arrrg]

Doxxing (and the moral judgements attached to it) is a relatively new and not widespread concept.

You can’t just say “but this is doxxing” and expect people to know what you are talking about and also attach the same negative label to it as you do the same way you would when you call out murder or theft.

I personally don’t find “doxxing” that useful as a concept and as a guidepost to what I consider ethical or not. People who use the concept tend to be extremely zealous with at, to a point where anything identifying anyone is doxxing (and doxxing is to those people self-evidently unethical) and that just doesn’t seem useful or practical to me at all.

As to this particular case: if you create something as corrosive, destructive and powerful as Bitcoin society should know you. You don’t get to hide in anonymity at all.

[vintermann]

Isn't it a matter of legitimate interest for me to know whether you're obscenely rich or not? After all, if you are, you can probably do things like buying elections and sending hitmen after my family.

Either way, why can't they just deal with it the way other obscenely rich people deal with it?

[Cytobit]

People use the word doxxing as if it's a sin or something. Doxxing is only unethical in specific contexts.

[FireBeyond]

Except Satoshi has been "anonymous" and those Bitcoin have never moved, even when the sum total of that wallet might have been $10,000 or so.

And if Satoshi's holdings now exceed $1B, well, for better or worse, multiple courts have ruled that billionaires are inherently public figures, because of their "outsized effect on public discourse".

[lovecg]

It would be hilarious if he intentionally or accidentally lost the key, and has been trying to cash out through those Bitcoin adjacent business ventures ever since.

[bluecalm]

Even if he is Satoshi he might not be a billionaire or rich at all.

[empath75]

I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime. “Who is the creator of bitcoin?” is a matter of great public and historical interest. Finding out who he is, is the purest form of journalism.

[0xbadcafebee]

What does that say about pure journalism? Publish information despite doing harm? How do you present the information, and what impact does that presentation have?

Historically, newspapers often published the full name and physical address of every person they covered, from judges to drunks to rape victims to people suspected of a crime. I'm sure people back in the day called that pure journalism, but I don't think we'd call it "good" today. Our standards today might also not be as good as we assume.

[ghaff]

Historically, people got a big book every year with the name and address of most people in it. You could get unlisted numbers but now everyone has a cellphone which just isn’t broadly published but because now many use it for everything it’s probably not that hard to find.

Also, has others have noted it’s trivial to put other a list of wealthy people. In fact, it’s probably better to skip the Forbes 400 list who probably have some level of private security. Just go through the board member lists of Fortune 500 companies.

[bluecalm]

Speculating about it using arguments like "he also uses C++ and has used words popular in those circles" isn't though or at least shouldn't be.

"Hey this guy probably had an access to a few billion USD worth of btc, maybe still has, his name is X, he lives in Y. He wishes to be anonymous but he knows C++ and we got him!".

[Lu2025]

Username doesn't check out.

[catcowcostume]

Good point, personally I had never considered that doxing could be considered not illegal/crime.

[mlrtime]

It's a horrible point, it assumes that the person being doxxed is the claim of the doxer.

There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?

[empath75]

> There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?

What harm is caused by this article, do you think? He is already incredibly wealthy, already has security, and many people already assumed he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Claiming that someone invented a world altering technology is neither libel, nor defamation, _even if it an intentional lie_. If it is not a lie, or is merely a mistake it _certainly_ is neither.

[dotancohen]

  > What harm is caused by this article, do you think?

Many people who are assumed to be wealthy have family members kidnapped. Even those who turn out to be not wealthy.

[mlrtime]

Doxing itself is the harm, if not 100% validated. The article is purely subjective.

[shimon]

At what point does the use of clues to uncover the identity of a criminal cross the line from solid detective work to doxing? /s

[mschuster91]

> I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime.

The thing is, up until the advent of the internet it basically didn't matter - although in some cases, e.g. the German left-wing terror group "RAF", rich people did end up getting v&, in some cases killed. But that was a rarity.

But now with the possibilities of modern technology? Being able to be active on the Internet without hiding behind a pseudonym is a rare privilege. Wrong political opinion? Some nutjob from the opposite side can and will send anything from "pizza pranks" to outright SWAT to your home (or your parents, or ex-wife, or anyone they can identify as being associated with you). And if you got money? Stalkers, thieves, robbers, scammers, you will get targeted.