[downer87]

Not only that, why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy of recognition?

Not until we know who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Until then, bitcoin is just another internet clusterfuck.

Don't tell me it's not relevant who he/she is. It is relevant. It's a clear demonstration of our own incompetence. Without that information in hand, we're nothing more than rats following a pied piper.

[algorias]

> why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy of recognition?

I agree, but the reason you state has nothing to do with it. Who the fuck cares who Satoshi is? Why does it matter, given that the protocol operates independently from its original author and research can be done on it without his/her permission? Finally, who is this we you keep talking about?

[robryk]

The point here is that Satoshi is believed to have access to wallets with a great number of early-mined bitcoins. The wallets were unused since a few years and can be used to suddenly increase the amount of bitcoin in circulation, which'd devalue it significantly.

[VMG]

You're right, all crypto-currencies should be treated equally.

But your flawed reasoning regarding the significance of Satoshi Nakamoto's identity is the reason they chose to be anonymous.

Just for the sake of argument, assume that it is Hal Finney. What now?

[downer87]

If it was Hal Finney, then we'd actually know who it was. There would be a degree of closure.

Without that closure, there's a mysterious gaping black hole that only adds to all the other uncertainties that come naturally with a new frontier like crypto-currency.

If we can't answer fundamental questions about the bandwagon we're expected to jump on, worse yet, when we're told that we shouldn't even ask, then it is correct to be suspicious about the motivations of those who might herd us, and toward what ends they might march us into.

[VMG]

> There would be a degree of closure.

There would be relentless questioning of him, his views and his motivations.