Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

evanhatch.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#61

Post by perl4ever »

drfxyjhdyfrhgc wrote: post #30
perl4ever wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this means what? I certainly could provide a counterexample if you think people always use pseudonyms of the same gender.

If someone chooses a male pseudonym, is it sensible for everyone to individually decide what pronouns to use? This strikes me as opposed to similar etiquette.

I always liked the singular "they". It was supposedly normal usage for hundreds of years before some prescriptivists tried to stamp it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

"The singular they emerged by the 14th century,[3] about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since then and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who considered it an error."

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#62

Post by temp8964 »

3np wrote: post #56
temp8964 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. A technology article use they/them for a specific individual is a very new invention. Please don't make up stuff and claim this is a norm.

If you read the replies to your other comments before writing this you would know that “they as singular” has centuries of use (which is besides the point as language is a living thing). Also, see the HN guidelines.

No. Centuries of use for non specific person, not in this case.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#63

Post by temp8964 »

dnqthao wrote: post #59
temp8964 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the examples, "they" are all used in a general sense not pointing to any specific individual. In this case, Satoshi is a Japanese male name. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, there is no reason to pretend you don't know the gender.

I think people already explained above that Satoshi is just a pseudonym so there is nothing certain about the person’s gender.

No. The norm is follow the gender assumption based on the pseudonym. If the person picked a female name, everyone would happily call the person “she”, as it should be.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#64

Post by perl4ever »

Spooky23 wrote: post #29
perl4ever wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not even known that Satoshi was an individual, how is it known they weren't a woman?

The individual used a male name, so it’s reasonable to make that assumption in common speech. In terms of individual vs group, it seems unlikely that a group would have the discipline to not do anything with billions of dollars or expose the individual with control of the same.

>The individual used a male name, so it’s reasonable to make that assumption in common speech.

As long as you don't know it's a pseudonym, yes. I don't know when that became generally accepted.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#65

Post by abathur »

temp8964 wrote: post #50
dcow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing woke about this. Trust me I am not a fan of useless woke constructs that exist to signal virtue. I’m sure we agree on that. This is not one of those things. When you are referring to some entity with unknown gender, you use “they” and “their” so as not to lead the reader or the person you're speaking towards any assumptions and just because it’s the clearly correct way to convey the state of affairs…

Lol. If what you said make any sense at all, why this they/them is not a norm in English already? Please explain why this is a new thing?

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#66

Post by miracle2k »

temp8964 wrote: post #50
dcow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing woke about this. Trust me I am not a fan of useless woke constructs that exist to signal virtue. I’m sure we agree on that. This is not one of those things. When you are referring to some entity with unknown gender, you use “they” and “their” so as not to lead the reader or the person you're speaking towards any assumptions and just because it’s the clearly correct way to convey the state of affairs…

Lol. If what you said make any sense at all, why this they/them is not a norm in English already? Please explain why this is a new thing?

It is not a new thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#67

Post by temp8964 »

miracle2k wrote: post #66
temp8964 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. If what you said make any sense at all, why this they/them is not a norm in English already? Please explain why this is a new thing?

It is not a new thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Please read other comments in the thread.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#68

Post by panorama »

temp8964 wrote: post #57
panorama wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've "made stuff up" about entire languages in your previous reply. I am struggling to find more ways to explain that, in English, it is acceptable to refer to unknown quantities or identities of people with "they" and "them". "My bank denied my loan application again, I can't believe them!" - Correct - Unknown, amorphous entity, regardless if the rejection was specifically caused by a man or woman or otherwise. "t…

No. The author of the article already assumed Satoshi is a singular person. Your argument is irrelevant in this context.

It is curious to me that it seems okay to defer to the author's assumption that Satoshi is a singular person, while at the same time denouncing how they refer to that person. You are okay with one uncertain assumption but not another. I think if you are willing to defer to the author here that benefit of the doubt should extend to the rest of their writing.

However, if we assume that Satoshi is a singular person, how do you suggest we refer to pseudonymous individuals whose gender and identity are unknown? Again, is it acceptable that I insist on referring to you as she/her without knowing who you are?

Assuming that it is the chosen, gendered name-on-the-internet that matters, if I were born biologically male but then undergo a sex change procedure and then and adopt a feminine name like Jane Smith in my work, would it be acceptable in your eyes to refer to me as she/her by default? Surely in this case, he/him or they/them would be unacceptable, if I follow your logic correctly.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#69

Post by robbedpeter »

qez wrote: post #60
programmarchy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was also probably not one person, but a group.

No, there is no reason to believe that.

There is reason to disbelieve it. The text analyses that have been done point at Satoshi being an individual.

Beyond that, if it were a group, they could have used someone as a spokesperson, but then you have a conspiracy of Satoshis, which is less possible. People, and especially geeks, like to talk. Someone would have tripped up by now, or moved bitcoin to fiat.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#70

Post by grey-area »

temp8964 wrote: post #28
panorama wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Satoshi's identity and whether or not they were a singular individual or a group of individuals is unknown. It is entirely acceptable, and more often than not probabilistically and politically correct, to use they/them here. I doubt anyone would be upset at people using he/him when referring to Satoshi, but also along those same lines, it seems strange to be upset at they/them usage for an unknown entity.

I think the author of the article already assumes Satoshi is a single person. The name is simply a Japanese male name. So it is obviously wrong to call him "they". This kind of stupidity only works in Woke English. Translate it to most other languages will make the readers deeply confused: what's wrong with the writer? What's going on in his mind?

People have been using singular they since at least 1375.

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

Post reply on HN