Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history • Hacker News Board

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#71

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

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?

[deleted]

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#72

Post by cassonmars » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:05 AM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #63

dnqthao wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem really upset about this. Why does a pronoun choice bother you so strongly?

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#73

Post by temp8964 » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:05 AM UTC

panorama wrote: post #68

temp8964 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. It has nothing to do with the real person’s gender.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#74

Post by temp8964 » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:06 AM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #70

temp8964 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Please read other comments in the thread first.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#75

Post by temp8964 » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:07 AM UTC

cassonmars wrote: post #72

temp8964 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem really upset about this. Why does a pronoun choice bother you so strongly?

Because it’s grammatically inconsistent.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#76

Post by RealityVoid » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:10 AM UTC

trixie_ wrote: post #37

My money is on Paul Le Roux.. most hackers are too uppity to write windows software. Le Roux was a pragmatist with a real practical need to move dirty money without banks.

Yes, but, really, the very pragmatical nature of Le Roux somehow makes me doubt he would have left the initial wallets untouched all these years. He is an interesting character, for sure, but does not seem the kind to not use a big lever at his disposal.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#77

Post by psyc » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #48

It’s funny that people always guess that Satoshi is someone already famous as opposed to someone who is not known.

Thank you. I’ve been saying this for years. He could very well have been some listserv lurker who followed the prior art, and just went ahead and solved the outstanding problems on his own. There are far more brilliant programmers out there working quietly, than those who are known. Everybody reaches for a name they know because that’s all that’s available to reach for.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#78

Post by miracle2k » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #63

dnqthao wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's fine to use he/him for a male pseudonym.

However, in an article in which you speculate about the real identity behind a pseudonym, suggesting any possible gender or plurality, you should use /they/, this being the whole point of what your doing.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#79

Post by crb002 » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:24 AM UTC

Somebody at Dice.com probably still has satoshi's IP logs.

Re: Len Sassaman and Satoshi: A cypherpunk history

#80

Post by panorama » Sun, Oct 10, 2021, 5:25 AM UTC

temp8964 wrote: post #73

panorama wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. It has nothing to do with the real person’s gender.

I'm glad to hear you think we should refer to people by their chosen pronouns! Perhaps there's some woke to you after all? ;)

I still would love to hear how you think people should refer to you, especially if you have not asserted your own pronouns. It seems, in reference to you, this is a classic, centuries-old case of singular 'they' being perfectly acceptable.