541–550 of 905 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dihydrogen monoxide - a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents[0] [0]: https://www.dhmo.org/
100% of people who've ever had DHMO have died. This is scientifically verified and yet nobody does anything about it.
Simple question for anyone who’s familiar with this world of journalism: how does the author and the NYTimes cope with the fact that making such claims paint a huge target on the person they claim to have “unmasked”? Satoshi’s wallets are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and there have been kidnappings/torture/murders for much less than that. Do they just not care about the ethical implications? And really, for…
Here is an argument for the greater public good.
Transparency. Bitcoin acts as an alternative global monetary system. It’s not centralized but whales can control the game. Acquisition of bitcoins are asymmetrical, meaning first adopters gained an enormous wealth and became whales virtually for free. So we can say it’s a rigged game. It becomes important to know who are all those people that can control a global monetary system. If Satoshi is an individual it may not matter. But what if it’s an organization, like CIA or o group of bankers. What if it was Epstein or Elon Musk, unlikely but viable candidates but the implications are huge.
Also we assume Bitcoin is for good and maker of a good thing can be anonymous. What if it is a harmful thing, like a Ponzi scheme to grab people’s money. Then Satoshi becomes a criminal rather than a hero, and public must know the name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's keep in mind that doxxing is not a universal concept nor are its mechanisms universally perceived as negative/frowned upon outside of specific online areas. I don't know of any law against it except for specific populations like law enforcement and even those usually have exceptions for journalism.
I believe it widely understood to be what most people call "a douche move".
So the real truth is "it depends". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Can I just ask why people are so fixated on revealing Satoshi's identity? This article phrases it as some pure, innocent and almost academic pursuit, driven by curiosity and the mystique itself. But the amount of effort spent on trying to find Satoshi is immense. He must be the internet's most doxxed person by now. Is it just because of his wealth? Is someone trying to exact revenge on him? Or is he wanted by the aut…
Probably the same reason people remain interested in the identity of Jack the Ripper, despite over 130 years having passed.
See also, DB Cooper and who stole the FIFA World Cup.
Nothing wrong with a good mystery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At which point the bitcoin in legacy wallets is clearly worthless
It would be insane for the Bitcoin protocol to make Bitcoin in non QR wallets worthless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Carreyrou give reasons for eliminating Hal Finney from being (part or all of) Satoshi?
(part or all of) Your aside suggests you might already have considered what I'm about propose, but why not Finney and Back both as Satoshi? The reporting already establishes all three parties (Satoshi being the third) were familiar/friendly with one another. The reporting says that Finney was the recipient of the first ever Bitcoin transaction, which seems like a completely natural thing to do if the two of you are w…
That implies it's just Back who was the Satoshi poster. And if so, you don't have any evidence Finney is a technical co-founder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems very unlikely to me. I've had personal correspondence with Satoshi, and met Adam Back in person, and I can't see it. Actually I don't see how anyone involved with Blockstream could be identified as Satoshi. They never believed in what Satoshi was doing and built their whole company around the claim that Satoshi had screwed up the core of the system's design, despite that nothing about the design or its assum…
>why would you do that if you were rich? Satoshi can't spend any of his bitcoins without tanking bitcoin's price. So Satoshi needs to find some other way to support himself. Creating bitcoin related companies is one way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking along the same lines. Isn't it just doxxing? Going deep into someone's online history and making hypothesis about who they are in real life, then publishing their name and what they do?
Let's keep in mind that doxxing is not a universal concept nor are its mechanisms universally perceived as negative/frowned upon outside of specific online areas. I don't know of any law against it except for specific populations like law enforcement and even those usually have exceptions for journalism.
The right to privacy here never meant "noone may know that I exist".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for a good counterbalance to those just finding out the nyt is a state dept mouthpiece at best, read about real journalists and why there seem to be so few of them, read Pegasus by laurent richard. Spoiler alert, real journalists who expose powerful peoples' wrongdoings simply get killed.
One of the journalists was Jason Koebler who later cofounded 404media. That is imho pretty legit outlet which uncovered many pretty damning stories about tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After events of last 4 years in Russia you can probably be killed there for $100 or for a wrong look. Lots of trigger happy ex-convict veterans with PTSD are around. For now they are busy killing their wives and relatives, but eventually they will run out of money for alcohol and will have to find a "job".
sad state indeed. people deserve better than that