Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? My quest to unmask Bitcoin's creator

Post by mlrtime » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 9:42 AM UTC

bilekas wrote: post #498

nekitamo wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of their journalists also doxxed Naomi Wu, intruding on her personal life, making her lose her income, and possibly getting her in trouble with Chinese authorities: https://x.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1209815150376574976 The journalist themselves is a real piece of work: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at... Kinda goes to show you the kind of people who write these stories. Ethics haven'…

> “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong said in one tweet from 2014 that has since been deleted. You weren't messing, she seems lovely.. /s

Post by PunchTornado » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 9:47 AM UTC

gyomu wrote: post #312

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…

Post by pas » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 9:51 AM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #295

madars wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major problem with the article is the author's inability to weigh the evidence: actual evidence, like presence/absence pattern, is buried whereas p-hacking stylometry (let me try another expert, this one didn't give me what I wanted! let me feed him the Satoshi/Adam Back tells that I'm already in love with!) is majority of the article. It also includes absolute garbage like the vistomail spoof email during the bloc…

I've had the fortune/misfortune to be directly or peripherally involved in nearly a dozen situations that made it to press and there isn't a single case where the story represented in the article wasn't blatantly misinterpreted from the facts. In nearly every case what was mentioned in the article was the complete opposite of what actually happened. Biggest/Most-egregious offenders were Vice and Vox Media but include…

Post by olalonde » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 9:53 AM UTC

FinnKuhn wrote: post #568

Thorrez wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the much more plausible reason?

That the person is dead would be a pretty convincing one. Or they just lost access.

Post by user34283 » Thu, Apr 09, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #577

SXX wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even hundreds of millions. It's tens of billions of dollars if we suppose someone actually have access to these wallets. Bitcoins across old unused wallets worth $30B to $80B depend of how you count it.

> Bitcoins across old unused wallets worth $30B to $80B depend of how you count it. It's worth considerably less if you make any attempt to count it accurately. The market capitalization reflects the fact that old unused wallets are unused. If they stopped being unused, market capitalization would drop.