621–630 of 905 posts
It's interesting how those who are looking to expose Satoshi often ignore some pretty obvious clues and facts. Though given that I respect his/her anonymity, I'll leave it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You find it likely that someone would give up their ~$70B fortune just in case it may reveal they are the creator of Bitcoin?
I find it likely that someone who realised that if they were to touch that paper fortune the Bitcoin price will totally crater would have made additional billions they could actually access by mining more bitcoin at a point where the difficulty was still ridiculously low. The value of the bitcoins in those early wallets isn't real, because they are the most watched bitcoin wallets in existence, and any movement there…
First, they could just liquidate all their other BTC before moving the Satoshi coins.
Second, even with a significant price impact, the net worth of an additional 1M BTC would surely outweigh any realistic price slippage.
Third, the price probably wouldn't even crash that much. We're talking about a 5% increase in supply... which rationally, should result in a ~5% dip in price. I know the market would overreact, but I doubt it would be by much more than say 20%.
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…
By definition, if they’re not concerned about the ethics, they are not journalists and their occupation is not journalism. Nor does your employer’s reputation[1] allow them to claim such titles simple because they sign your pay cheque. You can’t inherit the title like that. Journalist/journalism is like leader/leadership… too often used inappropriately, too often used to mislead, too often used inappropriately. Words…
Pretty compelling story. Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all. If it were by anyone else, I would have stopped reading after the first thousand words of meandering narrative, but Carreyrou is staking his massive and impeccable investigative journalistic reputation on this mountain of circumstantial evidence and statistical analysis. Him tor…
I think it's a pretty good case. I always wondered why would the inventor would use pseudonym in the first place. Surely, not even the most visionary person could anticipate how hugely popular the thing would become. This is why I was intrigued by Newsweek investigation [1]. However, seeing this article, I am leaning towards the person being someone who had been active in crypto culture for a long while, before creat…
Doesn't wondering such disqualify you as reasonably informed concerning any online culture related topics, let alone something connected to cypherpunk ideals? Pseudonyms were always the norm, it was always weirder to see somebody operating out in the open when they were plotting ways to use technology to asymmetrically alter society itself.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-04-08/rob...
I can see how some people get more excited and want to follow stories more closely but as I get older I notice how most of the time I don’t value it as much, and like trustworthy sources that deal with the detail to provide useful summaries and highlights for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were to attempt to transfer money out if those wallets it would have a knock on effect on the price.
Which is why fining the owners of the wallets should be a huge deal: they can crash bitcoin whenever is most convenient for them. It always baffles me that people have near religious faith in a Holy Satoshi that walks away from billions of dollars “for the sake of the game”. If he’s really so unconcerned with money or fame, it would be far more interesting for him to build it up precisely to blow it down. That’s some…
I'm not so sure about this. Bitcoin thrives on vibes. The second coming of Satoshi (as evidence by control over his wallets), would surely drive a lot of Bitcoin hype.
Adam fits better as someone Satoshi respected, not who Satoshi was... Bitcoin explicitly cites hashcash. If Adam was so careful, why would he name himself in the paper; tongue-in-cheek? hide in plain sight? I don't buy it... Hal Finney is the strongest alternative, but even there, I’m not fully convinced. Hal had the technical profile, mined early, and received the first transaction. But he also feels almost too obvi…
I had always assumed that all of them shared the pseudonym of Satoshi, along with Nick Szabo. Back wrote the white paper with input from Hal and Nick Szabo. Sassaman did the coding work on the client. Sassaman had the keys to the Satoshi wallet, hence it never moving since his passing. Since Satoshi is a collective, it means that each of them individually can claim, without lying, that they're not Satoshi. That's my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always found that case a bit odd. For one he was blogging under his real name and had made his medical practice known, so you could just google him. It was upending his psychiatry practice because he blogged, albeit in anonymized fashion, about his patients without disclosing it to them which I'd say is unethical but at the very least in the interest of his patients to be made known to them. I would be pretty pisse…
He was not blogging under his real name. Scott Alexander is not his real name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An estimated 22,000 addresses, 1.1 million Bitcoin. Present value $78 billion. That would make him the 23rd richest person in the world. Bill Gates by comparison is 'only' worth $102 billion these days. If you priced Gates backwards in gold, his $102 billion is about $13 billion two decades ago. He hasn't kept ahead of the destruction of the dollar very well.
> He hasn't kept ahead of the destruction of the dollar very well. You can't price dollars in gold to measure value. Gold doesn't measure value better than the dollar at any point in time, let alone over time. Just use the price index for one currency, or the relative price indexes across currencies.
However, since the world largely went off the gold standard, the purchasing power of gold has been a lot more volatile.