651–660 of 905 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could tank the price to $1000 and still be a billionaire. There's a much more plausible reason for why Satoshi's coins haven't moved.
Who would realistically not want to cash out? 1. Someone so purely interested in the tech and not money they'd give up the wealth 2. Governments, specifically the ones that don't consider a few billion to be a lot 3. Someone who's dead
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.
I.e. it makes sense to have a long term planned migration of what's active rather than any type of instantaneous rush/change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could tank the price to $1000 and still be a billionaire. There's a much more plausible reason for why Satoshi's coins haven't moved.
What's the much more plausible reason?
I have always thought Satoshi must be dead (as a couple of past suspects are). How could someone not want one hundred BILLION dollars? There is no person alive who could resist that. I'm sorry, there's just not. To be fair, if Back was Satoshi, he would need to hide it so his company can go public, or whatever. Because that way he might make -- who knows! -- hundreds of millions of dollars? Even if moving the coins c…
If you already have a lot of money (and Adam has) then why would you cash out early? Your money is already in asset specifically designed (by you) to beat markets and be bubble resistant
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…
For the last point, I agree there's a sort of "who cares" aspect to the piece. There is no artistic intent to interpret. The product speaks for itself making BTC the default crypto coin instead of any of the other millions of coins. The wealth from the founder, from what I can tell, has not been instrumentalized in any significant way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why does everybody assume that whoever is Satoshi still has access to their wallet? It's absolutely possible whoever is Satoshi has simply lost the key. We're talking new technology where you're running fast and loose. It's absolutely possible, and I'd say a big reason why someone would not want to admit to being Satoshi. I'm Satoshi, but I also lost billions because I messed up a Debian upgrade .
Or what if Satoshi deliberately destroyed their key? The motivations behind Bitcoin were clear. All the wealthy people I know don’t really do it for the money. The money is the gauge or the metric they use to judge how well they are playing the game but what motivates them is the love of the game and their sense of purpose. If someone was to truly believe that Bitcoin was going to be a gold/USD/Eurodollar/swift etc.…
I think there's a pretty good chance Adam Back is Satoshi, but I don't think this is a great article. Perhaps he's rendering a careful scientific process in a way that makes for a readable narrative, but as written, it sounds like a lot of gut feel and confirmation bias. The biggest new contribution to the Satoshi question seems to be ad hoc stylometry. To have faith in his methodology, he should be testing it on ide…
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…
Edit: I see you addressed this elsewhere. Thanks for contributing!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was the CIA and anyone who aren't starry eyed tech dorks has known this forever
The skills would be at the NSA for this project
This is obviously that which we know of and we're both essentially agreeing as the NSA/CIA work together often and in secret ala Stuxnet.
Bad science, -- article contains a litany of points that are true for many other people (myself)-- and a number of the bits of I have personal experience with are just flatly untrue or misleading, e.g. citing Back's name at the top of a paper I coauthored as evidence of his importance to it, -- the names were alphabetic. Not that it was an important point, but I think failing to notice the names being alphabetic and…
Yeah, some of the article's points really weren't persuasive.
> “Scrap patents and copyright,” Mr. Back wrote in September 1997. In keeping with this belief, Mr. Back made his Hashcash spam-throttling software open source.
^, the belief of >90% of people that have used a mailing list.
> Mr. Back and Satoshi also both created internet mailing lists dedicated to their creations — the Hashcash list and the Bitcoin-dev list — where they posted software updates listing new features and bug fixes in a format and style that looked strikingly similar.
The links are https://www.freelists.org/post/hashcash/hashcash113-released and https://web.archive.org/web/20130401141714/http://sourceforg... .
How are they "strikingly similar"?
> I brought up one of Satoshi’s quotes, but before I had a chance to explain why I was mentioning it, Mr. Back interrupted. > > Me: There’s a quote that I mentioned earlier where Satoshi says, “I’m better with code than with words.” > > Adam Back: I did a lot of talking though for somebody, I mean … I mean, I’m not saying I’m good with words but I sure did a lot of yakking on these lists actually. > > To my ears, it sounded like he was saying that for someone who preferred code over words, he sure had written a lot of words. Implicit in that was an acknowledgment that he had been the one who wrote the quote.
That's quite a stretch.
Some other evidence was a little persuasive though.
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…
> Pretty compelling story. Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all. When is the line crossed from journalism into doxxing? Whoever created Bitcoin has a legitimate safety reason to stay anonymous. Anyone suspected of holding that much wealth becomes a target - as does their family.