OP: Your account is interesting, but was it really necessary to confirm the doxxing?
Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
81–90 of 123 posts
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#82What cellphone app allowed you to buy and sell Bitcoins in July 2011? I didn't think QR codes were regularly used till late 2011/early 2012.
Yeah, there were several floating around at that time, as I recall. For example, Bitpay started up around that time, and they had a QR-code-enabled mobile app when they launched.
The first commit of bitcoin-wallet (most popular Android wallet presently) was March 8, 2011: https://github.com/schildbach/bitcoin-wallet
Here's another from that time: https://github.com/barmstrong/bitcoin-android
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the exact time he would owe them? I mean at what price? When he mined them and they were worthless? When he sells them? I think he either owes couple of cents or nothing.
You usually pay for this sort of thing based on profit, more or less. In this case, his basis is $0 (his cost to acquire the asset). Were he to sell all of them, his profit is essentially 100%; however, I'm not entirely sure how bitcoin gains are codified. If they're regular capital gains, then it's done around that cost basis ($0 in this case), but if they aren't, then I don't know.
There was a good post on the tax implications of Bitcoin by (what I think was) an actual accountant a while back. The gist is that it's taxable only when converted to real goods. So if he mined some number of coins early on and is just holding them in wallets, then he owes nothing. Any time anybody sells any coins for cash or any other real goods, they owe tax on the difference between the sale price and the original purchase price.
There hasn't been much formal on "purchase price" of mined coins as far as I know/remember. It's probably safest to treat them as a purchase price of zero, thus if you sell mined coins for $100, then you have a $100 income that you owe tax on. A clever accountant might be able to claim that mining hardware, electricity, etc, is the cost of acquisition, and so offset the sale price in that way, but it probably isn't worth the trouble for Satoshi or anyone else mining in the early days.
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#84Hey, I tried to go to your place to spend some bitcoins last time I was in NYC, which was about 6 months ago. It didn't look like your store was in business anymore, though, and a tweet to a blog post seemed to confirm it. Too bad, I'd still like to spend some BTC at a brick-and-mortar store.
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like the CIA saying the leaked documents are not public information. There is no 'doxxing' to be done anymore. Satoshi has been 'doxxed' as much as anyone can be in real life. If you are worried about the anonymity of his Bitcoins transactions (and all other's that could be identified from that), I'm sorry, there is no such thing as complete anonymity (as the Bitcoin community apparently still has to learn)…
This is not about anonymity. He posted his name in the original Bitcoin white paper after all. This is about an individual's right to privacy. His finances and personal life have just as much right to protection as yours or mine, and just because you may have the power to disclose that information does not mean you should. For god's sake, you even cite the leaked documents in your argument. Do you remember why that's…
You missed the point. The magazine has already done as much damage to his privacy as it`s possible. Destroying this thread accomplishes nothing.
Thus, my next argument that you must be worried about his Bitcoin transactions (which might not remain anonymous for very long). Which is a valid concern but impossible given his notoriety now. There are just too many curious people already digging.
You're implying that, because of my initial argument, I do not care about his privacy. You're wrong.
Being realistic on the Internet seems to be an thankless task.
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#86This is the address for the creperie's wallet: 1KfQKmME7bQm5AesPiizWk6h3JPUekwoBC Blockexplorer: https://blockexplorer.com/address/1KfQKmME7bQm5AesPiizWk6h3J... Source: http://o-crepes.com/
Following the first 'received' transaction all the way back I found this address that has had 432000 coins sent to it from dozens of addresses on 2011-06-12. A lot of the funds sent from this address were tumbled, so if it associated with Satoshi then he was using a tumbler pretty early on. It could also be a MtGox address. https://blockexplorer.com/address/1KLahQtqDNAXvrjNyfvgSBtAhw...
Surely the individual who set up the system for the Creperie would have done a test transaction first?
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#87Eventually the government is going to come after him. If you just happen to be sitting on 400 million without paying taxes the government is going to be interested.
That simply isn't true. As someone else said, taxes are not owed on bitcoin until you realize your profit by converting them to USD or spending them on goods.
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#88I am not going to reveal any more information that I already have. I respect his will to stay anonymous. It was just an emotional post without a thought of provoking a witch-hunt. Satoshi has been an inspiration to me, I apologize for any inconvenience I might cause.
I saw no harm in the post. Thanks for sharing.
IMO, the criticisms are unfounded and just another example of the HN's community recent penchant to hate on anything and everything.
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the exact time he would owe them? I mean at what price? When he mined them and they were worthless? When he sells them? I think he either owes couple of cents or nothing.
You usually pay for this sort of thing based on profit, more or less. In this case, his basis is $0 (his cost to acquire the asset). Were he to sell all of them, his profit is essentially 100%; however, I'm not entirely sure how bitcoin gains are codified. If they're regular capital gains, then it's done around that cost basis ($0 in this case), but if they aren't, then I don't know.
Yes, you are right.
However he doesn't owe anything as long as he just holds the coins.
Just as you don't owe any taxes on inventory of goods that you have produced from raw materials.
Re: Tell HN: Meeting Satoshi
#90All of you asking for the transaction ID are incorrigible. The man clearly wants privacy. The kind of privacy that you all opine for every time there's some governmental incursion. Or some startup gets hacked or whatever. Leave the man be.
If the man wanted privacy, he shouldn't have designed a system that broadcasts every transaction you make out onto the entire internet.
And well all know that 1-1 = 1. You're confusing concepts here.