811–820 of 905 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satoshi cannot spend his fortune. If he did, it would be visible on the blockchain and bitcoin's price would collapse.
That’s not how you use that kind of wealth. You take loans with the fortune as collateral… come on that’s pretty basic stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Only True Scotsmen can be journalists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they believe that someone in the future would be tracking their mailing list post history and correlating email timestamps with real-life activity? There's no motivation to take steps to hide one's tracks (by setting up a remote email send while one is were away) unless one thinks that is going to happen.
As the article says, Back was very interested in methods of covering one's tracks.
What the parent is suggesting is that Finney covered his tracks by leaving digital fingerprints (as Satoshi, supposedly) while he was actually out running. This requires that he not only thought someone was tracking Satoshi's email activity, but also tracking his own whereabouts. I can see someone trying to hide their digital identity, but intentionally setting up false alibis seems insanely paranoid to me, which is why I don't buy it.
But regarding Back, the article also points to periods where Back goes dormant while Satoshi becomes active or vice versa. That's not the behaviour of someone who is particularly devious at constructing false alibis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a horrible point, it assumes that the person being doxxed is the claim of the doxer. There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what?
> There is no wait they can be 100% sure, so they will ruin someone's life over what? What harm is caused by this article, do you think? He is already incredibly wealthy, already has security, and many people already assumed he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Claiming that someone invented a world altering technology is neither libel, nor defamation, _even if it an intentional lie_. If it is not a lie, or is merely a mistake i…
> What harm is caused by this article, do you think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Let me shed a tear for the old white men, who hold all the money and power in today’s world p- these heinous social media “attacks” will leave them crying and shaking
I'm not saying you shouldn't feel upset about rich people's behavior, but their skin color shouldn't enter the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part of things is what really made this entire argument all apart of me. There are ~50k psychiatrists in the US. Roughly, 1 in 10k people in the US is named Scott. Mathematically, that means knowing "Scott is a psychiatrist" brings you down to ~5 people. Even if we assume there's some outlier clustering of people named Scott who are psychiatrists, we're still talking about some small number. Surely adding in the…
Take a moment and apply some common sense to your math. Do you really think there are 5 psychiatrists in the country named Scott? That's off by multiple orders of magnitude.
The magnitude is so small that anonymity is essential broken.
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…
The NYTimes infamously doxxed Slate Star Codex[1], despite him basically begging them not to because it would upend his psychiatry practice, back in 2020 for no reason other than because they could. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416
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.
Losing access by intentionally deleting the keys? That agrees with my point that he knows it would cause problems to spend them, and decided not to spend them.
Losing access by accidentally deleting the keys? Would Satoshi really be that careless?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satoshi cannot spend his fortune. If he did, it would be visible on the blockchain and bitcoin's price would collapse.
their wealth is not in a single wallet, but rather in 20k wallets. So instead transferring bitcoin, they could just hand out access those wallets.
If the receiver doesn't immediately move the bitcoin, the receiver is at risk of Satoshi stealing them by retaining the private key and moving them later.
Even if the receiver trusts Satoshi, if the receiver wants to spend the bitcoin on anything, there's the same problem again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the much more plausible reason?
He lost access to the wallet either by mistake (never even saved the key) or because he willingly destroyed the key for philosophical reasons. Or he is just dead.