831–840 of 905 posts
Would be darkly hilarious if Santoshi lost his wallet long ago… I’ve certainly lost a lot of the small scripts and utilities I wrote long ago. Can’t remember any usernames, much less passwords, from 20 years ago…
I mined Bitcoin super early in the project on a spare computer. It sat for at least a week before I went back to it and discovered that it was unresponsive. Formatted the drive and tried some other nerd thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 really didn't want to comment on this, but racism, ironically enough doesn't discriminate. If you want to discriminate against white rich people, you then say that you wouldn't against black rich people. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel upset about rich people's behavior, but their skin color shouldn't enter the conversation.
And yea I believe anyone who is really rich (like 8+ figures rich) is morally bankrupt.
The refusal to provide email metadata is the most damning evidence. Adam Back clearly has the emails; he is the one who provided them in the first place during the previous court case. Everyone knows he has the emails. If Adam Back and Satoshi are two different people, the metadata should be exculpatory, and easy to share. There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one. In a court of…
The emails would not have been published in public except my opponent had an established track-record of abusing non-public communication that had been provided in response to subponea in order to further his con-- he did so with both emails produced by Gavin and emails produced by Martii.
On that basis, I encouraged Adam to agree to publish the message content-- which itself was not very interesting and matched what Adam had indirectly said for years as this would undermine our opponent's ability to abuse knowledge of that content for further fraud. The same argument didn't apply for the metadata: it has less to no abuse potential that we could come up with, publishing the email content also makes it clear to everyone that Wright had access to the material ... but there was always a risk that it exposed something less obvious about Satoshi or Adam that should be kept confidential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really dont get it? Because real billionares have the money and you dont. Journalists just told everyone you are billionare, but you're just average SWE on $120k / year and absolutely no money for hiring small army of guards. Neither your own government agencies keep your back protected like they do for usual high profile people. Now go find a proof for mafia that you are not in fact have a billion bucks on USD s…
> you're just average SWE on $120k / year and absolutely no money for hiring small army of guards FWIW, in this instance Adam Back is also a non-secret billionaire, mostly from his public involvement in a number of ventures within the Bitcoin ecosystem. The difference is closer to 1 order of magnitude than the 4 you're proposing.
Also there is massive difference between being rich, or even a super rich and literally hidding $50B under your bedsheet on USB stick.
No one expects that putting a gun to even a super rich person head will buy you a small country. You can kill a billionare, but you cant extract much value out of it other than $100k on their credit card and $500k watch neither of which you can really sell.
Havimg keys to $50B on USB stick is different level of danger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have it backwards. The fact that he doesn't release the metadata is interesting. If he had released the metadata, it would be wholly uninteresting. I don't think the emails exist. What was published in court records, lacking metadata, could easily be forged. The metadata is harder to forge. Not impossible, but harder, especially long after the fact.
They exist, they were examined in an adversarial process in court. I carefully examined them. Stop demanding access to other people's private data-- it's gross and abusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would bet heavily against that. Someone selling single Satoshis from Satoshi's stash would herald the second coming of Satoshi. Can you imagine the hype?
Hype would not cause a price increase in this case. The value of bitcoin is partly due to scarcity. 1.1m previously inaccessible bitcoins suddenly becoming liquid would cause a drop in price, even if they were sold slowly. It could also cause panic selling as it might indicate the wallets have been brute force cracked.
Partially due to scarcity, but also due to hype.
As a weaker point: I would expect an increase in the market capitalisation of the bitcoin float. Ie if you multiply the price of bitcoin by the amount of movable bitcoin right now and after the first Satoshi is sold, you compare with the new price of bitcoin multiplied by the newly enlarged amount of movable bitcoin.
The strong claim is that the price per bitcoin would go up, too. Not just the market cap of the float.
> It could also cause panic selling as it might indicate the wallets have been brute force cracked.
Suppose I brute force cracked it to get access to the bitcoins. I would:
Quietly amass a large offsetting position in the bitcoin futures market (and wherever else you can do this), before I make any moves. Then (assuming I couldn't hedge my whole exposure at decent prices) I would use all means available to pretend that Satoshi had woken up again. Eg use specially fine-tuned LLMs to mimic his style to post on the usual mailing list etc. Some people will believe you, some won't.
I'd say post a bit in Satoshi's name to build interest. Then skeptics will say: prove it. And you 'prove' it by selling moving a few Satoshis between your own wallets back and forth. (Don't sell anything yet.) The hype will build, and you sell into it on the futures market.
The last step is important, because you can get rid of your bitcoin exposure this way, without any trace on the blockchain. So you can even vow to never release any of the stash on the market and other shenanigans. That should help the price.
Well, the futures will come due eventually, and then you can move the stash. The price might or might not crash, but you don't care, because you already locked in your profits on the derivatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only True Scotsmen can be journalists?
No. But people without ethics, transparency, etc can not be. Again, for all intents and purposes it’s a verb. It’s the actions you take. This thread is filled with references to actions that DQ the person from being a journalist. Continuing to get them the title / reward only encourages bad behavior.
(Of course, we could extend the same game and deny the moniker of 'newspaper' for a rag like that. But at some point, we are drifting too far from the mainstream accepted definition of words.)