4 ms·

> Why oh why can't journalists just respect his wishes! Because it's their job not to. Lots of people don't want to be found but it's in the public interest to

by ebbv 11y ago

> Why oh why can't journalists just respect his wishes! Because it's their job not to. Lots of people don't want to be found but it's in the public interest to find them. I'd argue the same goes for the creator of Bitcoin. It's in the public interest to find this person and see what they stand to gain from Bitcoin's continued use and value, and what they are likely to do with the money. You will respond that it doesn't matter, but it does. What if Bitcoin came from Iran's secret service and it will be used to fund an enrichment facility? What if it came from a drug lord? What if it came from Michael Bay and he's going to make yet another Transformers movie with it? All of these are in the public interest to find out and make people reconsider their adoption of it. A decision void of context is necessarily an ignorant decision.

wizeman 11y ago
What if knives had been invented by a drug lord? Who cares? What's important is whether knives are useful to us or not. If the inventor is a drug lord, then the problem is that he is a drug lord, not that he invented knives. If someone invents something useful, then he should be rewarded, independently of whether he then uses the resulting money to save starving children or to buy Doritos all to himself. If he does something illegal with that money, then we should come after him because he did something illegal, not because he was able to do something illegal (because he had earned a lot of money).
- ebbv 11y ago
  You missed my point entirely. The point is if we know he's a bad person, we can choose not to use Bitcoin as is, and instead use a fork of it where he doesn't profit from it. Also stop with the myth that Bitcoin was completely invented by one guy. It was based upon ideas from a lot of people prior to Satoshi. If there's a moral obligation to reward him (there is not) then there's a moral obligation to reward all of them as well (there still isn't.)
  - maaku 11y ago
    And you've missed the point where lives have been ruined and people could potentially be killed as a result of this nonsense.
    - ebbv 11y ago
      Lives have not been ruined. In my opinion Newsweek owes Dorian Nakamoto some damages, but that will be decided in the courts. His life is not ruined, though, and nobody else's has been. That's way over-dramatic.
      - maaku 11y ago
        I was not talking about Dorian.
falcolas 11y ago
> it's in the public interest to find them. Why? To bring their stash of bitcoins public via rubber hose cryptography? > Iran... Michael Bay... drug lord... None of these are very likely. It's much more likely that it is some reclusive technical genius who realizes that the release of their identity can have nothing but a negative impact on their lives. The chances are remarkably good that they would end up getting killed (or thrown in some state actor's prison) for their coins once their identity is revealed. This kind of outcome isn't in anyone's interest.
baby 11y ago
> it's in the public interest to find them. Care to expand on that? Where is the limit on Outing someone, when does it become doxing?

by ebbv 11y ago

wizeman 11y ago

What if knives had been invented by a drug lord? Who cares? What's important is whether knives are useful to us or not. If the inventor is a drug lord, then the problem is that he is a drug lord, not that he invented knives. If someone invents something useful, then he should be rewarded, independently of whether he then uses the resulting money to save starving children or to buy Doritos all to himself. If he does something illegal with that money, then we should come after him because he did something illegal, not because he was able to do something illegal (because he had earned a lot of money).

ebbv 11y ago
You missed my point entirely. The point is if we know he's a bad person, we can choose not to use Bitcoin as is, and instead use a fork of it where he doesn't profit from it. Also stop with the myth that Bitcoin was completely invented by one guy. It was based upon ideas from a lot of people prior to Satoshi. If there's a moral obligation to reward him (there is not) then there's a moral obligation to reward all of them as well (there still isn't.)
- maaku 11y ago
  And you've missed the point where lives have been ruined and people could potentially be killed as a result of this nonsense.
  - ebbv 11y ago
    Lives have not been ruined. In my opinion Newsweek owes Dorian Nakamoto some damages, but that will be decided in the courts. His life is not ruined, though, and nobody else's has been. That's way over-dramatic.
    - maaku 11y ago
      I was not talking about Dorian.

falcolas 11y ago

> it's in the public interest to find them. Why? To bring their stash of bitcoins public via rubber hose cryptography? > Iran... Michael Bay... drug lord... None of these are very likely. It's much more likely that it is some reclusive technical genius who realizes that the release of their identity can have nothing but a negative impact on their lives. The chances are remarkably good that they would end up getting killed (or thrown in some state actor's prison) for their coins once their identity is revealed. This kind of outcome isn't in anyone's interest.

baby 11y ago

> it's in the public interest to find them. Care to expand on that? Where is the limit on Outing someone, when does it become doxing?