"i was told not to moderate for signal-to-noise" I am not a moderator, but that was my impression (and hope) for how the moderators would act. To determine wha

"i was told not to moderate for signal-to-noise" I am not a moderator, but that was my impression (and hope) for how the moderators would act. To determine what is signal and what is noise would be to inject subjectivity into the decision. There is nothing about this new email that I would consider on-topic. But under the circumstances I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list replies might be; watch out for them). And arguments could be made that using a communication medium other than the one Satoshi has traditionally used would be more disruptive, even if this email would be more on topic at bitcoin-discuss, due to the speculation that might ensue. It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a person's FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated. After passing that hurdle your emails are auto-approved until such time as a moderator choose to re-enable moderation. It is because we changed servers that the satoshi email address was considered a 'new' user. This is also the case of everyone else, including me. But I hope the irony of Satoshi being subject to moderation because he is a 'new' user is not lost? Anyway, the best reason for not moderating was that such a message had potential to keep people from getting hurt. I can only speculate that to be the reason Satoshi (if it is Satoshi) intervened at all. We don't know for sure, and it may even be low probability, but interfering with the distribution of that email could have gotten people hurt.