4 ms·

Forgive me as I'm a newbie to bitcoin and only ever seen it from the outside and watched a few things. I only know who Satoshi is because of the mass amounts of

Forgive me as I'm a newbie to bitcoin and only ever seen it from the outside and watched a few things. I only know who Satoshi is because of the mass amounts of people wanting to know who this mysterious man really is. But my question is, why does it matter if Craig Wright is or isn't? I mean I can understand being upset that he lied about it if he really isn't for attention, but what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by everyone and anyone. Whether Satoshi is finally identified or not, what difference will it make? I honestly don't understand the deafening attacks at Wright at first for being "outted" as a potential to be Satoshi and now when he says he is.

beaker52 10y ago
It doesn't matter so much whether he's Satoshi or not - but it matters that he's tried to make the claim with evidence that's been dispelled. It'd be a significant claim if Mark Zuckerberg claimed to be a lost son of the late Steve Jobs and people would expect him to prove it. It'd be scandalous if the DNA test came back negative and would clearly peak people's interest in Mark Zuckerberg's character.
- joshmanders 10y ago
  And I get that, but why the attacks? What if in your scenario everyone who didn't believe went ripping through Zuckerberg's life, attacking him and being all around a rude person (in harsher words) and then Zuckerberg was ACTUALLY the lost son of the late Steve Jobs?
StavrosK 10y ago
> what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by everyone and anyone. Because he's the guy who, when asked for ID to prove he's 21 when entering a bar, shows a piece of paper with "Date of birth: 21 years old" sharpied on it, and when the bouncer says "yeah this isn't actual ID" the guy goes "WOE IS ME! IF I GET THIS TREATMENT AT THE DOOR, IMAGINE WHAT THE ACTUAL BAR WOULD BE LIKE! I DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO WALK PAST A DOOR SUCH AS THIS, ALAS, HORATIO" and feigns fainting.
- regnet 10y ago
  best thing I've read all day
- hackuser 10y ago
  His behavior has no affect on me. Why should I care? Even if your analogy is accurate, that guy at the bar doesn't affect me either. What is dangerous and does affect me, indirectly in this case, is the online mob behavior and bullying. That does real harm to people and to our society. For example, whoever the real Satoshi is, would they ever want to be subjected to this?
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    Bullying probable conmen is a reasonable way to try and discourage future conmen. Come 'round our town selling snake oil, and you get run out on a rail. It's disproportionate; that's the point. It's a sort of social control.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      But the bullies often get it wrong. Vigilante justice is not justice at all, just abuse of random people.
      - roywiggins 10y ago
        I never said it was a good idea, but that's why people care about people like Wright walking in and appearing to try to take them for a ride. The response can be completely maladaptive, and cause more harm than good, but that doesn't mean it's completely unreasonable. It's the same reason people get steamed at companies like Theranos. In this case, it's nuts because everyone agrees on what the standard of evidence is, including him, and he's refused to provide it and acting hurt that people are sceptical. Many people gave him the benefit of the doubt when Gavin et al vouched for him; it's entirely his behavior afterwards that has turned people against him.
cdumler 10y ago
I think there are few ways to answer it. First, Satoshi solved a very significant intellectual problem: how to allow a group of people, who may have antagonistic members, to collude successfully. It is known as "The Byzantine Generals' Problem." What else does this person understand or have insight into? Second, people are innately curious. Who is this person and what motivates him or her? Was this done out of curiosity or financial gain or just plain "because I could?" Third, Satoshi is sitting on a huge cache of coins when he or she started the process. Is there any intent to use them? If someone could steal the keys to these blocks, it would a major "bank heist."
woodman 10y ago
I would guess that the majority of the angst can be summed up with the simple fact that some people get real pissy when you treat them like they are stupid. I think it wasted energy for strangers on the internet, but I can sympathize with the in person insult.
DSMan195276 10y ago
Well, I think it should be noted that this makes it clear that there's simply no way he is Satoshi. He claims to not "have the courage" to show proof that he has the keys, even when he claims to have shown Gavin and Jon proof of having those exact keys. The reality is that showing this proof is trivial, and if he wasn't willing to post it he wouldn't have claimed to be Satoshi at all - and if he actually was Satoshi, he would have posted this proof with his first post. That said, if someone came out and proved themselves to be Satoshi, it would be a fairly big deal to the Bitcoin world. Satoshi himself has a lot of Bitcoins sitting under his control that he hasn't done anything with. Coupled with the fact that he was the original creator, his opinions would probably have a lot of weight behind them - and this is important when recognizing that Bitcoin right now is at a bit of a cross-roads, with people uncertain on how to proceed. That said, I'm not heavily involved with Bitcoin, and while it was obvious to me (and most other people) that Wright isn't Satoshi, I wasn't yelling or calling for his head, and I don't really think there were that many other people doing that either - they were just a few loud mouths. All that said, you do have to keep in mind that, because of the power that Satoshi could wield, and the fact that some people have a lot invested in Bitcoin, I can understand the backlash over someone pretending to be Satoshi and potentially messing things up for everybody else.

beaker52 10y ago

It doesn't matter so much whether he's Satoshi or not - but it matters that he's tried to make the claim with evidence that's been dispelled. It'd be a significant claim if Mark Zuckerberg claimed to be a lost son of the late Steve Jobs and people would expect him to prove it. It'd be scandalous if the DNA test came back negative and would clearly peak people's interest in Mark Zuckerberg's character.

joshmanders 10y ago
And I get that, but why the attacks? What if in your scenario everyone who didn't believe went ripping through Zuckerberg's life, attacking him and being all around a rude person (in harsher words) and then Zuckerberg was ACTUALLY the lost son of the late Steve Jobs?

StavrosK 10y ago

> what if he is? The dude is literally being ripped apart left and right by everyone and anyone. Because he's the guy who, when asked for ID to prove he's 21 when entering a bar, shows a piece of paper with "Date of birth: 21 years old" sharpied on it, and when the bouncer says "yeah this isn't actual ID" the guy goes "WOE IS ME! IF I GET THIS TREATMENT AT THE DOOR, IMAGINE WHAT THE ACTUAL BAR WOULD BE LIKE! I DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO WALK PAST A DOOR SUCH AS THIS, ALAS, HORATIO" and feigns fainting.

regnet 10y ago
best thing I've read all day
hackuser 10y ago
His behavior has no affect on me. Why should I care? Even if your analogy is accurate, that guy at the bar doesn't affect me either. What is dangerous and does affect me, indirectly in this case, is the online mob behavior and bullying. That does real harm to people and to our society. For example, whoever the real Satoshi is, would they ever want to be subjected to this?
- roywiggins 10y ago
  Bullying probable conmen is a reasonable way to try and discourage future conmen. Come 'round our town selling snake oil, and you get run out on a rail. It's disproportionate; that's the point. It's a sort of social control.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    But the bullies often get it wrong. Vigilante justice is not justice at all, just abuse of random people.
    - roywiggins 10y ago
      I never said it was a good idea, but that's why people care about people like Wright walking in and appearing to try to take them for a ride. The response can be completely maladaptive, and cause more harm than good, but that doesn't mean it's completely unreasonable. It's the same reason people get steamed at companies like Theranos. In this case, it's nuts because everyone agrees on what the standard of evidence is, including him, and he's refused to provide it and acting hurt that people are sceptical. Many people gave him the benefit of the doubt when Gavin et al vouched for him; it's entirely his behavior afterwards that has turned people against him.

cdumler 10y ago

I think there are few ways to answer it. First, Satoshi solved a very significant intellectual problem: how to allow a group of people, who may have antagonistic members, to collude successfully. It is known as "The Byzantine Generals' Problem." What else does this person understand or have insight into? Second, people are innately curious. Who is this person and what motivates him or her? Was this done out of curiosity or financial gain or just plain "because I could?" Third, Satoshi is sitting on a huge cache of coins when he or she started the process. Is there any intent to use them? If someone could steal the keys to these blocks, it would a major "bank heist."

woodman 10y ago

I would guess that the majority of the angst can be summed up with the simple fact that some people get real pissy when you treat them like they are stupid. I think it wasted energy for strangers on the internet, but I can sympathize with the in person insult.

DSMan195276 10y ago

Well, I think it should be noted that this makes it clear that there's simply no way he is Satoshi. He claims to not "have the courage" to show proof that he has the keys, even when he claims to have shown Gavin and Jon proof of having those exact keys. The reality is that showing this proof is trivial, and if he wasn't willing to post it he wouldn't have claimed to be Satoshi at all - and if he actually was Satoshi, he would have posted this proof with his first post. That said, if someone came out and proved themselves to be Satoshi, it would be a fairly big deal to the Bitcoin world. Satoshi himself has a lot of Bitcoins sitting under his control that he hasn't done anything with. Coupled with the fact that he was the original creator, his opinions would probably have a lot of weight behind them - and this is important when recognizing that Bitcoin right now is at a bit of a cross-roads, with people uncertain on how to proceed. That said, I'm not heavily involved with Bitcoin, and while it was obvious to me (and most other people) that Wright isn't Satoshi, I wasn't yelling or calling for his head, and I don't really think there were that many other people doing that either - they were just a few loud mouths. All that said, you do have to keep in mind that, because of the power that Satoshi could wield, and the fact that some people have a lot invested in Bitcoin, I can understand the backlash over someone pretending to be Satoshi and potentially messing things up for everybody else.