3 ms·

> The real Satoshi (assuming they're one individual as CSW is essentially implying) took care to maintain their anonymity, and is almost certainly aware that th

> The real Satoshi (assuming they're one individual as CSW is essentially implying) took care to maintain their anonymity, and is almost certainly aware that they would be the target of intelligence agencies around the world, in addition to your more run-of-the-mill "let's kidnap this guy and force him to transfer his enormous wealth to us" criminals. So releasing his identity publicly would be just painting a massive target on his back. This would be the Hollywood interpretation of his motivation to remain anonymous. Personally, I think it’s because he really wanted the work to speak for itself, and not have the entire project tied to one particular individual with thousands of newspapers trying to figure out what motivated him. Remember The Social Network movie? When they tried to make it look like Facebook was created just so Zuckerberg could get back at his ex-girlfriend? It’s stuff like that he was trying to avoid.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
It's not a hollywood interpretation at all, Satoshi created something that was an existential threat (at least long-term, in terms of the doors it opened) to fiat currencies / fractional reserve banking more broadly. It's not farfetched to see that certain government organizations would want to disrupt that, or at a minimum gain control over the founder to be able to direct things how they please. Regardless, intelligence community subpoint aside, I think the fact that third-party criminals would want to kidnap him and force the transfer of his bitcoin mega-fortune is very plausible, even if you don't see governments as a possible threat vector. I do agree in general that maintaining pseudonomynity helped keep the focus on the project and not the person(s). But I think it's undeniable that being publicly known as a figure with billions of dollars of value stored in their brain puts a target on one's head. And it puts a target in a way that being a normal fiat billionaire does not, because you can't just wire a billion dollars to another country without having the transfer stopped, whereas with bitcoin once they force him to transfer Bitcoin (if he caved to torture etc) it's irreversible.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > It's not a hollywood interpretation at all, Satoshi created something that was an existential threat (at least long-term, in terms of the doors it opened) to fiat currencies / fractional reserve banking more broadly. At its most charitable, the underlying economic theory you're supposing is out of mainstream. To the extent that it's a Gold Standard version 2.0, though, it should be pointed out that the kind of mainstream economists who actually run economic policy would usually view it as a specifically discredited theory: 100% of all gold-standard currencies have failed and been replaced with non-gold-standard. In any case, though, the notion that someone with an alternative economic theory is so threatening to your profession that you need to send Deep State Operatives™ to shut everything down is Hollywood fantasy at best and Qanon idiocy at worst.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    If you can't see why Bitcoin is a threat to the status quo such that it could theoretically justify "Deep State Operatives" trying to either outright stop it by murdering the founder or compromise and neuter it by taking over the project, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not saying anything about how likely it is or isn't, just that it's a theoretical possibility that someone in Satoshi's position would be considering. And I find your dismissive references to absurdities like Q-Anon to be wholly inappropriate and a cheap shot.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

It's not a hollywood interpretation at all, Satoshi created something that was an existential threat (at least long-term, in terms of the doors it opened) to fiat currencies / fractional reserve banking more broadly. It's not farfetched to see that certain government organizations would want to disrupt that, or at a minimum gain control over the founder to be able to direct things how they please. Regardless, intelligence community subpoint aside, I think the fact that third-party criminals would want to kidnap him and force the transfer of his bitcoin mega-fortune is very plausible, even if you don't see governments as a possible threat vector. I do agree in general that maintaining pseudonomynity helped keep the focus on the project and not the person(s). But I think it's undeniable that being publicly known as a figure with billions of dollars of value stored in their brain puts a target on one's head. And it puts a target in a way that being a normal fiat billionaire does not, because you can't just wire a billion dollars to another country without having the transfer stopped, whereas with bitcoin once they force him to transfer Bitcoin (if he caved to torture etc) it's irreversible.

jcranmer 6y ago
> It's not a hollywood interpretation at all, Satoshi created something that was an existential threat (at least long-term, in terms of the doors it opened) to fiat currencies / fractional reserve banking more broadly. At its most charitable, the underlying economic theory you're supposing is out of mainstream. To the extent that it's a Gold Standard version 2.0, though, it should be pointed out that the kind of mainstream economists who actually run economic policy would usually view it as a specifically discredited theory: 100% of all gold-standard currencies have failed and been replaced with non-gold-standard. In any case, though, the notion that someone with an alternative economic theory is so threatening to your profession that you need to send Deep State Operatives™ to shut everything down is Hollywood fantasy at best and Qanon idiocy at worst.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  If you can't see why Bitcoin is a threat to the status quo such that it could theoretically justify "Deep State Operatives" trying to either outright stop it by murdering the founder or compromise and neuter it by taking over the project, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not saying anything about how likely it is or isn't, just that it's a theoretical possibility that someone in Satoshi's position would be considering. And I find your dismissive references to absurdities like Q-Anon to be wholly inappropriate and a cheap shot.