4 ms·
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
by djao 6mo ago
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 law, self-disclosure of inculpatory information cannot be compelled, so this analysis does not pass muster in a court of law. The court of public opinion, however, is quite different.
- ShowalkKama 6mo ago>There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one. privacy?
- neffy 6mo agoTime? He´s busy starting a company, taking the time to drag out decade old emails and digging out the meta data for a journalist who is borderline stalking (assuming he even has them somewhere). I wouldn´t give that the time of day either.
- storystraight 6mo agonot saying you’re wrong or right here, but you’re the type to believe that a girl’s not responding to you because she’s “busy”
- djao 6mo agoIf privacy were such a big concern, then why did he release the messages (without metadata) in the first place? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep the messages completely private?
- ianferrel 6mo agoThe thing is, most of the people heavily involved in early Bitcoin are fairly characterized as cryptoanarchists, a group strongly devoted to the principle of privacy and liberty effected through technological means. The refusal to provide personal communications metadata by such a person is evidence of nothing but their steadfast commitment to the philosophy that presented them with the opportunity to be part of those email conversations in the first place.
- CamperBob2 6mo agoThen again, if I weren't Satoshi, but people suspected that I was, I'd be willing to do just about anything to prove that it's not me. No one in their right mind would want that kind of target on their back. Satoshi is either dead, or he lost his keys and probably wishes he were.
- argsnd 6mo agoSupposing it is Adam Back, and supposing he lost his keys, he's still worth at least nine figures and is one of the most influential figures in the field he’s devoted his life to. Why would he wish he was dead?
- CamperBob2 6mo ago"Nine figures isn't cool. You know what's cool? Eleven figures." That aside, I don't agree with the premise. Back might be Satoshi, but there's nowhere near enough evidence in Carreyrou's article to reach that conclusion. He should have run it by some other veteran figures in the crypto community, so they could point out how quotidian some of the language and tropes being cited really are.
- eddiewithzato 6mo agoit’s simply that Back has nothing to gain to claim to be Satoshi. It would make bitcoin a lot more volatile. He even said just now > I also don't know who satoshi is, and i think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case, as it helps bitcoin be viewed a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity. That’s as close to admitting it as you can get
- CamperBob2 6mo agoPoint being, he has a lot to lose if people think he IS Satoshi. I would be coughing up those email headers if I were him. Or forging some, if necessary.
- vzaliva 6mo agoWhat would it show? If he logged in to Santoshi's email account and sent an email to his personal account, the metadata would be in order, and we would learn little from it.
- djao 6mo agoYou 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.
- nullc 6mo agoThey 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.
- djao 6mo agoDemand? Excuse me? There is no demand. He is free to disclose or not, his choice. I am then free to believe him or not, my choice.
- nullc 6mo agoThe author didn't make a serious effort to obtain the email metadata. The email w/ metadata has previously been part of litigation, -- if it indicated that Adam was Satoshi it would have come up. Adam has no reason to further fuck up Satoshi's privacy by sharing private information. But I can get how people who see no issue invading Adam's and Satoshi's privacy would have no concept as to why someone wouldn't publish it.
- djao 6mo ago[dead]
- ingatorp 6mo agoOr he wants you to believe he is Satoshi, without being a complete moron, like Craig Wright. Back stands to benefit from this, because he still has money on Bitcoin ventures (Blockstream). If people believe that he is Satoshi, he would still find investors backing him.
- nullc 6mo agoThe metadata was produced for trial. 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.