10 ms·

Care to speculate on their motivation for remaining anonymous?

achompas 14y ago
As an alternative currency, Bitcoin is very, very illegal in various countries. For example, I believe the Federal Reserve Act in the US outlaws all non-Reserve currency.
- linhares 14y ago
  you are two or three years out of the loop, buddy
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- reedlaw 14y ago
  That's not how FinCEN treated it. In the guidance[1] they released there's almost a tacit approval, as long as exchanges are properly registered, keep proper records, and report. 1. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G...
- nwzpaperman 14y ago
  Scrip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip
- kragen 14y ago
  It does not; Bitcoin is currently legal in the US. In what countries is it illegal?
jacquesm 14y ago
Bitcoin has the potential to upset a lot of applecarts depending on how successful it eventually will turn out to be. Consider me amazed at how far it's already gone, if it goes much further it may very well be extremely wise to not be known as one of its creators.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Not clear how the creators would, or could, be blamed for any perceived misuse of the currency. Publishing some software and specs isn't illegal, and if the creators have any further control over the bitcoin trade, that in itself is a dealbreaker for bitcoins-as-currency. A culture of anonymity and unaccountability may be a good thing with respect to the users of a currency, but not for its creators and backers, IMHO.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Are you familiar with the pesecution of Phil Zimmerman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann This is probably going to end a lot worse: (1) bitcoin survives, lots of parties angry (2) bitcoin is broken, a fatal flaw is detected, lots of people lose money, lots of parties angry In either scenario there will be a lot of parties pissed off at bitcoins creators. Anonimity seems to be a smart move, just like many other pre-emptive strikes that are embedded in bitcoin.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      Phil Z.'s problems are part of the distant past, at this point. Going forward, nobody is ever going to catch that much grief for releasing encryption software. You might as well refrain from publishing role-playing game manuals about bitcoins for fear you'll be targeted by the Secret Service, a la Steve Jackson. Trust me, no governmental entity gives a hoot about who created the bitcoin standard. They probably will give a hoot about how it's used.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        There are plenty of examples of more recent vintage. Better safe than sorry seems to be a good strategy in cases like this, if there is no upside to claiming credit, why would you claim credit?
        CamperBob2 14y ago
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Could be the ultimate scam, maybe they're waiting to sell the coins they mined in the beginning? Could be they were afraid it would work (and therefore possibly make them a lot of powerful enemies), and didn't want to be known to be responsible?
neilk 14y ago
The creators of Bitcoin were very critical of central governments. The entire project rests on the notion that fiat money is a bad idea. Like a lot of libertarian activists, or indeed activists in general, they may have overestimated how much governments would feel threatened by their actions. Or, maybe they were prescient. Hard to say right now.
- eric_bullington 14y ago
  Well, considering what was happening to the founders of e-gold[0] at the time of Bitcon's creation, remaining anonymous was a very rational choice on the part of Satoshi. It now seems like the US Gov has accepted Bitcoin as a proper currency, but that outcome was never certain, and the potential legal implications of a negative outcome were very clear after the e-gold fiasco. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold
rmc 14y ago
If BitCoin 'wins' and becomes very popular, these early adopters are sitting on massive amounts of bitcoins. That's a very tempting target for robbery (& more).
pbreit 14y ago
It's easy to envision that the creators are making lots of money off the bubble and that one wouldn't want to be linked to a ponzu scheme.
scottjad 14y ago
Tax evasion.

As an alternative currency, Bitcoin is very, very illegal in various countries. For example, I believe the Federal Reserve Act in the US outlaws all non-Reserve currency.

linhares 14y ago
you are two or three years out of the loop, buddy
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
reedlaw 14y ago
That's not how FinCEN treated it. In the guidance[1] they released there's almost a tacit approval, as long as exchanges are properly registered, keep proper records, and report. 1. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G...
nwzpaperman 14y ago
Scrip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip
kragen 14y ago
It does not; Bitcoin is currently legal in the US. In what countries is it illegal?

jacquesm 14y ago

Bitcoin has the potential to upset a lot of applecarts depending on how successful it eventually will turn out to be. Consider me amazed at how far it's already gone, if it goes much further it may very well be extremely wise to not be known as one of its creators.

CamperBob2 14y ago
Not clear how the creators would, or could, be blamed for any perceived misuse of the currency. Publishing some software and specs isn't illegal, and if the creators have any further control over the bitcoin trade, that in itself is a dealbreaker for bitcoins-as-currency. A culture of anonymity and unaccountability may be a good thing with respect to the users of a currency, but not for its creators and backers, IMHO.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Are you familiar with the pesecution of Phil Zimmerman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann This is probably going to end a lot worse: (1) bitcoin survives, lots of parties angry (2) bitcoin is broken, a fatal flaw is detected, lots of people lose money, lots of parties angry In either scenario there will be a lot of parties pissed off at bitcoins creators. Anonimity seems to be a smart move, just like many other pre-emptive strikes that are embedded in bitcoin.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Phil Z.'s problems are part of the distant past, at this point. Going forward, nobody is ever going to catch that much grief for releasing encryption software. You might as well refrain from publishing role-playing game manuals about bitcoins for fear you'll be targeted by the Secret Service, a la Steve Jackson. Trust me, no governmental entity gives a hoot about who created the bitcoin standard. They probably will give a hoot about how it's used.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      There are plenty of examples of more recent vintage. Better safe than sorry seems to be a good strategy in cases like this, if there is no upside to claiming credit, why would you claim credit?
      - CamperBob2 14y ago

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

Could be the ultimate scam, maybe they're waiting to sell the coins they mined in the beginning? Could be they were afraid it would work (and therefore possibly make them a lot of powerful enemies), and didn't want to be known to be responsible?

neilk 14y ago

The creators of Bitcoin were very critical of central governments. The entire project rests on the notion that fiat money is a bad idea. Like a lot of libertarian activists, or indeed activists in general, they may have overestimated how much governments would feel threatened by their actions. Or, maybe they were prescient. Hard to say right now.

eric_bullington 14y ago
Well, considering what was happening to the founders of e-gold[0] at the time of Bitcon's creation, remaining anonymous was a very rational choice on the part of Satoshi. It now seems like the US Gov has accepted Bitcoin as a proper currency, but that outcome was never certain, and the potential legal implications of a negative outcome were very clear after the e-gold fiasco. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

rmc 14y ago

If BitCoin 'wins' and becomes very popular, these early adopters are sitting on massive amounts of bitcoins. That's a very tempting target for robbery (& more).

pbreit 14y ago

It's easy to envision that the creators are making lots of money off the bubble and that one wouldn't want to be linked to a ponzu scheme.

scottjad 14y ago

Tax evasion.