4 ms·
What's interesting to me is why Satoshi chooses to be anonymous. Most people would want to take credit and get their turn under the spotlight. Perhaps he can't
by not_that_noob 13y ago
What's interesting to me is why Satoshi chooses to be anonymous. Most people would want to take credit and get their turn under the spotlight.
Perhaps he can't take it because of repercussions in his physical life - perhaps he works for a central bank!
Or perhaps he's super humble and prefers to let the work speak for itself.
- nilkn 13y agoI think it's partially to prove the philosophy of bitcoin--it can be a successful currency without any central authority. Even the original creator is eventually unnecessary and need not be known for the system to function.
- hkmurakami 13y agoOnce speculation has been that since he's likely to own a significant fraction of the existing bitcoins, he and his family may be threatened/kidnapped/etc if his identity becomes public. There are many "rich people" around the world but their wealth isn't usually found in an untraceable, liquid form
- jlgreco 13y agoBitcoin is not untraceable (far from it), but if I were him this would be my reason for staying anonymous. I would not trust my safety to other people not trusting mixers.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kevinpet 13y agoIt's untraceable until he starts using it. Not bitcoin in general, but Satoshi's stash specificially.
- jlgreco 13y agoUntraceable until the robber starts using it too. It is either useless to the robber, or traceable. If someone steals Satoshi's bitcoins and leaves him in a ditch (so that he can't tell people they were stolen), as soon as that somebody starts spending them other people are going to start looking for him (mistaking the thief for Satoshi, at least until they connect an identity to the coins.) However this does not afford you any protection from robbers that believe, mistakenly or otherwise, that they can clean the coins in a mixer.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoIt's worth noting that if speculation that they own 1million bitcoins is true, that's almost 5% of the total of 21million that will ever exist. That certainly seems like a good reason not to go public to me.
- dude_abides 13y agoSome possible reasons are: - He's just too humble to want the fame. Gavin Andresen could then be a likely candidate. - Scared, maybe by what happened to Julian Assange. However, unlike WikiLeaks, it's hard to imagine what law Bitcoin breaks. - He wanted to make money off it and move on. That would suggest Jed McCaleb, who founded and then sold MtGox. Other reasons?
- dcaranda 13y agoRemove bias from the system.
- hkmurakami 13y ago- Scared, maybe by what happened to Julian Assange. However, unlike WikiLeaks, it's hard to imagine what law Bitcoin breaks. A determined government could probably concoct something if it became determined to do so.
- narrator 13y agoFor a lot of people it's better to be just rich than famous and rich.
- heed 13y ago"He" might be a "they."
- russum 13y agoThe article gives example of e-gold creators who were charged months before Bitcoin came out. Sounds like a good reason to stay anonymous.