3 ms·

The saga of Jim Bell after the publication of that essay provides an excellent case study in why people like "Satoshi" have an interest in remaining as anonymou

The saga of Jim Bell after the publication of that essay provides an excellent case study in why people like "Satoshi" have an interest in remaining as anonymous as possible.

csense 13y ago
I wasn't familiar with this, but Wikipedia knows of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell There are many excellent reasons for remaining anonymous or pseudonymous, both online and offline. That being said, there's a vast difference between inventing a disruptive technology and advocating (even in jest) the killing of government officials. I'm not taking the position that governments never unjustly harass disruptive technologists. Nor am I taking the position that the treatment of this particular jesting assassination advocate was fair or proportionate. Nor am I taking the position that government officials are incapable of crimes worthy of a death sentence [1] (think of the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War 2). I'm simply saying that the situations of Satoshi and Jim Bell aren't really comparable. [1] Although, even for people who really deserve it, I'd really rather not have death sentences recommended and carried out by the totally lawless process Mr. Bell jestingly advocated in a country I have to live in.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  First of all, based on that essay, it's entirely plausible to believe that Jim Bell is in fact guilty of felony tax evasion (and possibly more). However, it seems kind of crappy that the government response to a controversial exercise of first-amendment rights is to look really hard at you, dig up some dirt, and get you sent to jail. (Or make some dirt -- or at least trump up the charges if the dirt's not enough.) (A similar revenge case may have been brought against the CEO of Qwest, for a more 4th-amendment/NSA angle; in this case the charges that may have been trumped up were insider-trading charges, and certain evidence about the government's motives was excluded from the trial by the judge. Here's an article we've discussed in these fora before: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resisted-nsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30... )
- _delirium 13y ago
  Part of the issue with Bell is that it's not clear to anyone that it was really in jest, or even just a hypothetical future proposal. He proposed an assassination market, and was collecting home addresses of IRS and FBI officials, coincidentally.

The saga of Jim Bell after the publication of that essay provides an excellent case study in why people like "Satoshi" have an interest in remaining as anonymous as possible.

csense 13y ago

I wasn't familiar with this, but Wikipedia knows of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell There are many excellent reasons for remaining anonymous or pseudonymous, both online and offline. That being said, there's a vast difference between inventing a disruptive technology and advocating (even in jest) the killing of government officials. I'm not taking the position that governments never unjustly harass disruptive technologists. Nor am I taking the position that the treatment of this particular jesting assassination advocate was fair or proportionate. Nor am I taking the position that government officials are incapable of crimes worthy of a death sentence [1] (think of the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War 2). I'm simply saying that the situations of Satoshi and Jim Bell aren't really comparable. [1] Although, even for people who really deserve it, I'd really rather not have death sentences recommended and carried out by the totally lawless process Mr. Bell jestingly advocated in a country I have to live in.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
First of all, based on that essay, it's entirely plausible to believe that Jim Bell is in fact guilty of felony tax evasion (and possibly more). However, it seems kind of crappy that the government response to a controversial exercise of first-amendment rights is to look really hard at you, dig up some dirt, and get you sent to jail. (Or make some dirt -- or at least trump up the charges if the dirt's not enough.) (A similar revenge case may have been brought against the CEO of Qwest, for a more 4th-amendment/NSA angle; in this case the charges that may have been trumped up were insider-trading charges, and certain evidence about the government's motives was excluded from the trial by the judge. Here's an article we've discussed in these fora before: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resisted-nsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30... )
_delirium 13y ago
Part of the issue with Bell is that it's not clear to anyone that it was really in jest, or even just a hypothetical future proposal. He proposed an assassination market, and was collecting home addresses of IRS and FBI officials, coincidentally.