13 ms·

Being labeled Satoshi regardless of truth is pretty much going to get you robbed, kidnapped or killed. This dude lives in this town and has $400M of untraceable

• ig1 13y ago
  As I pointed out in the now dead earlier thread that while there's obviously privacy issues and Newsweek should have written the article without so many personal details there is clearly a public interest angle here. If the article is accurate the bitcoin founder has a background working as a software engineer on classified US government projects, which makes it a public interest issue due to pre-existing concerns that a government could have designed bitcoin to have secret vulnerabilities/backdoors.
  • Semaphor 13y ago
    Sure, I don't think many people would complain if they had written an article like that. The problem is the article this tabloid decided to publish.
  • eloff 13y ago
    The government now wants to backdoor bitcoin? I think you need a reality check.
    • ig1 13y ago
      The pre-existing concern wasn't that the government wanted to backdoor the crypto (as they have done with BSAFE, etc.) rather that Bitcoin might have been invented by a government for their own reasons. Obviously you can argue how likely that would be, but it's been widely discussed in the bitcoin community in the past and has been an issue of concern given there are "arbitrary" cryptographic decisions in the bitcoin algorithm design without clear reasoning.
• ewoodrich 13y ago
  It is hardly untraceable. I hear Bitcoin advocates frequently claim that government has an interest in "shutting down Bitcoin", but compared to the all-cash industry of most organized crime, Bitcoin's pseudonymity is law enforcement's dream come true. A state actor would merely have to obtain the identity of one key in a series of transactions on the blockchain, and would gain far more information than any informant could provide. Sure, mixers and other methods could obfuscate this, but it's not like 7/11 tracks serials of hundred dollar bills, so the blockchain by definition is richer source of transaction data. Full disclosure: I believe strongly in the concept of crypto currencies and Bitcoin, but do not own any coins/alt at the moment. (Modified repost from dead original thread)
  • rtpg 13y ago
    One thing that someone noted is that for a seller of illicit goods, bitcoin is better than paper in that with dollar bills you have to physically pick them up at one point. With bitcoin, sure you can trace coins, but laundering services (namely things like exchanges) can make you disappear a bit quicker. Overall, though, bitcoin is the IRS' dream.
    • samstave 13y ago
      I love the idea that bitcoin is the beta test for a global cryptocurrency to replace all money in the future and it is created by the government to test this form of currency. They will regulate all transactions/exchanges and will be able to trace the life of every coin.
    • mzs 13y ago
      Alternatively a seller gets paid in something else relatively valuable that they sell or trade later such as liquid laundry detergent.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• brohee 13y ago
  The main issue here is that Newsweek is not a newspaper anymore. It was sold for a pitance to a small Internet only publisher named IBT media ans is now a glorified blog. A recent article on France showed that fact checking wasn't part of the editorial process anymore... At this pace, the name will be completely worthless within five years... edit: well, it seems it is back in print just this week, but with very few printed
• watty 13y ago
  Why are you so certain he will get robbed, kidnapped, or killed? There are many many people with $400M+ and their information is freely available online and in the media as well.
  • mike_hearn 13y ago
    Their money is in banks. The existing financial system is much better at protecting peoples money from extortion and kidnapping than Bitcoin is: you can either request money in cash (and get arrested the moment you try and pick it up), or you can request a wire transfer to an account you had to give a passport to open up and where the transactions can be rolled back at any time. The fear is that it's not actually safe to be rich in Bitcoin at the moment. In theory, this can be resolved through the use of tamper-resistant secure hardware (like the chips used in credit cards): you put your bitcoins under the control of such a device and then it's programmed to only allow small "cash" withdrawals to unauthenticated addresses, and it does risk analysis and requires authenticated addresses for everything else. But no such devices exist yet.
    • npizzolato 13y ago
      You made your bed. Now lie in it. You can't hold all your wealth in a currency that is built to avoid government regulation and to send transactions around the world instantly (both of which would help in the event someone tried to rob/extort you) and then cry foul when you don't have any recourse for someone robbing or extorting you. I'll never wish Satoshi (or anyone else) is robbed or extorted for his wealth. But just like you shouldn't keep millions of dollars under your mattress, maybe you should diversify your (considerable) funds to better protect yourself from single points of failure.
  • JabavuAdams 13y ago
    For the same reason that you don't keep your retirement savings in bearer bonds, and then tell everyone that they're in your apartment.
  • massysett 13y ago
    And many of them have protection. For instance ExxonMobil has security for its executives. They need it: one of their execs was kidnapped for ransom and stuffed alive in a box.
• arrrg 13y ago
  Doxxing? That is such a stupid term. It’s called journalism. Reporting on people with a huge impact on the world is sort of what journalists do. Of course that includes identifying information. Sure, publishing identifying information of people who did nothing special is unethical but that can hardly be said about Satoshi. If the story is correct then this is some insanely rich dude who got rich by inventing Bitcoin which now got huge. I don’t think he needs you to defend him. (If any of this is incorrect her reporting is quite obviously highly irresponsible and unethical, but I’m assuming it is for now.) Also, quit being so paranoid.
  • sillysaurus3 13y ago
    Regarding your point about paranoia: Here's an example of people in Ecuador executing a father and son for a mere $20,000: http://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/1zktth/quito_robbery_devolved_into_two_cold_blooded/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/1zktth/quito_... This is what the Nakamoto family now has to worry about. It wasn't a random killing. There were at least 6 people arrested in connection with the murders. Apparently the robbers had people inside the bank who they were paying to alert them whenever someone withdrew large amounts of cash. People get killed over money a lot. It's probably not paranoia. I would recommend you watch the video to understand the gruesome nature of what Nakamoto now has to live with.
    • rickyc091 13y ago
      There are plenty of unreported ransoms out there... I just did a quick google and found this. http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/10-most-expensive-ransoms-ever-paid/ http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/10-most-expe...
    • bertil 13y ago
      I understand the fear, but the article seems to clearly say that he has less than any aging engineer -- I’d say with his actual name out there, he was a target, but no more. If anything it ties him to Federal security people, who tend to scare random Ecuadorians.
    • 13y ago
• dagw 13y ago
  Not that I think publishing his name and address was in any way a good idea, but how many US citizens from this list: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall get "robbed, kidnapped or killed" each year?
  • ceejayoz 13y ago
    Their money can't be irretrievably sent across the world instantly. You'd have to hold them hostage for at least a few days, make them sell all their shares and other holdings, wait for those transactions (which may well have tanked some stocks, leading a dozen reporters to your hostage situation) to clear, wait for the money to get into the bank, wait for the bank to transfer it to another account, and hope that at no point in the process anyone gets suspicious that a billionaire is liquidating everything and sending it to Eastern Europe.
  • rickyc091 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings#Modern_kidnappings_of_celebrities_or_their_relatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings#Modern_kidn... List of the known ones, think about how many are unreported...
  • prostoalex 13y ago
    Their personal security spending runs millions of dollars a year. For example: http://gizmodo.com/5517656/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-has-17m-worth-of-security-protecting-him http://gizmodo.com/5517656/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-has-17m-wor...
    • anigbrowl 13y ago
      So? He can afford it. I'm pretty sure that the real issue here is that if he starts spending his money he's going to get hit with a very large tax bill which he would rather not receive.
      • prostoalex 13y ago
        I'm not debating the affordability, I'm debating the wonderful crime-free world described by parent, where kidnappings and burglaries just don't happen.
• sillysaurus3 13y ago
  Also, if Nakamoto wishes to remain private, then it's their right to remain private.
  • deong 13y ago
    That isn't, strictly speaking, true. It's certainly his right to refuse to comment, appear on camera, accept interviews, etc., but it's also Newsweek's right to say what they want about his life and his work. As long as they aren't writing falsehoods and don't cross the line into harassment, they're free to publish.
    • sillysaurus3 13y ago
      I was speaking of moral rights rather than legal rights, and of being a good person. Though I realize many feel these traits don't exist at all.
    • aestra 13y ago
      Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
      • deong 13y ago
        Oh, I agree with you. The Grantland thing from a bit ago is I think a better example than this Newsweek piece though. Here there's arguably a legitimate public interest served by knowing where this huge and valuable thing comes from. While it right on the border, and others may certainly disagree, I think it's a stretch to call this piece so far over that line as to merit outrage about it.
  • wpietri 13y ago
    Could you explain how you think this right works, and to what extent it protects people aiming to effect the world from scrutiny by that world? The US does have a right to privacy, but invoking to suggest nobody should have asked about Nakamoto suggests you are talking about something entirely different.
  • 13y ago
• GFischer 13y ago
  He's not the first person with 400 million or more. I guess he'll have to adjust to living like a millionaire/celebrity. The owner of the company I work for has thirty times the money Satoshi allegedly has, and yes, he has a bodyguard at most times. That said, I wish they'd protected his privacy more. It seems he didn't want to be outed.
  • TacticalCoder 13y ago
    OK but what if it's not him and some bad people think it's him? Then he has to adjust living like a millionaire but without the money to do so?
• corresation 13y ago
  This dude lives in this town and has $400M of untraceable currency? It isn't untraceable, and by consensus the Bitcoin community could de-list all of the origin block mining outputs. Alternately the creator could simply say that he deleted the private keys, which it seems likely that he probably did. They have always hung like a stench over the currency, people wary that one person holds so much of the reserves, with the ability to collapse the market completely at any time. I don't quite get the outrage about this article. He used his real name on the original paper, and he did something famous. That makes people look for him. The article sounds like it makes some leaps, however. He worked in shadowy areas, so that is proof that he is the original author? Where is the actual proof beyond innuendo? Someone tacitly saying "it is me" can as likely be someone looking for a little excitement and attention. It's also weird that he refuses to talk, but then his children are gregarious about it.
• unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Not for nothing, but it's a bit ironic that you rail on against the irresponsibility of the paper for publishing this, then throw up a non pay-walled link to help ensure that people can access it. But, thanks.
  • nwh 13y ago
    Streisand effect.
• dkersten 13y ago
  I read this book a few years ago: http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible-Protect-Children/dp/1250010454 http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible-Protect-Children/dp/1... In it there is a section where he asks "Why would you want privacy anyway?" and this is exactly one of those reasons. You get labelled in some way, even if its not true, and that label sticks with you forever, potentially ruining your life or putting you in danger...
• stevewilhelm 13y ago
  There is a long tradition of reporting the details of wealthy people. [1] [1] http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab:overall
• gasull 13y ago
  I don't think Gavin is acknowledging that this is the real Satoshi (he cannot even know). He's just complaining about the doxing of the Nakamoto family, regardless of if this guy is or not the real Satoshi.
• georgemcbay 13y ago
  "Being labeled Satoshi regardless of truth is pretty much going to get you robbed, kidnapped or killed." People say that a lot as it pertains to Satoshi, but I don't see any realistic basis for it except watching too many bad movies. Even if you had $400M in stolen bitcoin, how are you going to unload that quickly enough for the payoff to be worth murder/kidnap or whatever else? The Winklevii seem to have fulltime jobs getting PR on the fact that they hold $40M in bitcoin, what's the tipping point at which they will certainly be killed? If a "feature" of bitcoin is that if you happen to get wealthy in it you're bound to be killed, well that's a pretty shitty feature of a currency. Luckily, the idea that this will happen is just hogwash. The whole beauty of bitcoin is that because nobody is sure how to regulate it, you can steal/embezzle huge amounts of it and likely never get in trouble. Why fuck that up with the dirty business of murder and kidnapping, which are very clearly illegal?