10 ms·

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

• 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.
  • acjohnson55 13y ago
    A lot of people have that much money in the US. SN might have to actually take precautions appropriate of someone of his net worth. Boo hoo.
    • orclev 13y ago
      Except his actual net worth is probably a fraction of what his theoretical net worth is. It's assumed for instance that he still has access to all those bitcoins, but something could have happened to that wallet. There's also the difficulty of actually converting those coins into something the average business will accept. It's like suggesting that handing someone a billion dollars in un-vested bonds suddenly makes them a billionaire, but in reality there not really any richer currently than they were before, although in some theoretical future they might be (assuming they hang onto the bonds till they vest and can cash them in).
      • acjohnson55 13y ago
        Fair point. It's a tricky situation. But, hey, sometimes, life hands us lemons. I'm sure there are many reasonable solutions. Perhaps not his preferred solution, but solutions nonetheless.
      • bitJericho 13y ago
        His cashing in bitcoins could destroy Bitcoin XD
  • arrrg 13y ago
    Yeah, and people get robbed and killed for a few hundred dollar all the time. So what? That’s just a reality. I don’t really see the connection.
    • sillysaurus3 13y ago
      This wasn't a random robbery though. This was a systematic killing involving dirty banking employees who sent people to hunt them down. The connection is that $20,000 is a ton of money in Ecuador, and Nakamoto has a ton of money, so Nakamoto now has to worry about being hunted.
      • scott_s 13y ago
        Except that Nakamoto lives in LA.
        • sillysaurus3 13y ago
          Isn't Nakamoto the only person who lives in LA who also controls >10% of a currency?
          • scott_s 13y ago
            Yes, but he's not the only person in LA with a net worth that large. And people who hold a large amount of stock in a company are in a similar situation.
            • ceejayoz 13y ago
              > And people who hold a large amount of stock in a company are in a similar situation. Initiate a Bitcoin transfer at the same time as a stock sale followed up by a bank transfer from your brokerage and let us know which one finishes faster. Plus, the brokerage and the bank can choose to hold and/or reverse your transactions, for reasons like "hmm, we should probably see if Bill Gates really meant to sell all his Microsoft shares..." There are not many people sitting on tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in a format that you can store in your house and send irretrievably to a guy in Eastern Europe in an instant.
  • whyenot 13y ago
    Nakamoto doesn't live in Quito, Ecuador.
    • mzs 13y ago
      http://www.lapdonline.org/southeast_news/news_view/22885 http://www.lapdonline.org/southeast_news/news_view/22885 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Parker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Parker http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/la-na-drug-kidnappings12-2009feb12,0,544773.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/l...
    • ceejayoz 13y ago
      Counterpoint: the potential reward for bagging him isn't $20k.
  • discardorama 13y ago
    Meanwhile Bill Gates, who is worth 200X more than SN, continues to waltz around in public.
    • rl12345 13y ago
      Bill Gates doesn't have virtually 100% of his fortune actually stored in his house, does he?
      • seren 13y ago
        If by some extortion means, you manage to get a few percent of Microsoft shares, what are you going to do ? Sit at the board ?
    • judk 13y ago
      Bill Gates spends millions of dollars per year on personal security.
      • anigbrowl 13y ago
        So? Nakamoto can spend money on security too if he feels like it. As a cryptographer he's surely familiar with the adage that 'tehre's no security in obscurity,' and I'm only surprised it's taken this long to ID him.
        • etherael 13y ago
          It's probably not actually him.
          • anigbrowl 13y ago
            Then why not simply say so? If she's misquoting him and he actually has nothing to do with Bitcoin, then he could easily sue for libel.
            • etherael 13y ago
• sounds 13y ago
  If you're so comfortable with journalism, I'd like to interview you. But first please provide: • Full names and home towns of your children and your wife • Picture of your house – include a clear photo of your car's license plate • Your home town, so anyone can locate you on Google Maps • Your work history • Your net worth • Your health history • Any notable personality traits you have, so the whole world can comment on them Seriously, put up or shut up.
  • verroq 13y ago
    He's a public figure/celebrity ever since Bitcoin blew up. Take any celebrity and you can easily fill out this list.
    • sounds 13y ago
      Fine. Your skills give you the power, with a little effort, to invade someone's privacy. Because he's famous, you're more likely to pick on him. A journalist has the ability to take that to a whole new level by really shining a spotlight on it. Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.
      • verroq 13y ago
        I doubt that he's in much trouble with his 400m
        • judk 13y ago
          The whole point is that it paints a huge target on his back. And he isn't even using that 400m to do anything deserving of vigilante/criminal attacks, and no one knows if he even really has it
          • Amezarak 13y ago
            I did a quick Google search and found plenty of information about Bill Gates, including pictures of his house. In fact you can do this with just about anybody. How and why is he at more risk than any other multimillionaire for whom all this information is public?
• Jare 13y ago
  No, you quit being so insensitive. I hope you never have to suffer a similar attack on whatever you consider most important in your life.
• bertil 13y ago
  If I may: first, your tone is a bit off. More importantly, ‘doxx’ing covers two situations: * bad individual actors (disrespect in a public space, violence against weaker beings) where the outrage is the motivator; it is often wrong to make those information public, and the investigation should rapidly fold and forward its conclusion to law enforcement; it's not journalism, or gutter-journalism at best, and even low-level rags do it properly; * people with significant impact, but whose role requires anonymity (or rather: empathic pseudonymous steganography): leakers, etc. Revealing their motivation but not their identity is good journalism. I agree that in Satoshi Nakamoto’s case, revealing details about his life adresses key issues (BitCoin public image; the incredible dedication of so many, humility and gender-role in technical fields) against his will. This article, hopefully will take away the unwanted attention from his back, focus BitCoin as an open-source project with contributors, and a product-vision that was grown/twisted by Andersen’s more clear and open views. However, there is a word that is morally loaded and useful to describe the irresponsible behaviour of 4chan and ‘Flesh search engines’. It’s distinct from good journalism. This article is the later, not the former -- but it’s very much on the edge. The journalist could easily have avoided mentioning the location, or said that the name was a pseudonym or a mispelling.
• ThomPete 13y ago
  The press has a lot of knowledge of high interest to the public that they never publish for various reasons. Sometimes they can't prove a relation, other times they don't feel the public can deal with the information and finally sometimes they are simply asked not to post it. the primary kind of stories where this is normal is with politicians. In other words. You argument would have some more weight if it was used everywhere else too. The press always have a choice and they also did here. It's not in the public interest to figure out who the creator of bitcoin is. It serves no purpose. It ads no value to bitcoin.
  • mpyne 13y ago
    > It's not in the public interest to figure out who the creator of bitcoin is. It serves no purpose. It ads no value to bitcoin. But it is in Newsweek's interest to find the creator of Bitcoin, if they can get the scoop. It's the free market plus the Bill of Rights (specifically the First Amendment) in action. A perfectly libertarian thing just happened here, IMHO.
    • ThomPete 13y ago
      You don't live in a libertarian society so that means very little. The fact is that the press often hold back from releasing information often hold back from using Bill of rights. They should have been more careful here. Now it's too late. Read below. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479050/press-chases-alleged-bitcoin-creator-through-los-angeles http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479050/press-chases-allege...
      • mpyne 13y ago
        > You don't live in a libertarian society so that means very little. Are you saying such a thing would not have happened in a libertarian society? Do you seriously believe that?
        • ThomPete 13y ago
          I am saying that libertarian or not it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
• brohee 13y ago
  It's not journalism when everything hints at the wrong person being doxxed http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zpmo8/the_face_behind_bitcoin_satoshi_nakamoto_is/cfvv5mw http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zpmo8/the_face_beh... He now likely has ground to sue Newsweek, sadly I'm afraid their pockets ain't too deep these days...
• wpietri 13y ago
  Like you, I'm a little amazed at the notion that we should collectively work assiduously to preserve the anonymity of people who have set out to have a substantial effect on the public sphere. I think average citizens have a substantial right to privacy. But it sounds crazy to me that we shouldn't be able to ask questions about the people behind major news items, people changing the world we live in. That's especially true in this case given that the guy used his own freaking name. Presumably somebody with a security clearance working on a cryptocurrency knows the implications of that. Yes, as a nerd I too am uncomfortable when I become the center of attention. But the whole world is not obligated to tip-toe around my personal discomforts.
• john_b 13y ago
  > "Sure, publishing identifying information of people who did nothing special is unethical but that can hardly be said about Satoshi." This is wrong on so many levels. Here is a guy who created arguably the largest financial innovation of the century and who only wants to be left to live a humble, private life instead of claiming his riches, and you think that a mass of curious strangers have a right to intrude into his life, jeopardizing his safety and that of his family just so you can have the satisfaction of putting a face with a name? Journalism isn't the same as stalking. This is a man who clearly values his privacy and who had it compromised by his own overly talkative family and by questionable actions on the part of Newsweek (note that they carefully omit how they acquired his email from the model train website). Your response encapsulates everything that is wrong with celebrity voyeurism in America.
  • npizzolato 13y ago
    I would argue that there is in fact a public interest in learning more about the inventor of what is "arguably the largest financial innovation of the century". Learning more about his life and others involved in bitcoin can help us understand the motivations of the individuals that led to its creation. The fact that a man who worked in classified government projects for a long period of time went on to create bitcoin is certainly interesting. My impression from the article was that all other interviews were given very freely. There's nothing unethical about asking Satoshi's family or those he worked with in creating bitcoin about him. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting his picture either. Granted, the article could have done with a less-revealing picture of his house. But given the prevalence of things like Google street view etc., I'm not sure you can reasonably expect to keep that stuff secret.
    • john_b 13y ago
      They could also simply be decent human beings and not post his address or a picture of his house at all, much less what kind of car he drives and its license plate. Right now there is nothing stopping any crook smart enough to set up a bitcoin wallet from breaking into his house and demanding Nakamoto transfer some or all of his bitcoins to it. Most wealthy people keep their wealth in banks, but the keys to Nakamoto's wealth are probably on a hard drive in that house. The transaction would be on the public blockchain, but it would be irreversible and difficult to follow after enough mixing.