6 ms·

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 • Pi

by 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?
        Crito 13y ago
        Bill Gates uses his money. That means that he can use some of his money on security. He would be in much more danger if he neither used his money nor kept his money in institutions that would raise alarms to authorities if you tried to force him to withdraw all of it.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Nakamoto could use his money too, if he's worried about security. Whether he does or not isn't up to Newsweek.
        Crito 13y ago
        You assume he could. He may not actually still have access to it. This situation isn't really comparable to the general public learning that somebody may or may not have a few million in investments and savings accounts. It is closer to the general public (excluding the police) learning that somebody may or may not have a few kilos of coke stashed somewhere in their home. This hypothetical bitcoin wealth, and the hypothetical coke wealth differs from hypothetical 'traditional' wealth in that they can be burglarized or extracted via torture without attracting outside attention.
        mpyne 13y ago
        The blockchain is visible to all... of course it would attract outside attention. But only if Nakamoto were actually able to spend it! If he's not able to spend it then he can't hire security I guess, but that would also put him at much lower risk of being burglarized for goods he can't give up. The important thing would seem to be making it clear he doesn't have access (that is, if he doesn't).
        Crito 13y ago
        Taking the wallet would not attract attention. Only transferring the coins would, and that could be done hours, days, weeks, hell even years after you've finished beating Satoshi with a wrench in his basement. You could be on step "Getaway" before the rest of the world was notified that something was going on. Stealing the fortunes of conventional multi-millionaires however necessarily involves interacting with the outside world at the time of the theft. Unless they are drug dealers anyway... there is a reason that drug dealers get hit by thieves so often, and it isn't only because the thieves know they will hesitate to contact police. If he can no longer access the coins (either because he intentionally destroyed the keys, or because he neglected backups), then proving that to be the case would be damn near impossible. In this hypothetical case, Satoshi may very well believe that he has a better chance of making it unclear that he is actually Satoshi.
    - masmullin 13y ago
      I doubt that he even has that bitcoin anymore. I expect that he lost the coin and thus is bitter and doesn't want to talk about it.
      - npizzolato 13y ago
        What makes you say that? It seems wildly speculative (at least, far more than the opposite opinion of believing he likely still has the coins he's believed to own).
        masmullin 13y ago
        Yup, it is wildly speculative. Seems just as likely a speculation as any other towards why he hasn't sold/spent the coins yet though.
        jmpe 13y ago
        Wildly? When you develop software based on your own novel framework, wouldn't you need to do several test-runs, performance runs, sanity runs in the process? Do you keep all the intermediate debug data? I know I don't. In this case bitcoins would be part of the intermediate data.
- izolate 13y ago
  I'm all for the "fuck celebrities and their privacy wishes" attitude, but only when it's those who actively choose to become famous. Satoshi didn't ask for any of this, so I highly respect his right to privacy. Furthermore, he's not famous, he's infamous. I wouldn't wish his current position upon my enemies.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
This is not constructive, and extremely naive. Journalism exists in part to put the powerful under the microscope. They have many more resources to hide their activities and to defend their interests than average folks, and don't need to be protected from public scrutiny.
- polymatter 13y ago
  And if she is wrong? Maybe he doesn't have access to his million dollar fortune. Maybe he lost the keys. Maybe someone else used his name and he is the Satoshi but not the creator. He is certainly not living as someone with hundreds of millions in the bank. In what way did he lose any right to be protected from public scrutiny (assuming anyone does have that right - I'm not sure they do)?
  - JabavuAdams 13y ago
    By making something that's used by vast numbers of people to channel huge amounts of money. Journalists need to be able to go after stories like this because otherwise our society will be much worse. They have editors. They have review boards. We're not talking about 4chan or reddit lynch mobs here.
    - polymatter 13y ago
      And if she is wrong? Maybe he is the wrong guy. How is he going to prove he didn't invent Bitcoin? Especially if he has done classified work. He clearly doesn't want attention. He couldn't have made that more clear. And he still has a right to a private life. I don't agree with your suggestion that creators don't have rights. I am not suggesting to stop journalists investigating who people are. But this is clearly someone who does not want attention. This could easily turn into a 4chan or reddit lynch mob. You only need a few Mtgox victims who want to enact revenge. Or criminals hoping of forcing him to pay hundreds of millions in blackmail. To a possibly innocent person. To be clear, this story could have been done without printing his whole address, car number plate, unblurred pictures of himself and his family etc.
arrrg 13y ago
Did I do anything of note that would make any of this information interesting to the public? I think I did not. If you want to put the work in and find all that out you are free to. I never once said that everyone should actually provide journalists with that information just like that. They still have to put the work in. Do that if you want to, but I don’t think you will find anything interesting.
- polymatter 13y ago
  If I understand your comment, you believe you are ok with sounds posting that list of sensitive private information, but only if he "put the work in" to find it. I guess thats the only reason you don't post all of that information publically yourself. Your information is clearly interesting to the public, look a member of the public specifically asked for it. How about if I compensate you, is that a reasonable substitute? How much would you charge in exchange for publishing every item on that list? I suspect you will find that there is some information that you'd rather not divulge on the open internet, where there is no shortage of crazies. Some of that info would be useful for identity fraud as well.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    No, you didn’t understand me. A. You have to put in the work and actually find stuff out. That’s what journalists do. B. You have to report on something relevant and interesting to the public. Some random person who didn’t do anything of any note is not relevant. Publishing identifying information on them is unethical. Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical.
    - howeyc 13y ago
      Who decides what is "anything of note" or who is considered "highly influential"
      - buttsex 13y ago
        Society? People have always wanted to know who Nakamoto was in real life and would consider creating Bitcoin something of note. Any news story about Bitcoin in the past couple years have included something about the mystique of Nakamoto.
demo9898 13y ago
The following is a 'proof-of-concept' comment that will be taken down within 24 hours or at user arrrg's request, whichever comes sooner. Extracted from user's own comment history: Nationality: German, Caucasian Location: In proximity to Bonn; possibly residing in an apartment within a zone with a higher than average ethnic population. Occupation: Computer related Educational background: possibly engineering / physical sciences Siblings: At least one sister Operating system: OSX or higher Screen resolution: 1440x900, 15.4 inch screen Primary and secondary education: possibly in Bavaria; victim of bullying. Political affiliations: self-identified socialist Police record: 1 traffic stop, no citation; 1 5 euro fine for jaywalking. Age: 25 or older Possible attendee of: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/schedule.html http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/schedule.html Possible mis-identification: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/speakers/4144.html http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/speakers/4144.ht... (video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBQ8xRM3jQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBQ8xRM3jQk) Living room audio: Airplay speaker Mobile phone: iPhone 5s Screenshot of user's google search results: http://imgur.com/a/Yco1R#0 http://imgur.com/a/Yco1R#0 Possible user of: Inkpad, iTunes Apple maintenance record: In 2007, MacBook Pro battery suffered an unusual number of failures, requiring repeated replacement. preemptive quotations from user's own comment history in response to possible responses: quoted 47 days ago: "The only legitimate use case to me seems not displaying possibly sensitive information" quoted 144 days ago: "Naming and shaming? What the hell are you on about?" "Sometimes I hate stupid engineers. They are such assholes sometimes that just do not get it at all. This fucking thing is some stupid fun. Nothing more. I’m not sure what this cynicism burning with the power of a million suns shit is all about." "Seems pretty reasonable to me that on a page like this every piece of content deserves its own history state. At least it’s a completely valid view, nothing to go apeshit over." Note: quotes are deliberately out of context. Note 2: The above information is sufficient to personally identify the user if someone is willing to spend the research effort. Note 3: Personal opinions about the user's personality/character have been avoided.
arrrg 13y ago
Yo, demo9898, that was hilarious. I sadly can’t respond directly to you since your haphazard summary of what I said in the past on this site is marked dead. Most of the stuff you list that I explicitly said about myself is spot-on (mostly because I explicitly said it) or at most slightly out of date, but all the inferred stuff is garbage. I’m pretty sure I could be identified with what I said here. Maybe. Probably. You, however, were running down all the wrong paths. Doing it properly would require some more amount of work. I guess that shows there is more to investigative journalism than reading a bunch of stuff someone wrote somewhere pseudonymously. And I’m still not sure why anyone would actually be interested in me and would want to publish anything about me. It’s not like I invented Bitcoin. (Also, man did I say some aggressive bullshit in the past. Sorry about that. People change, you know, or at least recognise that their past opinions were bullshit. I think that would be about the worst thing: Pointing out dumb things I said in the past. That really stings. But it’s all public anyway, so I don’t care too much. Humans aren’t perfect.) You can keep it up if you want to.

by sounds 13y ago

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?
      - Crito 13y ago
        Bill Gates uses his money. That means that he can use some of his money on security. He would be in much more danger if he neither used his money nor kept his money in institutions that would raise alarms to authorities if you tried to force him to withdraw all of it.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Nakamoto could use his money too, if he's worried about security. Whether he does or not isn't up to Newsweek.
        Crito 13y ago
        You assume he could. He may not actually still have access to it. This situation isn't really comparable to the general public learning that somebody may or may not have a few million in investments and savings accounts. It is closer to the general public (excluding the police) learning that somebody may or may not have a few kilos of coke stashed somewhere in their home. This hypothetical bitcoin wealth, and the hypothetical coke wealth differs from hypothetical 'traditional' wealth in that they can be burglarized or extracted via torture without attracting outside attention.
        mpyne 13y ago
        The blockchain is visible to all... of course it would attract outside attention. But only if Nakamoto were actually able to spend it! If he's not able to spend it then he can't hire security I guess, but that would also put him at much lower risk of being burglarized for goods he can't give up. The important thing would seem to be making it clear he doesn't have access (that is, if he doesn't).
        Crito 13y ago
        Taking the wallet would not attract attention. Only transferring the coins would, and that could be done hours, days, weeks, hell even years after you've finished beating Satoshi with a wrench in his basement. You could be on step "Getaway" before the rest of the world was notified that something was going on. Stealing the fortunes of conventional multi-millionaires however necessarily involves interacting with the outside world at the time of the theft. Unless they are drug dealers anyway... there is a reason that drug dealers get hit by thieves so often, and it isn't only because the thieves know they will hesitate to contact police. If he can no longer access the coins (either because he intentionally destroyed the keys, or because he neglected backups), then proving that to be the case would be damn near impossible. In this hypothetical case, Satoshi may very well believe that he has a better chance of making it unclear that he is actually Satoshi.
  - masmullin 13y ago
    I doubt that he even has that bitcoin anymore. I expect that he lost the coin and thus is bitter and doesn't want to talk about it.
    - npizzolato 13y ago
      What makes you say that? It seems wildly speculative (at least, far more than the opposite opinion of believing he likely still has the coins he's believed to own).
      - masmullin 13y ago
        Yup, it is wildly speculative. Seems just as likely a speculation as any other towards why he hasn't sold/spent the coins yet though.
        jmpe 13y ago
        Wildly? When you develop software based on your own novel framework, wouldn't you need to do several test-runs, performance runs, sanity runs in the process? Do you keep all the intermediate debug data? I know I don't. In this case bitcoins would be part of the intermediate data.
izolate 13y ago
I'm all for the "fuck celebrities and their privacy wishes" attitude, but only when it's those who actively choose to become famous. Satoshi didn't ask for any of this, so I highly respect his right to privacy. Furthermore, he's not famous, he's infamous. I wouldn't wish his current position upon my enemies.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

This is not constructive, and extremely naive. Journalism exists in part to put the powerful under the microscope. They have many more resources to hide their activities and to defend their interests than average folks, and don't need to be protected from public scrutiny.

polymatter 13y ago
And if she is wrong? Maybe he doesn't have access to his million dollar fortune. Maybe he lost the keys. Maybe someone else used his name and he is the Satoshi but not the creator. He is certainly not living as someone with hundreds of millions in the bank. In what way did he lose any right to be protected from public scrutiny (assuming anyone does have that right - I'm not sure they do)?
- JabavuAdams 13y ago
  By making something that's used by vast numbers of people to channel huge amounts of money. Journalists need to be able to go after stories like this because otherwise our society will be much worse. They have editors. They have review boards. We're not talking about 4chan or reddit lynch mobs here.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    And if she is wrong? Maybe he is the wrong guy. How is he going to prove he didn't invent Bitcoin? Especially if he has done classified work. He clearly doesn't want attention. He couldn't have made that more clear. And he still has a right to a private life. I don't agree with your suggestion that creators don't have rights. I am not suggesting to stop journalists investigating who people are. But this is clearly someone who does not want attention. This could easily turn into a 4chan or reddit lynch mob. You only need a few Mtgox victims who want to enact revenge. Or criminals hoping of forcing him to pay hundreds of millions in blackmail. To a possibly innocent person. To be clear, this story could have been done without printing his whole address, car number plate, unblurred pictures of himself and his family etc.

arrrg 13y ago

Did I do anything of note that would make any of this information interesting to the public? I think I did not. If you want to put the work in and find all that out you are free to. I never once said that everyone should actually provide journalists with that information just like that. They still have to put the work in. Do that if you want to, but I don’t think you will find anything interesting.

polymatter 13y ago
If I understand your comment, you believe you are ok with sounds posting that list of sensitive private information, but only if he "put the work in" to find it. I guess thats the only reason you don't post all of that information publically yourself. Your information is clearly interesting to the public, look a member of the public specifically asked for it. How about if I compensate you, is that a reasonable substitute? How much would you charge in exchange for publishing every item on that list? I suspect you will find that there is some information that you'd rather not divulge on the open internet, where there is no shortage of crazies. Some of that info would be useful for identity fraud as well.
- arrrg 13y ago
  No, you didn’t understand me. A. You have to put in the work and actually find stuff out. That’s what journalists do. B. You have to report on something relevant and interesting to the public. Some random person who didn’t do anything of any note is not relevant. Publishing identifying information on them is unethical. Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical.
  - howeyc 13y ago
    Who decides what is "anything of note" or who is considered "highly influential"
    - buttsex 13y ago
      Society? People have always wanted to know who Nakamoto was in real life and would consider creating Bitcoin something of note. Any news story about Bitcoin in the past couple years have included something about the mystique of Nakamoto.

demo9898 13y ago

The following is a 'proof-of-concept' comment that will be taken down within 24 hours or at user arrrg's request, whichever comes sooner. Extracted from user's own comment history: Nationality: German, Caucasian Location: In proximity to Bonn; possibly residing in an apartment within a zone with a higher than average ethnic population. Occupation: Computer related Educational background: possibly engineering / physical sciences Siblings: At least one sister Operating system: OSX or higher Screen resolution: 1440x900, 15.4 inch screen Primary and secondary education: possibly in Bavaria; victim of bullying. Political affiliations: self-identified socialist Police record: 1 traffic stop, no citation; 1 5 euro fine for jaywalking. Age: 25 or older Possible attendee of: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/schedule.html http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/schedule.html Possible mis-identification: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/speakers/4144.html http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/speakers/4144.ht... (video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBQ8xRM3jQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBQ8xRM3jQk) Living room audio: Airplay speaker Mobile phone: iPhone 5s Screenshot of user's google search results: http://imgur.com/a/Yco1R#0 http://imgur.com/a/Yco1R#0 Possible user of: Inkpad, iTunes Apple maintenance record: In 2007, MacBook Pro battery suffered an unusual number of failures, requiring repeated replacement. preemptive quotations from user's own comment history in response to possible responses: quoted 47 days ago: "The only legitimate use case to me seems not displaying possibly sensitive information" quoted 144 days ago: "Naming and shaming? What the hell are you on about?" "Sometimes I hate stupid engineers. They are such assholes sometimes that just do not get it at all. This fucking thing is some stupid fun. Nothing more. I’m not sure what this cynicism burning with the power of a million suns shit is all about." "Seems pretty reasonable to me that on a page like this every piece of content deserves its own history state. At least it’s a completely valid view, nothing to go apeshit over." Note: quotes are deliberately out of context. Note 2: The above information is sufficient to personally identify the user if someone is willing to spend the research effort. Note 3: Personal opinions about the user's personality/character have been avoided.

arrrg 13y ago

Yo, demo9898, that was hilarious. I sadly can’t respond directly to you since your haphazard summary of what I said in the past on this site is marked dead. Most of the stuff you list that I explicitly said about myself is spot-on (mostly because I explicitly said it) or at most slightly out of date, but all the inferred stuff is garbage. I’m pretty sure I could be identified with what I said here. Maybe. Probably. You, however, were running down all the wrong paths. Doing it properly would require some more amount of work. I guess that shows there is more to investigative journalism than reading a bunch of stuff someone wrote somewhere pseudonymously. And I’m still not sure why anyone would actually be interested in me and would want to publish anything about me. It’s not like I invented Bitcoin. (Also, man did I say some aggressive bullshit in the past. Sorry about that. People change, you know, or at least recognise that their past opinions were bullshit. I think that would be about the worst thing: Pointing out dumb things I said in the past. That really stings. But it’s all public anyway, so I don’t care too much. Humans aren’t perfect.) You can keep it up if you want to.