5 ms·

>We recognized a public interest in establishing some core facts about Bitcoin and better informing those who might invest money in it. Bullshit. Revealing who

by jere 13y ago

>We recognized a public interest in establishing some core facts about Bitcoin and better informing those who might invest money in it. Bullshit. Revealing who Satoshi is doesn't give you one shred of information to help you decide whether or not to invest in Bitcion.

lolwutf 13y ago
Well, not really. Whoever Satoshi is does control an amount of BTC that could significantly shift the market if they suddenly did something with it...
thrush 13y ago
I guess it could be helpful knowing if it's a good-hearted civilian versus a tech savy mafioso.
- jere 13y ago
  Other than the fact that the guy owns perhaps $1 billion (surprise: he's not the only one), how is this illuminating? It's been open source for 5 years and, by design, Nakamoto has no control over it.
  - pohl 13y ago
    That's a good question. I'm on the fence. If you look at the design of an artifact and try to tease out clues to the intentions of the designer, that's very interesting to me. Recently there was an essay by Charlie Stross buzzing around, fueled by a particularly contentious passage that suggested that BitCoin looked as if it were designed as a weapon against central banking and tax collection. A good chunk of the techno-nerd community denied it with the standard observation that it's just a descentralized protocol, etc. So that conversation was very much like "This knife was designed to make fillet cuts". Response: "No, it's just a long sharp blade with an attached handle". And I came away from that thinking "really, doesn't the design of this artifact suggest a little more about its intended purpose?" And then this article comes out and suggests that the anthropological instincts of Charlie Stross vis-a-vis the design intent behind BitCoin may not have been so off the wall after all. And so that superficially feels somewhat illuminating to me, as someone who would not feel entirely comfortable throwing my weight behind something like that - despite how brilliant and cool BitCoin is on a purely technical level. I also wonder - if we entertain for a moment the hypothesis that Charlie Stross is on to something - does the fact that Nakamoto no longer has any control over it imply that it would no longer behave as designed?
tlb 13y ago
There are some values of Satoshi that would make some people change their minds: if it were an NSA operation, or a neo-Nazi group, or Scientologists, or Intellectual Ventures. Personally, I try pretty hard to not use things created by assholes, even if the things themselves are good. (You can't avoid things made by people with abrasive personalities, but I don't think I regularly use anything made by a genuine asshole.)
- Houshalter 13y ago
  But that's the entire point of bitcoin. It's decentralized. It doesn't matter who had the idea, they don't have any more control over it than anyone else.
  - npizzolato 13y ago
    Given the amount of bitcoins Satoshi allegedly owns, he would be able to exert more influence on the bitcoin market than anyone else.
- owenjones 13y ago
  Linus Torvalds is generally accepted to be pretty abrasive, at least, do you use anything created by him? I try not to learn anything about any creator whose work I admire, they will unfortunately generally disappoint.
  - sqrt17 13y ago
    abrasive != asshole The rough tone on lkml (supposedly) reflects the gap between people who want to make something that's nontrivial and used by many people and the smaller number of people who are actually able to do so. Setting yourself up as this kind of gatekeeper means you have to be non-likable towards a lot of people even if you're a perfectly nice person. Conversely, someone can be an asshole while showing spotless behaviour to the people they meet.
    - owenjones 13y ago
jere 13y ago
An analogy to clarify my point: this would be like having to learn about Steve Jobs to decide whether or not to invest in Apple in 2015.

by jere 13y ago

lolwutf 13y ago

Well, not really. Whoever Satoshi is does control an amount of BTC that could significantly shift the market if they suddenly did something with it...

thrush 13y ago

I guess it could be helpful knowing if it's a good-hearted civilian versus a tech savy mafioso.

jere 13y ago
Other than the fact that the guy owns perhaps $1 billion (surprise: he's not the only one), how is this illuminating? It's been open source for 5 years and, by design, Nakamoto has no control over it.
- pohl 13y ago
  That's a good question. I'm on the fence. If you look at the design of an artifact and try to tease out clues to the intentions of the designer, that's very interesting to me. Recently there was an essay by Charlie Stross buzzing around, fueled by a particularly contentious passage that suggested that BitCoin looked as if it were designed as a weapon against central banking and tax collection. A good chunk of the techno-nerd community denied it with the standard observation that it's just a descentralized protocol, etc. So that conversation was very much like "This knife was designed to make fillet cuts". Response: "No, it's just a long sharp blade with an attached handle". And I came away from that thinking "really, doesn't the design of this artifact suggest a little more about its intended purpose?" And then this article comes out and suggests that the anthropological instincts of Charlie Stross vis-a-vis the design intent behind BitCoin may not have been so off the wall after all. And so that superficially feels somewhat illuminating to me, as someone who would not feel entirely comfortable throwing my weight behind something like that - despite how brilliant and cool BitCoin is on a purely technical level. I also wonder - if we entertain for a moment the hypothesis that Charlie Stross is on to something - does the fact that Nakamoto no longer has any control over it imply that it would no longer behave as designed?

tlb 13y ago

There are some values of Satoshi that would make some people change their minds: if it were an NSA operation, or a neo-Nazi group, or Scientologists, or Intellectual Ventures. Personally, I try pretty hard to not use things created by assholes, even if the things themselves are good. (You can't avoid things made by people with abrasive personalities, but I don't think I regularly use anything made by a genuine asshole.)

Houshalter 13y ago
But that's the entire point of bitcoin. It's decentralized. It doesn't matter who had the idea, they don't have any more control over it than anyone else.
- npizzolato 13y ago
  Given the amount of bitcoins Satoshi allegedly owns, he would be able to exert more influence on the bitcoin market than anyone else.
owenjones 13y ago
Linus Torvalds is generally accepted to be pretty abrasive, at least, do you use anything created by him? I try not to learn anything about any creator whose work I admire, they will unfortunately generally disappoint.
- sqrt17 13y ago
  abrasive != asshole The rough tone on lkml (supposedly) reflects the gap between people who want to make something that's nontrivial and used by many people and the smaller number of people who are actually able to do so. Setting yourself up as this kind of gatekeeper means you have to be non-likable towards a lot of people even if you're a perfectly nice person. Conversely, someone can be an asshole while showing spotless behaviour to the people they meet.
  - owenjones 13y ago

jere 13y ago

An analogy to clarify my point: this would be like having to learn about Steve Jobs to decide whether or not to invest in Apple in 2015.