The fixation on Satoshi makes me a little sad. Bitcoin was created to create a system of money without trust and central control— all the salient features are in the system, not in the motivations or non-public activities of its creator... so this kind of research is just valuable as a historical novelty, not in any practical way.
Making Bitcoin available was a gift to the world, but we seem to be repaying it with a not stop effort at violating the privacy of someone who clearly prefers it, plus these analysis are seldom very accurate— in most cases it may just as well be someone else... and then some other poor slub gets accused erroneously of being Satoshi, and potentially endangered when mentally ill people make assumptions about the returns on kidnapping. ::sigh::
I'd be less disappointed if the focus were just on early transactions, which are somewhat interesting on their own merits without the unnecessary game of pin the transaction on the person game.
Something wrong with the forum software - it dropped the part where you say, "I am 100% sure satoshi was/is not a bad actor".
If there is a non-zero chance that satoshi was/is a bad actor, then investigations into satoshi are justifiable - because unlike Henry Ford and the Model T, satoshi may know something/have something about bitcoin that I might be better off knowing about.
Looking at the code is one way to do it. Looking at founder actions and coin sources/destinations is another.
There are steps the founder can take in private to direct/quell the inquiry - contribute to a charity, send to a known bad address, and other things that people without my name can envision.
Show Posts
