Is it possible that he is Satoshi Nakamoto?

[kokjo]

All we are Satoshi Nakamoto

wrong! we all could be Satoshi Nakamoto.

[1713522944]

1713522944

[1713522944]

1713522944

[1713522944]

1713522944

[RaTTuS]

wrong! we all could be Satoshi Nakamoto.

but only if we have the private key

[kokjo]

wrong! we all could be Satoshi Nakamoto.

but only if we have the private key

true. the only proof that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, is if he haves the private key from block 1.

[GideonGono]

I doubt this guy is at all involved in bitcoin. he already has the SS on his ass.

[vector76]

All we are Satoshi Nakamoto

wrong! we all could be Satoshi Nakamoto.

...just not all at the same time.   

[Rob Lister]

The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous.   

This quote from the article was interesting:

When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world.

This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor.

[kokjo]

The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous.   

This quote from the article was interesting:

When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world.

This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor.

and how would they hurt us? just asking... freeze all bitcoins?

[Rob Lister]

The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous.   

This quote from the article was interesting:

When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world.

This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor.

and how would they hurt us? just asking... freeze all bitcoins?

There are a myriad of ways an entity with the resources of a nation-state can hurt bitcoin, even destroy it for all practical purposes.  Will they?  I think they will if it gets on their radar as anything other than a momentary blip.  To what extent will they go after it?  To whatever extent is necessary to remove the threat they think it poses to them.

From the article:

When the Shadowcrew investigation wrapped in October 2004 with the shuttering of the site — and the arrest of more than a dozen members — the Justice Department turned its sights on E-Gold. Its goal was to force the service to comply with regulations governing money-transmitting services like Western Union and Travelex. Federal regulations required those businesses to register with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), to be licensed in states that required it, to diligently authenticate the identity of customers and to file suspicious activity reports on shady-looking customers. But E-Gold wasn’t doing this.

This represents the nut of it.

[kokjo]

The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous.   

This quote from the article was interesting:

When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world.

This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor.

and how would they hurt us? just asking... freeze all bitcoins?

There are a myriad of ways an entity with the resources of a nation-state can hurt bitcoin, even destroy it for all practical purposes.  Will they?  I think they will if it gets on their radar as anything other than a momentary blip.  To what extent will they go after it?  To whatever extent is necessary to remove the threat they think it poses to them.

From the article:

When the Shadowcrew investigation wrapped in October 2004 with the shuttering of the site — and the arrest of more than a dozen members — the Justice Department turned its sights on E-Gold. Its goal was to force the service to comply with regulations governing money-transmitting services like Western Union and Travelex. Federal regulations required those businesses to register with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), to be licensed in states that required it, to diligently authenticate the identity of customers and to file suspicious activity reports on shady-looking customers. But E-Gold wasn’t doing this.

This represents the nut of it.

so they will just say: bitcoins are illegal.
know what i would say: FUCK YOU. i live in europe, you can't touch me, im behind 5 proxys.

the main diffrences between bitcoin and e-gold is that bitcoin is decentralized, and backed by nothing.

[Rob Lister]

The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous.   

This quote from the article was interesting:

When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world.

This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor.

and how would they hurt us? just asking... freeze all bitcoins?

There are a myriad of ways an entity with the resources of a nation-state can hurt bitcoin, even destroy it for all practical purposes.  Will they?  I think they will if it gets on their radar as anything other than a momentary blip.  To what extent will they go after it?  To whatever extent is necessary to remove the threat they think it poses to them.

From the article:

When the Shadowcrew investigation wrapped in October 2004 with the shuttering of the site — and the arrest of more than a dozen members — the Justice Department turned its sights on E-Gold. Its goal was to force the service to comply with regulations governing money-transmitting services like Western Union and Travelex. Federal regulations required those businesses to register with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), to be licensed in states that required it, to diligently authenticate the identity of customers and to file suspicious activity reports on shady-looking customers. But E-Gold wasn’t doing this.

This represents the nut of it.

so they will just say: bitcoins are illegal.
know what i would say: FUCK YOU. i live in europe, you can't touch me, im behind 5 proxys.

the main diffrences between bitcoin and e-gold is that bitcoin is decentralized, and backed by nothing.

They could do exactly that, and other things as well.  They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too.  They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges).  They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process.  These are just a few of the things they could do.  I'm sure their are tons more.

In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat.

[kokjo]

They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too.

true. but im still behind 5 proxys. and you can't really not stop innovation.

They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges).

sure they can, but only the ones in the states. mtgox is in japan.

They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process.

no. fallacy. the governments could *maybe* perform double spending, they could not create new coins, or use mine coins, or destroy mine coins. or do anything that would screw with my coins. to perform double spending, they would also need to isolate the node the want to double spend with.

In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat.

they can not destroy my confidence in the system. i could still use it.

[Rob Lister]

They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too.

true. but im still behind 5 proxys. and you can't really not stop innovation.

They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges).

sure they can, but only the ones in the states. mtgox is in japan.

They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process.

no. fallacy. the governments could *maybe* perform double spending, they could not create new coins, or use mine coins, or destroy mine coins. or do anything that would screw with my coins. to perform double spending, they would also need to isolate the node the want to double spend with.

In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat.

they can not destroy my confidence in the system. i could still use it.

This isn't about you.  It isn't [wouldn't be] about YOUR confidence in the system.  It doesn't matter how many proxies you're behind, and I honestly don't know what that has to do with anything.  They're not targeting YOU.  Their goal would be to destroy 'general' confidence in the system and destroy the trade value. 

[kokjo]

They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too.

true. but im still behind 5 proxys. and you can't really not stop innovation.

They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges).

sure they can, but only the ones in the states. mtgox is in japan.

They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process.

no. fallacy. the governments could *maybe* perform double spending, they could not create new coins, or use mine coins, or destroy mine coins. or do anything that would screw with my coins. to perform double spending, they would also need to isolate the node the want to double spend with.

In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat.

they can not destroy my confidence in the system. i could still use it.

This isn't about you.  It isn't [wouldn't be] about YOUR confidence in the system.  It doesn't matter how many proxies you're behind, and I honestly don't know what that has to do with anything.  They're not targeting YOU.  Their goal would be to destroy 'general' confidence in the system and destroy the trade value. 

i know its not about me.but if I and other people are using the currency, and giving it value. there is nothing they can do about it. i can trade anonymously on slikroad if i like, they can't trace me.

[Rob Lister]

They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too.

true. but im still behind 5 proxys. and you can't really not stop innovation.

They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges).

sure they can, but only the ones in the states. mtgox is in japan.

They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process.

no. fallacy. the governments could *maybe* perform double spending, they could not create new coins, or use mine coins, or destroy mine coins. or do anything that would screw with my coins. to perform double spending, they would also need to isolate the node the want to double spend with.

In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat.

they can not destroy my confidence in the system. i could still use it.

This isn't about you.  It isn't [wouldn't be] about YOUR confidence in the system.  It doesn't matter how many proxies you're behind, and I honestly don't know what that has to do with anything.  They're not targeting YOU.  Their goal would be to destroy 'general' confidence in the system and destroy the trade value. 

i know its not about me.but if I and other people are using the currency, and giving it value. there is nothing they can do about it. i can trade anonymously on slikroad if i like, they can't trace me.

You say you know it's not about YOU but then you talk exclusively about YOU.  While it has some novelty value, like Pet Rocks, its real value is in its utility, current and potential.  That's what they'll target.  Kill its utility and you kill its value.  What good are your BTC holdings if they trade at a penny per coin?

[kokjo]

You say you know it's not about YOU but then you talk exclusively about YOU.  While it has some novelty value, like Pet Rocks, its real value is in its utility, current and potential.  That's what they'll target.  Kill its utility and you kill its value.  What good are your BTC holdings if they trade at a penny per coin?

well if i buy 100000 of them, is would have the same value are $1000. and i could go buy drugs anonymously.
and no im not only talking about ME, i do need some people to trade with, and im sure there will be some.
thats why i said

I and other people are using the currency

.

it does not matter how many there is using it. only that there are more then one.

[Rob Lister]

You say you know it's not about YOU but then you talk exclusively about YOU.  While it has some novelty value, like Pet Rocks, its real value is in its utility, current and potential.  That's what they'll target.  Kill its utility and you kill its value.  What good are your BTC holdings if they trade at a penny per coin?

well if i buy 100000 of them, is would have the same value are $1000. and i could go buy drugs anonymously.
and no im not only talking about ME, i do need some people to trade with, and im sure there will be some.
thats why i said

I and other people are using the currency

.

it does not matter how many there is using it. only that there are more then one.

OK, but when that happens, it is no longer a threat.  They 'win'.

[kokjo]

You say you know it's not about YOU but then you talk exclusively about YOU.  While it has some novelty value, like Pet Rocks, its real value is in its utility, current and potential.  That's what they'll target.  Kill its utility and you kill its value.  What good are your BTC holdings if they trade at a penny per coin?

well if i buy 100000 of them, is would have the same value are $1000. and i could go buy drugs anonymously.
and no im not only talking about ME, i do need some people to trade with, and im sure there will be some.
thats why i said

I and other people are using the currency

.

it does not matter how many there is using it. only that there are more then one.

OK, but when that happens, it is no longer a threat.  They 'win'.

i don't see any difference. i get to use bitcoin as a currency, im happy, and i will try to get more people to use it.
they cannot 'win'. simply not possible.

[benkebab]

Let's say all governments team up against Bitcoin since it can be used for illegal transactions.

All exchange website and all businesses accepting Bitcoins are sued and therefore have to close or survive hidden.

What would you do with a currency that you can only get by "mining" and buy nothing legal with it? I'm not even talking about the trust issues and their effect on btc price. That's maybe not a "win" to you, but it's pretty close...

[Phinnaeus Gage]

wrong! we all could be Satoshi Nakamoto.

but only if we have the private key

true. the only proof that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, is if he haves the private key from block 1.

"...if he haves the private key from block 1." ...and is kept in a purse over at Cell Block H.

[kokjo]

Let's say all governments team up against Bitcoin since it can be used for illegal transactions.

not gonna happen.

All exchange website and all businesses accepting Bitcoins are sued and therefore have to close or survive hidden.

not gonna happen either. silkroad is anonymous, therefor it can't be shutdown.

What would you do with a currency that you can only get by "mining" and buy nothing legal with it?

is this fictive scenario, i would buy illegal things. or use bitcoin as a friend2friend currency.
two friends could sell stuff to each other with bitcoin, it does not make the things illegal that they are trading.
and i would be able to exchange my bitcoins to a local currency, i would just need to find someone that is using it.

and i don't even think that there is something that is illegal all around the world.