If Satoshi was not an unknown person, would Bitcoin have turned out different?

[hilariousandco]

He might have been thrown in jail, probably the only difference.

Thrown in jail for what exactly?

[virtuexru_shibe]

http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/

Personally, I really liked that article.. it was super interesting. However I don't think it was the guy who is/was 'Satoshi'. I don't think anyone will ever know!

Or perhaps he wait's with his eternal 100 million coin banhammer in 30-40+ years in case BTC doesn't go a direction that he predestined.

[jubalix]

Satoshi decentralised himself.

[Tirapon]

Critics would have used flaws of the person to attack Bitcoin. It's better for Satoshi to remain an unknown, that way Bitcoin stands on its own properties, without being exposed to the character traits of its creator.

Excellent observation

[oakpacific]

He might have been thrown in jail, probably the only difference.

Perhaps he learnt from last time when they nailed him to a cross?

(Not to be taken literally, just a thought provoking statement - make of it what you will)

Here is one thought provoked: Ancient saints are obscure, we can only learn about them through their words and tales retold by others, modern heroes are otoh thoroughly scrutinized and analyzed, in this aspect Satoshi is more similar to the ancient saints than the modern heroes, thanks to the anonymity technology.

[Tirapon]

Satoshi decentralised himself.

Satoshi decided that he wanted to learn everything. This would be a task that would take an infinite number of lifetimes, and involve living an infinite number of lives. He therefore decided to run the task in parallel as a recurring process.

[dewdeded]

Doesn't matter. DOGE is a huge hit and the founders are both known.

[Kluge]

"What was it like, creating the Bitcoin protocol?"

"Ha! Actually - a funny story about that. I got the idea from a pretty wicked acid trip. I'd just started living with my son again, and he was breaking all my liquor bottles against the walls for some reason. Anyway, I noticed all the little pieces coming together, through no central movement, and reforming. I was wondering what could be guiding the broken glass to reform. I kept thinking about it and thinking about it... I didn't sleep for days. Suddenly, I figured it out: public-key cryptography. God was using his private key to authorize the reformation of the bottle, but because he didn't want to actually reveal his identity, he instead used a hash. You know, he signed a message, basically. This hash gave the Earth spirits permission to reform the bottle, and then I thought... I'm fuckin' wasted, and I want to forget being wasted, but the liquor store probably won't sell to me right now because I'm fuckin' wasted. Real chicken-egg problem. I realized I needed to create a new identity which could buy liquor for me.

Actually, my full plan was to launch drones and create a kind of genome-based open ID system. Basically, I wanted to send off a drone which carried my public key linked to my genome and some authority's (something like web of trust) attestation of my name and identity. I'd sign a message to my drone, authorizing it to pick up more liquor. Well, I live in a small town and the few banks in the area all refuse service to me, so I was thinking, you know, maybe I could use some type of distributed database saying I owned money, and maybe I deposit it at some bank. I mean, I wasn't sure if they'd believe me, so I thought maybe I could just stab the clerk, but then went right back to thinking about that reformed liquor bottle my son broke and realized the answer."

[2bfree]

The rulers (those who regulate us) would nit pick every little detail and then get the paid "journalist" to blow it out of proportion on corrupt "main stream" media. So it would not be as good as now, plus I think he can walk free and enjoy life then be chased and watched over like a "celebrity"

[BitThink]

How about Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin? How many Litecoins does he have? Will he be put into jail or have to hide somewhere? Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

[dewdeded]

Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

Yeah, looks like this. LTC is on the road to perdition. Community is shrinking, usage is shrinking, ...

[BitThink]

Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

Yeah, looks like this. LTC is on the road to perdition. Community is shrinking, usage is shrinking, ...

Even if what you said is true, it is because of the competition of all the alt-coins and has nothing to do with the anonymity of the creators.

[Kluge]

How about Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin? How many Litecoins does he have? Will he be put into jail or have to hide somewhere? Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

It's kind of apples & oranges. Satoshi's invention was monumental and revolutionary. Litecoin, while I don't mean to belittle it (and I do own some), is an incremental and not even necessarily superier alternative. The market cap of Litecoin is dwarfed by Bitcoin, and it receives orders of magnitudes less media coverage.

If Charlie Lee went around smoking crack cocaine in public (or snorting... or injecting... Idunno - whatever they do with that) - and again, I don't mean to belittle LTC or Charlie - nobody in the media would care. It wouldn't justify running a story and it'd probably have no impact on Bitcoin. If Satoshi came out of the woodworks and bought a bunch of cocaine off whatever the current Silk Road is, then made it public - it'd be run all over the press as something to laugh about. It'd get ratings and, by association, discredit something threatening the current power structure. Litecoin would likely lose credibility if Satoshi came out as some type of backwoods hick with paranoid schizophrenia, but Bitcoin wouldn't lose credibility if the same were known of Charlie Lee.

[BitThink]

How about Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin? How many Litecoins does he have? Will he be put into jail or have to hide somewhere? Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

It's kind of apples & oranges. Satoshi's invention was monumental and revolutionary. Litecoin, while I don't mean to belittle it (and I do own some), is an incremental and not even necessarily superier alternative. The market cap of Litecoin is dwarfed by Bitcoin, and it receives orders of magnitudes less media coverage.

If Charlie Lee went around smoking crack cocaine in public (or snorting... or injecting... Idunno - whatever they do with that) - and again, I don't mean to belittle LTC or Charlie - nobody in the media would care. It wouldn't justify running a story and it'd probably have no impact on Bitcoin. If Satoshi came out of the woodworks and bought a bunch of cocaine off whatever the current Silk Road is, then made it public - it'd be run all over the press as something to laugh about. It'd get ratings and, by association, discredit something threatening the current power structure. Litecoin would likely lose credibility if Satoshi came out as some type of backwoods hick with paranoid schizophrenia, but Bitcoin wouldn't lose credibility if the same were known of Charlie Lee.

Bitcoin is a completely open source project and everyone can see the source code.

Since someone already mentioned about Linus, let's talk about Linus. Linus is obviously not a polite person and always being very rude in the community. Do people refuse using Linux because of that? Einstein as another example, as we know actually he was very mean to his wife, do people care about that? I don't think we should evaluate an innovation by looking at the personality or even dignity of the inventor.

Most early adaptors are convinced by the white paper and open sourced project, and the current adaptors are mostly attracted by the 100x appreciation. Nobody really cares who Satoshi is and whether he's a good guy or bad guy. Now Gavin is the one who works at the official client full time, does anyone care about Gavin is not anonymous and who have paid enough attention to ensure Gavin is a good guy who will not put some malicious code inside? No, because it is open source project.

The only impact of Satoshi is that whether and when he will sell his holding. If he is anonymous, that's the only meaningful question for people to ask them and apparently will not get any reliable answer.

[dewdeded]

Since someone already mentioned about Linus, let's talk about Linus. Linus is obviously not a polite person and always being very rude in the community. Do people refuse using Linux because of that?

Wat?! You mixing Theo de Raadt up with Linus Torvalds?

[BitThink]

Since someone already mentioned about Linus, let's talk about Linus. Linus is obviously not a polite person and always being very rude in the community. Do people refuse using Linux because of that?

Wat?! You mixing Theo de Raadt up with Linus Torvalds?

Kind of off-topic, but here's a link may help and there're some references of Linus's famous 'rude' talk there.
http://blog.mozilla.org/ejpbruel/2013/02/26/linus-torvalds-is-a-terrible-role-model-for-the-open-source-community/

[Kluge]

How about Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin? How many Litecoins does he have? Will he be put into jail or have to hide somewhere? Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

It's kind of apples & oranges. Satoshi's invention was monumental and revolutionary. Litecoin, while I don't mean to belittle it (and I do own some), is an incremental and not even necessarily superier alternative. The market cap of Litecoin is dwarfed by Bitcoin, and it receives orders of magnitudes less media coverage.

If Charlie Lee went around smoking crack cocaine in public (or snorting... or injecting... Idunno - whatever they do with that) - and again, I don't mean to belittle LTC or Charlie - nobody in the media would care. It wouldn't justify running a story and it'd probably have no impact on Bitcoin. If Satoshi came out of the woodworks and bought a bunch of cocaine off whatever the current Silk Road is, then made it public - it'd be run all over the press as something to laugh about. It'd get ratings and, by association, discredit something threatening the current power structure. Litecoin would likely lose credibility if Satoshi came out as some type of backwoods hick with paranoid schizophrenia, but Bitcoin wouldn't lose credibility if the same were known of Charlie Lee.

Bitcoin is a completely open source project and everyone can see the source code.

Since someone already mentioned about Linus, let's talk about Linus. Linus is obviously not a polite person and always being very rude in the community. Do people refuse using Linux because of that? Einstein as another example, as we know actually he was very mean to his wife, do people care about that? I don't think we should evaluate an innovation by looking at the personality or even dignity of the inventor.

Most early adaptors are convinced by the white paper and open sourced project, and the current adaptors are mostly attracted by the 100x appreciation. Nobody really cares who Satoshi is and whether he's a good guy or bad guy. Now Gavin is the one who works at the official client full time, does anyone care about Gavin is not anonymous and who have paid enough attention to ensure Gavin is a good guy who will not put some malicious code inside? No, because it is open source project.

The only impact of Satoshi is that whether and when he will sell his holding. If he is anonymous, that's the only meaningful question for people to ask them and apparently will not get any reliable answer.

I've never even heard of a Linus, but I don't fully disagree with you. The issue I kind of have is that you can easily say Satoshi was/is a peddler. That is, if you buy or otherwise support his coin, you're effectively handing some portion of that money you used over to him which he'll take when he dumps (should you assume he's going to sell). If you spin the story as some guy who goes around peddling this coin of his, it looks a little iffy, especially if he's a "bad" person. Should it've come out that Satoshi was/is a child-raping terrorist who murders puppies, I don't think many people would want to support anything created by him on principle, for the same reason there are many who truly believe inhumane research should be ignored -- research from Nazi research on jews, gays, etc. -- but in this case, you're not only embracing the "fruit" of the person, but also potentially giving the person money.

I'm looking at this in a worst-case scenario light. Let's say there's a local shop in a fairly small community, and the owner is a convicted child rapist who allegedly sold child porn he made to buy the large house he lives in. He offers disruptively low prices, though. Do you buy from him because he apparently has good ideas, or do you refuse based on principle and because any profits the shopkeeper holds may be used to sustain a morally reprehensible lifestyle? Maybe another member of his family runs it, but there's still going to be a moral dilemna there, and I think it's reasonable to assume a good few people will refuse to shop there.

Put yet another way... I used to be fairly active in libertarian circles. They would literally start blanket "embargos" (what's the word I'm looking for? Consumer strikes?) on companies owned by a company or person they have moral qualms with. Is the effect significant? Maybe... probably not... but it's not something frequently in the press. There are some particularly horrible companies like Monsanto, and even though there's a fair amount of coverage in alternative press, it's still rarely covered in mainstream press, and I doubt most people have a negative opinion of them or even know what they sell. If their misdeeds were covered in the mainstream press, I think it'd be a different story, though maybe they'd still be profitable and take in close to the same amount of revenues. Given Bitcoin is relatively ideological and tends to attract a fair number of ideological people, I think there would be impact from Satoshi revealing himself and possibly being dragged through the mud by unsavory people in power. Did Satoshi take the same line of thinking, or did he have something else in mind? Obviously, I have no idea.

[BitThink]

How about Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin? How many Litecoins does he have? Will he be put into jail or have to hide somewhere? Do people avoid using the official Litecoin client because Charlie is not anonymous?

It's kind of apples & oranges. Satoshi's invention was monumental and revolutionary. Litecoin, while I don't mean to belittle it (and I do own some), is an incremental and not even necessarily superier alternative. The market cap of Litecoin is dwarfed by Bitcoin, and it receives orders of magnitudes less media coverage.

If Charlie Lee went around smoking crack cocaine in public (or snorting... or injecting... Idunno - whatever they do with that) - and again, I don't mean to belittle LTC or Charlie - nobody in the media would care. It wouldn't justify running a story and it'd probably have no impact on Bitcoin. If Satoshi came out of the woodworks and bought a bunch of cocaine off whatever the current Silk Road is, then made it public - it'd be run all over the press as something to laugh about. It'd get ratings and, by association, discredit something threatening the current power structure. Litecoin would likely lose credibility if Satoshi came out as some type of backwoods hick with paranoid schizophrenia, but Bitcoin wouldn't lose credibility if the same were known of Charlie Lee.

Bitcoin is a completely open source project and everyone can see the source code.

Since someone already mentioned about Linus, let's talk about Linus. Linus is obviously not a polite person and always being very rude in the community. Do people refuse using Linux because of that? Einstein as another example, as we know actually he was very mean to his wife, do people care about that? I don't think we should evaluate an innovation by looking at the personality or even dignity of the inventor.

Most early adaptors are convinced by the white paper and open sourced project, and the current adaptors are mostly attracted by the 100x appreciation. Nobody really cares who Satoshi is and whether he's a good guy or bad guy. Now Gavin is the one who works at the official client full time, does anyone care about Gavin is not anonymous and who have paid enough attention to ensure Gavin is a good guy who will not put some malicious code inside? No, because it is open source project.

The only impact of Satoshi is that whether and when he will sell his holding. If he is anonymous, that's the only meaningful question for people to ask them and apparently will not get any reliable answer.

I've never even heard of a Linus, but I don't fully disagree with you. The issue I kind of have is that you can easily say Satoshi was/is a peddler. That is, if you buy or otherwise support his coin, you're effectively handing some portion of that money you used over to him which he'll take when he dumps (should you assume he's going to sell). If you spin the story as some guy who goes around peddling this coin of his, it looks a little iffy, especially if he's a "bad" person. Should it've come out that Satoshi was/is a child-raping terrorist who murders puppies, I don't think many people would want to support anything created by him on principle, for the same reason there are many who truly believe inhumane research should be ignored -- research from Nazi research on jews, gays, etc. -- but in this case, you're not only embracing the "fruit" of the person, but also potentially giving the person money.

I'm looking at this in a worst-case scenario light. Let's say there's a local shop in a fairly small community, and the owner is a convicted child rapist who allegedly sold child porn he made to buy the large house he lives in. He offers disruptively low prices, though. Do you buy from him because he apparently has good ideas, or do you refuse based on principle and because any profits the shopkeeper holds may be used to sustain a morally reprehensible lifestyle? Maybe another member of his family runs it, but there's still going to be a moral dilemna there, and I think it's reasonable to assume a good few people will refuse to shop there.

Put yet another way... I used to be fairly active in libertarian circles. They would literally start blanket "embargos" (what's the word I'm looking for? Consumer strikes?) on companies owned by a company or person they have moral qualms with. Is the effect significant? Maybe... probably not... but it's not something frequently in the press. There are some particularly horrible companies like Monsanto, and even though there's a fair amount of coverage in alternative press, it's still rarely covered in mainstream press, and I doubt most people have a negative opinion of them or even know what they sell. If their misdeeds were covered in the mainstream press, I think it'd be a different story, though maybe they'd still be profitable and take in close to the same amount of revenues. Given Bitcoin is relatively ideological and tends to attract a fair number of ideological people, I think there would be impact from Satoshi revealing himself and possibly being dragged through the mud by unsavory people in power. Did Satoshi take the same line of thinking, or did he have something else in mind? Obviously, I have no idea.

Yes, I agree with you that if Satoshi is a very bad criminal, everyone will feel unconformable to know that he is a billionaire now because of his holding. The point, however, is that the bitcoins are not sold by Satoshi, but mined by him after he publicly released the first version. Anybody could join the mining (after block 14 when the v0.1 was published) and they just didn't.  Therefore, the way Satoshi earned the blocks were completely legal and have nothing to do with his personality.

Moreover, the community can do something based on consensus. If most bitcoin supporters really think its not appropriate for Satoshi to have such a great amount of BTC, then we can apply a patch so that the BTC in the first 30000 blocks are un-spendable (just like block 0). Since this is the consensus of the majority, a hard fork should be fine. Moreover, those BTC are not spent anyway (haven't verified, could be wrong) so adding this patch will not affect the history.

[Kluge]

That's reasonable. I'll flip. I agree with you.

[Tirapon]

"What was it like, creating the Bitcoin protocol?"

"Ha! Actually - a funny story about that. I got the idea from a pretty wicked acid trip. I'd just started living with my son again, and he was breaking all my liquor bottles against the walls for some reason. Anyway, I noticed all the little pieces coming together, through no central movement, and reforming. I was wondering what could be guiding the broken glass to reform. I kept thinking about it and thinking about it... I didn't sleep for days. Suddenly, I figured it out: public-key cryptography. God was using his private key to authorize the reformation of the bottle, but because he didn't want to actually reveal his identity, he instead used a hash. You know, he signed a message, basically. This hash gave the Earth spirits permission to reform the bottle, and then I thought... I'm fuckin' wasted, and I want to forget being wasted, but the liquor store probably won't sell to me right now because I'm fuckin' wasted. Real chicken-egg problem. I realized I needed to create a new identity which could buy liquor for me.

Actually, my full plan was to launch drones and create a kind of genome-based open ID system. Basically, I wanted to send off a drone which carried my public key linked to my genome and some authority's (something like web of trust) attestation of my name and identity. I'd sign a message to my drone, authorizing it to pick up more liquor. Well, I live in a small town and the few banks in the area all refuse service to me, so I was thinking, you know, maybe I could use some type of distributed database saying I owned money, and maybe I deposit it at some bank. I mean, I wasn't sure if they'd believe me, so I thought maybe I could just stab the clerk, but then went right back to thinking about that reformed liquor bottle my son broke and realized the answer."

Where's this quote from?