Satoshi Nakamoto is culturally forbidden from ever again using his own forum.

[nullius]

A.

For years, I have had many questions raised about my possible usage of alternate pseudonyms.  Some are possibly true; some are definitely false.  As a matter of personal policy, I refuse to answer any of them:  I neither admit nor deny.  I do not acknowledge my alternate pseudonyms, unless I have a positive reason to do so; and I do not deny alt accusations that are actually false.

When I have done nothing wrong, there is no reason for me to invade my own privacy by admitting to the ones that are true.  If I were to deny any of the ones that are false, I reasonably expect that I would then be accused of lying about it—indeed, I would be placed in a classic Kafkatrap whereby denial is taken as evidence that the accusation is true.  And selectively admitting or denying some would reduce my anonymity set for others, by process of exclusion—in essence, by partition-attacking myself in the manner further described below.  The wisdom of my policy is well-considered.

B.

This forum was founded by a pseudonymous cypherpunk Tor user, who called himself “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  However, the forum has accreted a self-appointed clique of vigilantes who delight in hunting for real or imagined alternate pseudonyms.  They demand answers to questions they have no proper cause to ask—and in the manner of an inquisition, they accuse people of dishonesty for any answer other than a confession.

Denial means that you are lying.  Refusal to answer equates to denial, which means that you are lying.  Ignoring all questions on grounds of none of your business equates to lying.  The bare fact of using an alt results in accusations of being a so-called “fake newbie”, even when no attempt is made to pretend that one is an actual newbie.

My own experience has left me wondering:  What would happen, if “Satoshi Nakamoto” were to attempt returning to his own forum under an alternate pseudonym?

To avoid any suspicion that he was a so-called “fake newbie”, he would need to play dumb about Bitcoin—thus rendering any engagement here a waste of his time and energy.  It would probably be obvious that he was a knowledgeable Bitcoiner, with long experience.  Those who relish outing pseudonyms and violating others’ privacy would give him no peace.

He would surely be harassed with alt accusations—many alt accusations, many of them false.  He would be unable to deny any of them:  Denying the false ones would set him up so that if he were ever asked, “Are you Satoshi?”, then refusal to answer would be an admission.  And ultimately, he would be unable to avoid ever giving even the slightest suspicion that he may be Satoshi.  He would be the same actual person, with the same style and the same substance.  It would probably just be a matter of time before he was hit with that dread question, “Are you Satoshi?”, or with public speculation that effectually outed him.

Satoshi could not afford to risk it.

C.

In 2020, a high-profile forum member suddenly vanished:  Lauda said goodbye.

There has been some unreasonable speculation that she may return under an alternate pseudonym.  There have even been some ridiculously stupid assumptions that she must.  This has left me wondering:  What would actually happen, if she were to try it?

First, she would be tagged as a “fake newbie”.  There would probably be demands that she disclose her “main account”.  And she could not reliably conceal the style and substance of her personality.  She attained fame as Lauda, because she has a unique character and rare abilities.  If she were return under another name, she would still have the same character and the same abilities.

Not if, but when someone sooner or later suspected her of being who she actually is, clueless idiots and trolls would demand that she acknowledge being Lauda.  If she refused to answer, then she would be accused of dishonesty—of dishonestly denying what she neither admitted nor denied.

It is likely that she would also be accused of being other people who, in fact, are not her.  She could not deny those accusations, either:  If she were to deny them, then her real identity could be discovered by process of elimination.  It is a bruteforce partitioning attack:  Accuse someone of being everyone they could plausibly, or even not-quite-imaginably be, and then see which accusation she doesn’t deny.

Why ruin one’s own privacy by destroying one’s own anonymity set?  It is very foolish to deny false alt accusations.  Tenfold so, when truthful denials are also stereotypically met with accusations of lying.  Any policy other than “neither admit nor deny” is shooting oneself in the foot.

Yet even if she took a firm “neither admit nor deny” stand to all questions, it is probable that sooner or later, she would nonetheless be outed as Lauda.  And then, she would also be falsely accused of dishonesty for refusing to admit or deny that she was Lauda.  Until then, she would be accused of dishonesty for refusing to admit or deny false accusations connecting her to random accounts.

She could not afford to risk it.

D.

Some discussion venues have an administrative policy forbidding more than one account per individual person.  The policy is of arguable value; its merits depend on the particulars of the venue.  In some cases, it may make sense.  Here, it wouldn’t—here, on a forum founded by a pseudonymous cypherpunk—here, on a forum where the administrator has sometimes banned people for doxing him in violation of forum rules.  This forum has a high expectation of privacy, and an explicit tolerance of NEWNYM.

An administrative restriction of one account per individual is entirely different than a self-appointed clique of vigilantes, who feed their own egos by trying to out people for no reason.

For the most part, the latter are also hypocrites.  Most of them operate under a pseudonym.  Some of them claim that alternate pseudonyms should be explicitly acknowledged.  But they themselves neither disclose nor acknowledge their “real life” identities—and they probably don’t disclose their forum pseudonyms to people who know them by their “real” names.  Moreover, it is reasonable to presume that most of them probably have alternate pseudonyms in other Internet venues, which they do not disclose here.

The word “pseudonym” literally means “false name” (< ψευδώνυμoς, < ψευδής + ὄνoμα).  For anybody who ever uses a pseudonym without full disclosure of identity, it is dishonest to criticize the use of multiple unacknowledged pseudonyms.

Some critics of pseudonymity do not commit this dishonesty.  For example, Vod openly publicized his “real name” and physical location; he doxed himself on his own website, linked from his forum account.  I disagree with Vod on this issue, for other reasons; but at least, he was honest and consistent in his opinion about it.  Those who do not self-dox are self-serving hypocrites when they unreasonably pry into others’ use of multiple pseudonyms.

Regardless, everyone who is categorically opposed to unacknowledged multi-account pseudonymity creates a culture that forbids Satoshi from returning to his own forum.

E.

Do you wish that Satoshi should be able to return to his own forum under an alternate identity?  If you imagine that he has, then you have not considered the realities described above—but do you dream that he should be able to, if he is still alive?

Embrace privacy culture!

Don’t ask questions about others’ pseudonyms, much less demand answers, unless there is is a strong reason such as evidence of fraud based on the usage of multiple identities.

Do not thoughtlessly speculate with a total lack of discretion.  If you must chortle to yourself over what you suspect is some neat little discovery, at least have the decency to be subtle about it.  I do as I say, here:  I have noticed some things I kept quiet about, and only discreetly inquired out of curiosity in PM if e.g. someone outed his multiple pseudonyms on a different forum.

Make reasonable use of alternate identities yourself.  And don’t abuse them:  Do not sockpuppet, scam, troll, or evade bans!  Do not buy and sell accounts, which is the conveyance of false reputation.  Just feel free to compartmentalize your public activities according to the subject matter:  Pick a new name, hit the NEWNYM button, and make yourself a new forum account.  This is life in cypherspace:  It is the cypherpunk way.

Have a health problem you want to discuss?  Confused by an abusive relationship with a manipulative psychopath?  Suffered a very embarrassing financial wipeout with a margin account?  Got a harmless but unusual kink?  Want to talk altcoins, without being insulted and ridiculed by your buddies in the Wall Observer?  (Now, that’s kinky!)

More importantly:  Do you have solid evidence of wrongdoing by a DT member?  Not dumb trolling with bare accusations, much less with empty insults:  Evidence.  On a forum where the “DT gang” is real, and shooting the messenger is customary, bringing a strongly-evidenced accusation against a DT member is more controversial than all but the most marginalized political opinions.

Most importantly in principle:  Do you have any controversial opinions?

This is privacy culture and freedom of speech:

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

Italics are theymos’.

Do it for yourself.  Do it on principle.  And do it for Satoshi.

It is useless and meaningless to say that anyone who suspects a Satoshi sighting should keep quiet.  The only theoretical possibility for Satoshi’s secret return is a social norm, a community nomos, that makes it taboo to speculate on alternate identities or “main accounts” without adequately strong reasons for asking.

If we had such a strict taboo here, then maybe—just maybe Satoshi could risk popping up with an alt account for a little chit-chat with us.  Of course, we would never know it; the whole point is that we would never know it.  But at least, such a thing would be possible.

As it stands, it is impossible.  Satoshi would only try creating an alt here, if he were a total fool.  Satoshi was not a fool.  Therefore, I am morally certain that Satoshi has no alt accounts here on the forum that he founded.

And that’s sad.

SAD. 😿

[nullius]

Local rules:  Moderated at my discretion.  I have in my AI settings a censorship dial that goes all the way from “free speech absolutist” to “literally Fascist”; I may feel like turning it up here.  Needless to say, permabanned users are permabanned.

A tangential addendum:  In OP, I linked several times to posts by or about an account that some people allege is my alt.  Thus, although reputational issues are off-topic here, and I will nuke from orbit any inappropriate discussion thereof, I should reinforce my message in OP with a few words about why I linked to those posts—why most of all, I made sure to link to those posts.

Per the policy that I have consistently upheld for years, I neither admit nor deny the allegation that I am death_wish.  It is nobody’s business if I am.  If I am not, it would be impossible for me to not to have discovered the account through the numerous public accusations—plus one PM from a Legendary account, with a gently implied question about this.

Either way, I did think it exemplary for the message in OP here.  I have therefore linked several times to death_wish’s posts for an excellent example of why people may want unacknowledged alt accounts, as disconnected from their “real” fake-names as their “main account” fake-names are from their dox.  Never forget that “pseudonym” literally means “fake name”.

I have also had some fun with the issue—then laughed all the more, and issued negative trust feedback, after a possibly delusional, definitely malicious habituated liar accused me of deleting a post that’s still there.  It is the classic Big Lie technique.

Anyway, my point hereby is this:  I believe in privacy.  I am quite resolute about that.  I think it’s funny that a bunch of degenerate gossip-mongers believe they can coerce me to admit I am he.  And it would be funnier if I’m not.  If not, then on principle of privacy, I will gladly take the troll-attacks for some poor sod who wrecked himself on margin, lost his bitcoins, then publicly humiliated himself by venting and weeping and wailing in the presumed safety of a throwaway account.

Didn’t I always tell people not to buy BTC on margin?  Why, yes—yes, I did!

Has my life been perfect?  Assuredly not.

Is yours?  I will guess no.  Have you never done anything that you regretted—which hurt only yourself—for which you took full responsibility—about which you just wanted to talk?

In a thread that is primarily about Satoshi and pseudonymity, this is the inverse of “we are all Satoshi”:

We are all death_wish.

[franky1]

taking lauda and satoshi as examples

they both would not need to reveal real life into to the whole forum community to prove or disprove anything..

they were both considered "staff"(officially/unofficially) by this forum in the past, and so i am sure it only takes 1-3 people (theymos mostly) that know enough about them behind the public posts to tell if they are the real deal or not. and a simple badge can be added to their avatar/ranking to show that theymos has verified them. then it becomes settled that its them.. should they want to re-announce their return..

as for wanting to participate without announcing their former involvement. they can freely do that.
its not rocket science. there are a few newbies here today that know more then average and its just obvious that they are what radio would call "long time listener first time caller".. and we just accept that idea and just talk to people at whatever level knowledge they appear to have.

the whole "forum newbie" is not a big deal whereby if someone has adequate knowledge that they should get slammed with a judgement of being a fake alt and requiring proving their old identity. in most cases its actually a simple thought that this persons account not seen before actually knows something and actually bothered to do research before joining.. it actually becomes nice and interesting to talk with people that make the effort/do the research..

..
the only times i see the judgements of people saying that some newbie is an alt. is whereby the newbie is repeating some shameful act/speach/script repeated on a previous account, too coincidentally.
this fake alt previous account accusation is normally reserved for the negative people and scammers..  

there are also occasions where there are many accounts where theres a group of people who do script moneky, sheep follow nearly word for word the same crap as each other. but even these dont get called out as 'alts' of one person. as even they can be seen as different people even when they are acting as drones. no one asks them to prove their individuality. we just call them out for their sheepish acts of not thinking for themselves..
i call many people out for being in some robot cultish collective of idiocy, but i dont ever ask for their Id papers to prove they are or not the same person


as for meaningful, insightful idea's and knowledge type of account users, no one is calling them out as fake newbies who are just alt crawling to avoid bans. ii and others just happily talk to them at whatever level of knowledge they have.

..
in short..
i dont care who you are outside of the forum.. just have something interesting to say when you make posts.

if you say some crap. i personally may call anyone saying crap an idiot even if they have real world qualifications or real world business success. i dont care about their real world activity..
if you say something insightful/intriguing, it wont matter if your not qualified or experienced in the real world..

all that really matter is just to make some comment in the forum that brings the discussion forward.
you dont need to prove who you are, just have something worth reading.

[darkv0rt3x]

Allow me to disagree in a couple of your definitions:

Denial means that you are lying.  Refusal to answer equates to denial, which means that you are lying.  Ignoring all questions on grounds of none of your business equates to lying.  The bare fact of using an alt results in accusations of being a so-called “fake newbie”, even when no attempt is made to pretend that one is an actual newbie.

In my view, Refusal to answer doesn't equates to denial, therefore, I don't see it as lying. I set it as is. Simply don't want to answer, regardless the answer is true or false.
I also don't see the none of your business equating to lying either! I see it as a matter of privacy and will for not answering! But not implicitely lying!

[Sandra_hakeem]

My own experience has left me wondering:  What would happen, if “Satoshi Nakamoto” were to attempt returning to his own forum under an alternate pseudonym?

Nullius, I understand you're only curious and altruistic,yeah, but do you have a way with which you could control this unimportant trolling,fraud,shit posting and spamming so that everyone (though the forum remains de-centralised) can be known for one account? Hey, everything being pseudonymous does rather alot of good.
I think we already have alot of shitty-head created as pseudonyms, unaccounted for, mostly to Taunt,troll over as bounty cheats and maybe misuses the trust system.how well are you in support of this feigning and its misconduct?
I don't think Satoshi has any problem with returning to the forum in his real account;his account was banned by Theymos,it could certainly be undone!  I think Theymos has practically been reaching out to him maybe visiting or via direct mail.
Finally, Lauda promise never to return; the cat utterly repugn that should anyone claim to be it, no one should trust him.

I hereby I want to emphasize that it will never again be possible to contact "Lauda", just as it is impossible to contact the dead. I do not want any chance of an impersonation scam in a name that many people trust.

Sandra

[nullius]

taking lauda and satoshi as examples

they both would not need to reveal real life into to the whole forum community to prove or disprove anything..

they were both considered "staff"(officially/unofficially) by this forum in the past, and so i am sure it only takes 1-3 people (theymos mostly) that know enough about them behind the public posts to tell if they are the real deal or not. and a simple badge can be added to their avatar/ranking to show that theymos has verified them. then it becomes settled that its them.. should they want to re-announce their return..

I don't think Satoshi has any problem with returning to the forum in his real account;his account was banned by Theymos,it could certainly be undone!  I think Theymos has practically been reaching out to him maybe visiting or via direct mail.
Finally, Lauda promise never to return; the cat utterly repugn that should anyone claim to be it, no one should trust him.

I hereby I want to emphasize that it will never again be possible to contact "Lauda", just as it is impossible to contact the dead. I do not want any chance of an impersonation scam in a name that many people trust.

My point was that if they wanted to return under new identities, they could not.

The personal security risks to Satoshi would be far too high for him ever to act as “Satoshi Nakamoto” again, except perhaps on his deathbed.  For that reason, among others, I think that the probability of Satoshi returning as “Satoshi” is negligible.  If he were to use the forum again, it would need to be through an alt—but that incurs the risk of his new name being outed as Satoshi.

For this reason, I think that the probability of Satoshi ever again using this forum in any way is negligible.  (Assuming he is still alive—a proviso which also applies to the unobservable Schrödinger’s cat.)

Lauda intentionally burnt her bridges; Sandra, you are quite correct about that.  Lauda can never be Lauda again.  And I do NOT think that she would ever want to return to this forum under a new identity, and restart from scratch; it is just not a Lauda thing to do.  But there is an unwise, ill-considered meme in some quarters that she will be back under another name.  My point was that she could not do that, either—not even if she wanted to.  At least one of the persons spreading that meme is the type who enjoys hunting for the alt accounts or “main accounts” of people who have not done anything wrong.  Judging by their behaviour in other cases, he and many others would not respect Lauda’s privacy if they believed they had found a new Lauda alt.

For that reason, in addition to my knowledge of her character, I am sure that Lauda will never return to this forum under any name.

Nullius, I understand you're only curious and altruistic,yeah, but do you have a way with which you could control this unimportant trolling,fraud,shit posting and spamming so that everyone (though the forum remains de-centralised) can be known for one account? Hey, everything being pseudonymous does rather alot of good.
I think we already have alot of shitty-head created as pseudonyms, unaccounted for, mostly to Taunt,troll over as bounty cheats and maybe misuses the trust system.how well are you in support of this feigning and its misconduct?

Good question.  Abuse prevention is a perennial question in privacy and anonymity circles.  It is even a security issue, insofar as the intentional creation of abuse in privacy-oriented environment is a social attack on that environment.

For cleaning up a large part of the abuse on this forum, death_wish had an interesting idea:

The problem [of merit abuse] would be solved by deleting the bounties subforums, and banning paid signatures.  That will not happen here, so [...]

Although for whatever reason, someone with a 4-digit uid sent 50 merits to that post, it is a generally unpopular idea.  I think that if that were ever done, a large proportion of all abuse would evaporate overnight.

As for the remaining abuse:  Contrary to what you say, this forum is not decentralized.  The forum is a fully centralized system.  Its administration has plenary authority over everyone here, and they delegate much of that authority to staff.  I think that some changes in forum policies would do much to stamp out abuse; but such changes are unlikely, so I will not raise an off-topic tangent about what I have in mind.

the only times i see the judgements of people saying that some newbie is an alt. is whereby the newbie is repeating some shameful act/speach/script repeated on a previous account, too coincidentally.
this fake alt previous account accusation is normally reserved for the negative people and scammers.. 

You must be using a different forum.

I know that, for instance, some people in Politics & Society personally loathe you, franky1.  If they ever suspected that a new account was yours, do you suppose they would miss the opportunity to call putatively-you a “fake newbie”?

In my own case, I have sometimes seen new accounts which were not mine being accused of being me.  Of course, I did not deny it!  They were not pretending to be me, they were not claiming to be me—through no fault of their own, they simply got falsely accused of being me.  I thank them for improving my anonymity set.

Allow me to disagree in a couple of your definitions:

You did not read carefully.  I suggest rereading.  You do not thereby disagree with me at all.

[franky1]

I know that, for instance, some people in Politics & Society personally loathe you, franky1.  If they ever suspected that a new account was yours, do you suppose they would miss the opportunity to call putatively-you a “fake newbie”?

point is. if mouth dribblers on P&S want to troll users. well they will anyway. that is of no concern, just dont engage in trying to clear their dribble up by asking or giving personal info, as thats just not part of the topic.

as for vigilantes in Meta.. well if your looking for them or they are looking for you.. maybe just avoid the social drama games, dont get caught up in their entertainment

engage in the context of the discussion(the topic). not their personal attack drama cries if they start digging their own holes.

i personally never used another account and if mouth dribblers wanted to call someone else a franky.or suggest other accounts are me..  thats their problem. it just makes them look more like idiots for even trying. let them fall down their own holes they dig themselves..

from the other point of view.. of seeing someone that writes like someone else, where its clear they are too coincidental..
i see alts say the same dribble about how bitcoin is "just a number to look at, and doesnt do anything" no one has asked them for birth certificate info. instead we just say "oh no not him again"

as oppose to, i see many people in P&S dribble the same scripts of conspiracy. and in the main bitcoin subcategory. i see many altnet fangirls repeat the same scripted PR campaigns of how their altnets are the cure for all bitcoin woes. but i and they dont end up battling over birth certificates. i call them idiot drones, fangirl, cultists and just try to wake them up from their delusions of their lil boys clubs

even in this bitcoin category we have the fangirls trying personal attacks as their defense for being called out for their altnet adorations and narrow-mindedness. but even that does not fall down rabbit holes of ID requirements to prove their drone minds are not actually just 1 person pretending to be a fleet of soldiers

if you are personally being asked to prove yourself, dont engage, just move the discussion back to the topic, ignore the trolls when their cries try to bait you into such deep personal attacks asking for ID

satoshi, lauda,yourself would not need to provide birth certificate Id to prove your return from the dead. it can be made obvious by your writing style and your context. and usually a PM with people you spoke to in previous lives who can vouch for you, in worse case.
..
if satoshi were to return.
it would be his context of what he writes about, idea's he has for improvements and such most would be interested in. he would not need to out himself as satoshi if he lost his keys to ultimately prove himself. he could just act as a new person and suggest things and let the community run with the idea or ignore it.

being satoshi wont get him back any certified position in the github to control the rules. even if he did sign a private key and have theymos vouch for him.

governments wouldnt want to ID him to arrest him.. because he did no crime.
all questions about bitcoin origins are already out there in the open to find. there is no need for interrogations.

the github is open if they wanted to arrest anyone with control over bitcoin they would have arrested bitcoin core maintainer Wlad by now, .. or if they wanted to know why bitcoin was invented the answer is in the genesis block.
tracing satoshi produces no results that require him to identify himself using real life info. he can keep his real life private

so just relax. the real world is not going to chase you down. or want your real life info. and trolls in this forum trying to ask for it. can just be left to dig their holes, looking like idiots for even asking

[odolvlobo]

...However, the forum has accreted a self-appointed clique of vigilantes who delight in hunting for real or imagined alternate pseudonyms....

I haven't noticed this to be a problem. Can you go into more detail about it? Having multiple accounts has been an approved practice for a long time, so I think it would be helpful if you could point out the people that are giving negative trust to penalizing users simply because they have multiple accounts so that we can be more aware of their behavior.

FYI, I have given negative trust to many scammers on all of their multiple accounts because they are scammers and not because they have multiple accounts. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Also, I have heard that people try to cheat signature campaigns somehow by having multiple accounts, and they are given negative trust. TBH, I don't really know anything about that and I don't really care, unless the signature campaign people are expanding their agenda beyond just signature campaigns.

Edit: Apparently, negative trust is not relevant to this discussion.

My point was that if they wanted to return under new identities, they could not.

I don't understand why someone can't return under a new identity. Can you explain specifically what would prevent someone from doing that?

[darkv0rt3x]

Allow me to disagree in a couple of your definitions:

You did not read carefully.  I suggest rereading.  You do not thereby disagree with me at all.

No need to reread. I read them carefully and I still stand for what I said about those definitions. The words you used don't forcefully drives them to the conclusions you make.
Denial doesn't mean you're lying consciously. In some cases it may be lying. In other cases it doesn't, because this is a state of mind that you cannot control without help.
Refusal to answer doesn't forcefully mean denial nor lying! What you claim is simply not true because you assume refusing to answer something as being forcefully a denial state, which is not always the cases, so it's not accurate to assume it is, in all cases!
And finally, the other claim is also forced. Ignoring someone's questions doesn't equate to lying. These are assumptions you're making on your own but they don't seem correct to me! At best, ignoring could eventually equate indirectly to denial in the sense that one is not willing to answer. Once again, not willing to, doesn't mean one's lying!

(really?? deleting posts from who disagrees with you?)

[Kakmakr]

I want to go into the motive for Satoshi to feel the need to return to this forum under a Alt coin. What will motivate him to create an Alt account to post "what" exactly? He in his own words said "that he moved on to other things" ....that to me imply that he wanted to end this "episode" in his life. (Close the book)

He also went into hiding, because he knew that the 3L3tter agencies will want to hunt him down.... and also greedy criminals and beggars that would want to get their hands on his money.

Satoshi created Bitcoin to serve the people and not himself.... and he stepped back into the shadows. He knows that there are VERY clever people out there that might be able to DoX him, so why risk all that for no motive to come back. 

[slaman29]

I'm not 100% sure I understand why this is a problem but I guess that's because I don't even know what goes on in meta and reputation and all those threads and discussion. I love this forum like I love the games I used to play, I hang in the chatrooms and boards but never touch the politics.

Even I'm commenting only because I am just surprised to see Lauda's name pop up because I definitely remember who that is and had (non personal) dealings with him on an ICO that didn't turn out well. All Telegram groups gone and dead so can't even refer anymore the dates. I didn't even know they left the forum! Was it because of that ICO? Don't answer lol I gave that story up and made my peace.

I've never really experienced anyone ever asking me about my identity here, sometimes about location but that only in reference to actual topic being discussed. I guess it's different because if I ever leave (or come back with different user) not many people will realize or even care.

I remember this always happened even in IRC days though. Nicks would suddenly disappear or reappear or even get taken over and people pretended to be others etc.

But from my own view, I don't understand or agree that this culture happens. OR if it's culture it only affects those who do get involved in forum business. I think many more are like me only involved in the topical discussions, Trust and Spam report at a basic level. It never comes to my mind to identify the person behind a username.

[nullius]

Edit: Apparently, negative trust is not relevant to this discussion.

My point was that if they wanted to return under new identities, they could not.

I don't understand why someone can't return under a new identity. Can you explain specifically what would prevent someone from doing that?

I think that OP was indeed clear about that:  It is not about negative trust feedback.  It is about privacy.  The possibility high probability of being outed, and the anti-privacy culture that aggravates that problem.

Observe that I gave Lauda as another example.  In the immediate aftermath of her disappearance, some of the speculation was so disrespectful of her privacy that I was immediately motivated to write this, q.v.:

• The Privacy Culture Manifesto, by nullius (2020-10-24).  To be updated.  Soon.

Now, to elaborate—

...However, the forum has accreted a self-appointed clique of vigilantes who delight in hunting for real or imagined alternate pseudonyms....

I haven't noticed this to be a problem. Can you go into more detail about it?

I do not want to derail this into a Reputation drama about my personal experiences, which were contextual in OP to explain my thinking about Satoshi.  (I am anyway entirely ignoring Reputation, except for a few threads where I am already involved; who has time for that?)  But to avoid going off into the weeds with abstract theoretical discussion, some concrete examples will serve to illustrate the nature of the problem.

Please read the following with the question in your mind:  What would happen to a Satoshi alt?

Satoshi is orders of magnitude more famous than I am.  He has numerous people on the forum (and in the mainstream media) speculating on his identity, on his whereabouts, and on what happened to him.  Many people also hate him, or secretly hate him, or are quietly seething with jealousy over the alleged (and likely untrue) million-BTC Satoshi stash.

Please don’t focus on particulars, but generalize the particulars.  What kind of culture does this forum have?  Why is it socially acceptable to pry into alt accounts that are properly nobody’s business?  How can we expect for a hypothetical Satoshi alt to be treated, when the forum’s culture embraces cliques of “highly trusted” Sherlock Holmes wannabes who relish the prospect of outing people for no reason?

It is not about those particular DT users, either.  Don’t particularize this argument to them.

Example A:  Ploni Almoni.  In 2020, a new account with an idiomatic Hebrew name for ‘Anonymous’ posted a topic on a 2014 Glenn Greenwald article, based on the Snowden archive, about “How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations”.  (Full-thread snapshot.)  I was perplexed at the vehemence of negative reactions to that; the reactions were bizarre, inexplicable!  Why would a group of high-trust users lash out at that, spit on it, publicly ridicule it?

More perplexing still:  A deep-green, high-inclusion DT neutral-tagged that account as a “fake newbie”—plus with what looks to me like a thinly-veiled antisemitic remark; oh, of course that Jewish-looking account which you irrationally hate must be from the Mossad, out to get you!

Most perplexing:  A group of DT members who immediately disliked that account also immediately decided that it was I.  Some of them raised this alleged connection to ridicule me/allegedly-me in other threads, at least as late as nine months after.  They patently desired for that account to be publicly perceived as a nullius alt.  (I “admitted” that that account was mine, but only because he/she had publicly requested that everyone should “admit” to being him/her.  Outside that context, I neither admit nor deny that it is mine.)

The creator of that account obviously wanted to keep it anonymous, and was clearly using an alt account in good faith to discuss issues of public importance.

Example B:  death_wish.  In May of 2022, a Newbie account posted in the Wall Observer about his getting wrecked on leverage.  He made no attempt to hide his being an experienced Bitcoiner, and an experienced user of the Bitcoin Forum.  He strongly implied having experience with the Wall Observer; he named WO regulars whose advice he sought.

There soon ensued some thoughtless speculation that he is I.  And then— Within less than 48 hours after the account was created, a deep-green, high-inclusion DT neutral-tagged him as “not-a-newbie”—with a gratuitous insult:

He disappeared for a few weeks, then restarted actively posting about his margin account problems.  The same DT and several of her public associates took to following him around, calling him “nullius”.  They smeared “nullius” every way they could—they even affirmatively claimed, without any evidence, that he (allegedly I) was lying about his margin liquidations, for reasons I cannot fathom.  N.b. that D.W. made it excruciatingly clear that he was not seeking any kind of financial assistance.

So thoroughly did that clique associate that account with me in the public mind that a supposedly pro-privacy user blatantly addressed death_wish as “nullius”.  (Note to self:  Be skeptical of BlackHatCoiner on privacy issues.)

The creator of that account obviously wanted to keep it anonymous.  He was clearly using an alt account in good faith to discuss issues of personal importance to him—and explicitly to warn newbies about the dangers of margin accounts, as he said many times.  His very first post contained a graphic entitled “object lesson”.

I have never admitted or denied the allegation that I am death_wish; and in his entire post history thus far, death_wish has never admitted or denied being me.  I do like to rub it in the faces of the anti-privacy canaille that they have no power to force me to answer that question either way.  Neener-neener.  Whether it’s “yes” or “no”, if I ever violate my own longtime policy either way, it will need to be for a some reason infinitely better than the peremptory demands of some dumb trolls.

Example C:  Unidentified accounts that are definitely not mine.  I have seen several accounts that were not mine accused of being nullius alts, by the same group of DT members.  I cannot identify the accounts, without breaching my “neither admit nor deny” policy:  I can only identify accounts with neither admission nor denial, or deny unidentified accounts.


Whereupon, I reiterate:  If I have such troubles, what would Satoshi’s risk be?  Millions of people around the world are eager for a Satoshi sighting.  He could not afford the risk.  Naturally, I try to help give him an anonymity set—well, either that, or Satoshi is a grandmaster troll here:

Nullius' knowledge about blockchain science and cryptography is a dead giveaway. His arrogance is a dead giveaway. He is an alt-account of a member who was here long before Bitcoin was even talked about in the mainstream. No way in the world he just registered in this forum last March 29, 2017. If you're an expert in blockchains, you pretty much have visited or even make posts here in Bitcointalk in the past.

[...]

He could even be Satoshi.  

I neither admit nor deny the allegation that I am Satoshi.

FYI, I have given negative trust to many scammers on all of their multiple accounts because they are scammers and not because they have multiple accounts. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Also, I have heard that people try to cheat signature campaigns somehow by having multiple accounts, and they are given negative trust. TBH, I don't really know anything about that and I don't really care, unless the signature campaign people are expanding their agenda beyond just signature campaigns.

FYI, I have experience with being in DT.  I tagged accounts for those same reasons.  I also supported Lauda’s tags and flags on those same grounds, and for account sales/farming.

In one instance, the cat almost broke my mouse with clicking to support Type-1 flags when she mass-flagged more than one hundred accounts, which were being abused by one individual to grab slots in “one slot per person” signature campaigns and sigspam the hell out of the forum.  Caught with blockchain evidence by Bitcoin_Arena.  I always checked the evidence independently.

I don’t see anything wrong with that.

He also went into hiding, because he knew that the 3L3tter agencies will want to hunt him down.... and also greedy criminals and beggars that would want to get their hands on his money.

Satoshi created Bitcoin to serve the people and not himself.... and he stepped back into the shadows. He knows that there are VERY clever people out there that might be able to DoX him, so why risk all that for no motive to come back.  

Quoted by way of helping to explain this.  It squarely answers about 80% of what franky1 said, plus much of odolvlobo’s puzzlement.

I've never really experienced anyone ever asking me about my identity here, sometimes about location but that only in reference to actual topic being discussed. I guess it's different because if I ever leave (or come back with different user) not many people will realize or even care.

[...]

But from my own view, I don't understand or agree that this culture happens. OR if it's culture it only affects those who do get involved in forum business. I think many more are like me only involved in the topical discussions, Trust and Spam report at a basic level. It never comes to my mind to identify the person behind a username.

I think the problem is proportional to how unusual the personality is.  How rare it is.  And how much of a motive anyone has to care about that particular person.

Not to come off as arrogant towards you—there is just no other way to say it—does anyone care what you do?

Now, would people care what Satoshi did?  How many nosy busybodies would be thrilled to discover a Satoshi alt?  Not to mention TLAs, as Kakmakr mentioned!  That is a high threat model.  Let’s start with with droves of idiots who simply want to gossip.  Wow, cool, this is Satoshi!

Any new identity of mine will attract such speculation; whether it is correct or incorrect, the speculation itself will follow me around.  You have no such concerns, for there is nothing special about you.

Unique little snowflakes have the luxury of anonymity:  They are all alike.  Fungible and indistinguishable.

I am truly unique.  In style and substance.  There is only one of me in this world.  The content of my thoughts is itself a globally unique identifier—my soul is unique, in a mythopoetic sense.

(Ironically, the same trolls who are mentally fixated on pursuing my identity will thereupon accuse me of arrogance, perhaps even of grandiosity.  They themselves inadvertently help to show the world just how special I am!)

i personally never used another account and if mouth dribblers wanted to call someone else a franky.or suggest other accounts are me..  thats their problem. it just makes them look more like idiots for even trying. let them fall down their own holes they dig themselves..

Well, then I suppose you do not have this experience.

satoshi, lauda,yourself would not need to provide birth certificate Id to prove your return from the dead. it can be made obvious by your writing style and your context.

That is the problem!  The whole point of OP is about the unlikelihood that any high-profile Bitcoiners could ever successfully contribute under a new identity, disconnected from the old identity.

the github is open if they wanted to arrest anyone with control over bitcoin they would have arrested bitcoin core maintainer Wlad by now, ..

Outright “arrest” is not the only concern!

Wladimir makes it excruciatingly clear that he does not control Bitcoin Core development.  He does not want a target on his back.  (And this is one of the things I most respect about him:  Wladimir gets it.)  Please do not compare his position to Satoshi’s.  Wladimir does not have, and does not want the type of power that Satoshi would unavoidably have just from being Satoshi.

(really?? deleting posts from who disagrees with you?)

To avoid waste of time, clutter, and sigspamming, I delete low-value posts with stupid arguments that miss the whole point of a statement, and that interpret the word “denial” as meaning ‘psychological denial’ when I was speaking of ‘admit or deny’ (!).  Re-posting what the topic starter deleted is rude and unwise.  You are now personally unwelcome in all of my threads.

Go away.  Learn some forum manners.  Learn to read.  Or if you prefer to whine about my usage of self-moderation, some scummy troll created a whole thread for that.

Note for the record:  While I was writing, editing, and gathering links and images for this post, the topic was moved by staff to Meta from Bitcoin Discussion, where I had originally filed it.

[suchmoon]

I don't understand why someone can't return under a new identity. Can you explain specifically what would prevent someone from doing that?

The OP is a twat who tried to sockpuppet but was figured out fairly quickly due to the aforementioned (being an exceptionally irritating walls-of-text twat).

Therefore the only conclusion is that no one - NO ONE, EVEN SATOSHI - could possibly have a new account because the damn forum users tend to get suspicious of know-it-all newbies and might start guessing if an anonymous account is an alt of another anonymous account and that's apparently a bad thing for reasons.

Trying to be less of a twat is of course not an option.