Should speculation about satoshi's identity be subject to doxxing rules?

[DooMAD]

I feel like there's a prevalent double standard when it comes to protecting identities of forum users.  

If topics existed where lots of users were posting theories and collecting evidence in an attempt to unveil the real-world identity of another forum user, I don't think such threads would be tolerated.  As per the rules, doxxing is only permitted in the case of legitimate scam accusations:

here are some new rules on doxxing:

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.  There's no way people would accept it if it were their own account subject to such investigations.  If someone did ever successfully identify satoshi and published it here on the forum, then they would have clearly violated the rule.  Ergo, users are attempting to break the rules every time they publicly try to link:

a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

This should not be happening.  There are inherent dangers in revealing someone's identity, particularly if they are considered wealthy.  The user in question, or even their family, could be at risk of falling victim to burglary, kidnapping, torture or other crimes (and I'm certain there are few potential targets more tempting for criminals than someone as flush with BTC as satoshi is perceived to be).  There are very good reasons why attempting to dox someone is frowned upon.  

I propose it's time for this rule to be applied properly, to end the double standard and to ensure no one is attempting to dox anyone else when there is no valid complaint of a scam.

[1715248773]

1715248773

[1715248773]

1715248773

[1715248773]

1715248773

[Synchronice]

Satoshi is more likely a public (but still unknown) figure, isn't he (or they)? Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use? I think there is a difference between collecting evidences about a regular user and about satoshi.
I think his identity will always be a subject and I think everyone has a legal right to know who is the original author, a real person who created the product that they use. So, satoshi might be an exception in this case not only on Bitcointalk but everywhere.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.

Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum? I have not seen any. If it was then it would take the internet as a storm by now.

[DooMAD]

Satoshi is more likely a public (but still unknown) figure, isn't he (or they)? Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use? I think there is a difference between collecting evidences about a regular user and about satoshi.
I think his identity will always be a subject and I think everyone has a legal right to know who is the original author, a real person who created the product that they use. So, satoshi might be an exception in this case not only on Bitcointalk but everywhere.

You're merely attempting to justify that your curiosity is somehow more important than someone else's safety.  Don't you care that you could be endangering someone?  Seems a little selfish to me.

Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum? I have not seen any.

And I suppose we can also fire guns in the general direction of people as long as we don't actually hit them?  No, pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum? I have not seen any.

And I suppose we can also fire guns in the general direction of people as long as we don't actually hit them?  No, pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

No LOL
What is your point, sorry I failed to understand.
Satoshi's email, name?
Aren't all these are already public all over the internet?

[DooMAD]

What is your point, sorry I failed to understand.
Satoshi's email, name?
Aren't all these are already public all over the internet?

The point is that attempting to connect these things to a real-world identity is dangerous, immoral and (in my interpretation, at least) against forum rules.

If you had even half as much BTC as satoshi likely does, would you want people knowing who you are or where you lived?  I'm guessing you don't go around broadcasting to the world how much BTC you have and then giving out your address and telling people how to find you.  It makes sense to keep that info private.  

So, by pointing the finger at people and trying to convince others that there's a chance they might be satoshi, you could be painting a massive target on their back.  

Now imagine someone mistakenly made a convincing case that you were satoshi and people knew where you lived.  You now look like a very tempting target to all of the world's criminals.  Do you think your home security could withstand attempts from determined criminals to break into your home and steal your bitcoins?  Would you want to find yourself in a situation where a criminal could have a knife to the throat of your loved ones in order to coerce you to hand over your private keys?  Or did you not even stop to consider that could be a consequence of revealing someone's identity?  Or even a consequence of erroneously tying an identity to the wrong person?

Now do you see the point?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use?

The only right people have is down to an individual level; their private keys. That is the only right that is granted to them when they enter Bitcoin. And it is granted, not by a "creator". The creator of Bitcoin clearly stepped away. It is the protocol that grants them that right.

They do not possess rights to know the creator, the developers, the miners-- anyone. You don't need to trust any person, so why would you demand to know their name?

Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum?

There have been quite convincing theories if you search the Internet. I myself have ended up to a suspect, even though with insufficient certainty. But, that's not the point. Attempts to dox someone should not be tolerated, and I don't see why Satoshi should be excepted.

[Upgrade00]

Satoshi is more likely a public (but still unknown) figure, isn't he (or they)? Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use?

Satoshi is not a public figure, he wanted to be as private as possible. Creating a product that people use does not give them a right to know information you did not publicly provide.

I think his identity will always be a subject and I think everyone has a legal right to know who is the original author, a real person who created the product that they use. So, satoshi might be an exception in this case not only on Bitcointalk but everywhere.

There is no legal documentation or requirement when you purchase bitcoins, neither is there an obligation to use Bitcoin. So, why would there be a legal right to know who the author is?

[Alone055]

Satoshi is more likely a public (but still unknown) figure, isn't he (or they)? Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use? I think there is a difference between collecting evidences about a regular user and about satoshi.
I think his identity will always be a subject and I think everyone has a legal right to know who is the original author, a real person who created the product that they use. So, satoshi might be an exception in this case not only on Bitcointalk but everywhere.

He is a public figure who decided to stay anonymous for reasons best known to himself but should be respected by everyone. So I don't think that him being or becoming a public figure gives everyone the right to try and find his identity when it was his choice for things to be this way.

[Poker Player]

Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum? I have not seen any.

And I suppose we can also fire guns in the general direction of people as long as we don't actually hit them?  No, pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

I just don't buy your analogy. The correct analogy is people shooting in the desert where there is no one and after 14 years you come to tell us that there is a danger of someone getting killed.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Let's respect the individual's right to remain anonymous. Satoshi decided to remain invisible, so why bother with investigations every time? I think if Satoshi wanted, he would have declared himself. But whenever we see people claiming to be Satoshi, this is also not enough for us, and we also do not know how to respect confidentiality.
Satoshi created Bitcoin as a unique invention, and it is enough to be happy that it exists without going into the search for the author and its further existence.

[joker_josue]

When reading this topic, I got the feeling that we are close to discovering Satoshi's true identity. Could it be you @DooMAD? 

I understand the point being debated, although 99% of the information that is debated is available to everyone on the internet.

It's true, I agree with the argument, that one shouldn't try to doxxing who the real Satoshi is. However, there are two points that must be taken into consideration:
- It is on the forum that you will find much of the information about Satoshi. His comments, his messages, and other information about him.
- Normally, when new revelations about Satoshi's communications (emails) emerge, they are outside the forum, which makes sense to talk about them here on the forum.

In any case, this does not mean that you have to examine who Satoshi is on the forum. But, what I usually see on the topic here on the forum is the debate about a new theory found somewhere on the internet about who he is. So now we can no longer talk about news involving Bitcoin and Satoshi, on the forum created by him?

That's why I think that what happens with Satoshi isn't exactly doxxing. Even though it's very close to that.

[ABCbits]

While i somewhat agree with your opinion, it's also true information which related with Satoshi already shared publicly either on this forum or elsewhere. I don't think theymos would agree with your interpretation either, so IMO we only can re-telling people to respect Satoshi's privacy.

I think his identity will always be a subject and I think everyone has a legal right to know who is the original author, a real person who created the product that they use. So, satoshi might be an exception in this case not only on Bitcointalk but everywhere.

Since you mention legal right, do you mind tell us which law on which country allow that?

[LoyceV]

Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use?

No. Someone created something great. Using it doesn't give you any special rights. In case you still have your doubts, you should read the MIT software license under which Bitcoin Core is distributed:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

[OgNasty]

Even when someone is doxxed here nothing is done. The user gets a slap on the wrist and then goes right back to it so I’m not sure what OP is wanting to see here. You can literally dox someone and get merited for it from merit sources and included into the DefaultTrust network by shady people. That’s the current state of the various networks here.

[BlackHatCoiner]

That’s the current state of the various networks here.

Can you give us a few examples? I have never witnessed DT1 people meriting doxxers.

[OgNasty]

That’s the current state of the various networks here.

Can you give us a few examples? I have never witnessed DT1 people meriting doxxers.

I would be the perfect example. I was doxxed by a member here and that member was merited by merit sources for the doxxing as well as is currently included in the trust networks of some of the most popular DT members, one of who even supposedly wrote the book on proper usage of the trust network. 

It’s actually a joke what the trust network has become but most are afraid to do the right thing because they know that they would be retaliated against, so as long as they aren’t the targets it’s fine with them.

I’ll let someone else ‘name names’ but it’s pretty shocking that this could happen to me, one of the most trusted and established users here while nobody even seems to care or notice. Imagine what chance regular users have when these people gang up on them. Absolutely none. That’s how they want it though.

[dkbit98]

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.

You can't dox someone when you don't know his real identity, and everyone has the right to examine history and potential candidates for Satoshi.
This is called speculation, not doxxing.

I propose it's time for this rule to be applied properly, to end the double standard and to ensure no one is attempting to dox anyone else when there is no valid complaint of a scam.

How about we first fix double standards and make permanent ban for members who made multiple threats to other members, and even reported other members to government officials with fake claims 

[hilariousandco]

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.

You can't dox someone when you don't know his real identity, and everyone has the right to examine history and potential candidates for Satoshi.
This is called speculation, not doxxing.

Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating on the potential identity of Satoshi, and that's something that will forever be discussed, but if someone was like this is Satoshi, here's his social security number and home address then I'm sure that would fall foul of the rules, but I don't think merely speculating on his identity should be classified as doxing. If Satoshi's identity was ever discovered then it would not be limited to this forum anyway and would quickly become widespread online.

[electronicash]

they were curious who Satoshi is. but there is nothing to dox about him or her.

i agree though since the man disappears to be anonymous for life. although he seems to be good at disappearing, his posts are analyzed many times as to where he could have reside and these information are all public. so far that's just what they got and nothing else.  all are just guesswork. we don't even know if Satoshi is his real name.

[OgNasty]

How about we first fix double standards and make permanent ban for members who made multiple threats to other members, and even reported other members to government officials with fake claims 

Indeed.  I also had my information posted here with links to local law enforcement as well as homeland security and the IRS urging members here to report me for made up crimes.  The user who did it didn't even get suspended for doing so.  That's pretty crazy.  Especially when I got suspended for alluding to punching another member in the face for spreading lies about me.  How ridiculous is that?  People here can do everything in their power to spread lies about you, dox you, get your arrested, ruin your reputation, try to have others report you for fake crimes to law enforcement and if you even allege that you would punch someone for spreading these lies about you, you get suspended...  In other words, you can illegally commit libel all day here, but if you exercise legal free speech against the protected class you get suspended.  Ridiculous.  

[dkbit98]

Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating on the potential identity of Satoshi, and that's something that will forever be discussed, but if someone was like this is Satoshi, here's his social security number and home address then I'm sure that would fall foul of the rules, but I don't think merely speculating on his identity should be classified as doxing. If Satoshi's identity was ever discovered then it would not be limited to this forum anyway and would quickly become widespread online.

This is called Faketoshi and we have many examples of people claiming to be Satoshi, starting with biggest scammer of all Craigh Wright, but there are others like Bilal Khalid, etc.
Actually I think that most of the people would not believe any new information, and they would ask to see really hard evidence, even if someone would came up with full documentation claiming to be coming from real Satoshi.

PS
For anyone wondering who the heck is Bilal Khalid:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197670.0

[BlackHatCoiner]

I would be the perfect example.

Sorry, I'm not following the Vod - OgNasty forum drama. I had once tried to read it, but I was just lost after a couple of minutes. So, yeah. Any other examples?

You can't dox someone when you don't know his real identity, and everyone has the right to examine history and potential candidates for Satoshi.

Yes, but the process of identifying someone is the prerequisite for doxxing them. You obviously can't dox someone if you don't know who they are, but the process of de-anonymizing someone online in public is enough to inevitably have the same consequences of doxxing them.

How would you feel if I, a data mining analyst, created a new topic, posting my research around the pseudonym "dkbit98", presenting horrifyingly accurate analysis which involved running metrics like textual analysis, essentially matching you with a single digit number of suspects (you included) with minimum uncertainty? Wouldn't you start feeling like you're having your privacy invaded? Sure, it is not solid evidence, and you can refuse it in real life all you like, but it is clearly a dox attempt.

[DooMAD]

everyone has the right to examine history and potential candidates for Satoshi.

Yes, everyone has the right to be reckless, selfish and inconsiderate.  Doesn't mean they should, though.  People only seem to care about themselves and don't stop to consider the harm they might bring upon others.

they were curious who Satoshi is. but there is nothing to dox about him or her.

In other words, there's no victim yet, so it's okay to keep trying until there is a victim.  Great argument.   

The thing about crossing that line is that you won't know you've done it until it's too late.

[dkbit98]

How would you feel if I, a data mining analyst, created a new topic, posting my research around the pseudonym "dkbit98", presenting horrifyingly accurate analysis which involved running metrics like textual analysis, essentially matching you with a single digit number of suspects (you included) with minimum uncertainty? Wouldn't you start feeling like you're having your privacy invaded?

Honestly. I wouldn't care at all about that, and I can't prevent other people to do whatever they want to do.

Yes, everyone has the right to be reckless, selfish and inconsiderate.  Doesn't mean they should, though.  People only seem to care about themselves and don't stop to consider the harm they might bring upon others.

I will repeat again, this has nothing to do with doxxing, unles you want to have your own definition and special rules for that.
And even for doxxing there is exception in forum, so you can post personal information for others in Investigations board.

Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet and without their consent.

https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Doxing

[OgNasty]

I would be the perfect example.

Sorry, I'm not following the Vod - OgNasty forum drama. I had once tried to read it, but I was just lost after a couple of minutes. So, yeah. Any other examples?

I'll paraphrase.  I was doxxed by a user.  Merit sources merited that user's post doxxing me.  Now I'm being extorted by that user and default trust members are including him in their trust networks.

Is that simple enough for you to follow?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think merit sources and default trust members should be meriting doxxing posts and including extortionists in their trust networks.  I get that's a hot take though.  I can see why you'd want another example.  That's super hard to follow. 

What you mean to ask is can I provide an example that doesn't implicate the largest merit sources and most included default trust members in very clear wrongdoing.

[DooMAD]

I will repeat again, this has nothing to do with doxxing, unles you want to have your own definition and special rules for that.
And even for doxxing there is exception in forum, so you can post personal information for others in Investigations board.

Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet and without their consent.

https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Doxing

Real-world names are very much personally identifiable.  How is this so difficult for people to comprehend?

When the media mistakenly claimed that Dorian Nakamoto was Satoshi, that had a serious negative impact on his life.  They published his name without his consent.  And then the rest of the media hounded and harassed him for weeks.  If someone has not given you consent to connect their real name to the Satoshi pseudonym, you are potentially causing them harm by claiming that they are Satoshi.  This is immoral.

You're trying to claim that because Dorian isn't Satoshi, he wasn't doxxed.  But he clearly still suffered all the consequences of being doxxed, because people were led to believe that he was someone he wasn't.

I would argue that mistaken and inaccurate doxxing is still doxxing.  It causes exactly the same problems for the person wrongly accused.  If you are linking a real name with a username and do not have permission to do so, I maintain the stance that you are in the wrong.  These aren't my special definitions, it's the definition you just used.

Can I make that any clearer for you?


//EDIT:  And the Investigations board is only for scam accusations.  If you are not claiming satoshi has scammed you, you should not be trying to breach their privacy (or the privacy of whoever you might be speculating is Satoshi) by assigning a real-world, personally-identifiable name to that pseudonym.

[dkbit98]

Real-world names are very much personally identifiable.  How is this so difficult for people to comprehend?

So you know the real Satoshi name?  

When the media mistakenly claimed that Dorian Nakamoto was Satoshi, that had a serious negative impact on his life.

Than you can blame Satoshi for that, because according to you he ''doxxed'' Doran Nakamoto, that is his actual legal name - Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto.  
Maybe you also want to accuse Satosh for stealing his name.  

Can I make that any clearer for you?

You are the one who is confused here, not me.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I mean, I'm not absolute on that particular topic as Satoshi is seen as sort of a mythical being now more, but it frustrates me when people miss the point. Just because we don't know with certainty the person behind Satoshi, doesn't mean that we can start pointing into anyone, writing their real names in Internet boards, expecting to face no penalties.

Than you can blame Satoshi for that, because according to you he ''doxxed'' Doran Nakamoto, that is his actual legal name - Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto.

No, he didn't, unless there's a post from him that points to Dorian Nakamoto. It is curious speculators (who attempted to) dox Dorian.

[joker_josue]

I mean, I'm not absolute on that particular topic as Satoshi is seen as sort of a mythical being now more, but it frustrates me when people miss the point. Just because we don't know with certainty the person behind Satoshi, doesn't mean that we can start pointing into anyone, writing their real names in Internet boards, expecting to face no penalties.

Well, if I say that I think Satoshi is the mathematician XPTO (a person already famous or well-known in the world), I'm not doxxing.

We must understand that doxxing involves disclosing personal private information, such as a person's address, phone number, financial information, or other real data. Speculating about someone's true identity is not doxxing as long as it does not involve disclosing private personal information.

So I think things are getting mixed up. One thing is doxxing, the main objective of which is to harm and humiliate someone. Another is to speculate about someone's identity.

But as I said before, I understand the point raised by the OP. Although I don't think what's happening to Satoshi is doxxing, speculation about identities should be handled with care to avoid defamation or violation of privacy.

[Synchronice]

You're merely attempting to justify that your curiosity is somehow more important than someone else's safety.  Don't you care that you could be endangering someone?  Seems a little selfish to me.

Why should it be dangerous to know who Satoshi is? Since when do we hide that information? Is Vitalik Buterin in danger since we know that he created ETH? Is SEC chairman in danger since we know he is the chariman? Is JP Morgan CEO in danger? Is Elon Musk in danger because we know that he owns Tesla?

Did Satoshi ever say that we should remove every post on this forum to protect his privacy? And if he thought that he would be in danger, then he shouldn't have created a Bitcoin. Absolutely everyone wants to know who is Satoshi and that's a fair question. The wrong question and danger is if someone figures out his address and posts it in public.
Satoshi didn't create anything wrong or illegal, so why should he be in danger even if his full name and photo becomes available? By the way, no one can obtain that, he is probably dead, only god knows.

There is no legal documentation or requirement when you purchase bitcoins, neither is there an obligation to use Bitcoin. So, why would there be a legal right to know who the author is?

Is it prohibited to ask and try to find who Satoshi is?

Millions of people use Bitcoin, isn't it their right to know who created the coin that they use?

No. Someone created something great. Using it doesn't give you any special rights.

Okay but I strongly believe anyone has a right to ask the question Who is Satoshi? and search for answers or open a discussion thread on this forum.

[LoyceMobile]

Okay but I strongly believe anyone has a right to ask the question Who is Satoshi? and search for answers or open a discussion thread on this forum.

Having the right to ask is not the same as having the right to get an answer.

[Upgrade00]

Well, if I say that I think Satoshi is the mathematician XPTO (a person already famous or well-known in the world), I'm not doxxing.

We must understand that doxxing involves disclosing personal private information, such as a person's address, phone number, financial information, or other real data. Speculating about someone's true identity is not doxxing as long as it does not involve disclosing private personal information.

There are varying definitions of doxxing. Some define it as linking real life information to an anonymous online personality. As an example;
• the address of Mr. Thomas is 124 wallet street, this is a public information on their community register.
• hooded hacker is a online personality who doesn't post any personal information online,
• a link is made between Me. Thomas and hooded hacker and everyone now knows where "hooded hacker" lives, even those who do not like his anonymous work.

Is it prohibited to ask and try to find who Satoshi is?

No, it's not.
What is prohibited or should be, is trying to unearth personal information about satoshi which they did not make public.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why should it be dangerous to know who Satoshi is?

First and foremost? Because he's probably a secret billionaire.

Is Vitalik Buterin in danger since we know that he created ETH?

Yes. A lot.  I think I've only seen him once being in a non-conference room, and that was with bodyguards surrounded.

Is SEC chairman in danger since we know he is the chariman? Is JP Morgan CEO in danger? Is Elon Musk in danger because we know that he owns Tesla?

Yes... They are all rich and public figures? However, I don't see how is that relevant with the question. Satoshi (or the person behind that name) is not a public figure.

Satoshi didn't create anything wrong or illegal, so why should he be in danger even if his full name and photo becomes available? By the way, no one can obtain that, he is probably dead, only god knows.

Has it crossed your mind that Satoshi might be alive and sitting on top of a billion worth of bitcoin?

[DooMAD]

Why should it be dangerous to know who Satoshi is?

Maybe you're lucky enough to live in a democracy (or, at the very least, a nation trying to masquerade as one).  But there are some places on Earth where human rights are at a premium.  Some authoritarian nations go ballistic if you do anything that might impact their economy.  If the government don't like what you're doing they'll 'disappear' you or straight up have you executed.

Take, for example, one of our own forum members who wanted to live off-grid in a 'seastead' and live off their Bitcoin.  They built their new home off the coast of Thailand.  The Thai government then declared them a threat to national security, called for the death penalty and had the military come along to destroy their home.  And that's just for someone wanting to use Bitcoin near Thailand  (thankfully they're okay last I heard).

So, could you imagine what the consequences might be if Satoshi turned out to be living in Thailand?  What kind of threat do you suppose the Thai government might perceive them as?  Maybe they keep their identity secret because their life quite literally depends on it.

I don't think anyone considers any of this when they're having fun poking their noses in the private affairs of others. 

I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you're still publicly speculating about who satoshi is you're being inconsiderate jackasses here.  It's that simple.

[cryptosize]

Even if Satoshi is still alive (highly unlikely), there's no chance he's going to send his enormous BTC stash to a CEX or even BlackRock. Chances are they're going to confiscate his coins if he tries to crash the market (try putting a spot sell order of 1100000 BTC and see what happens next ).

So yeah, he's a billionaire, but more like a "theoretical" billionaire. I'm pretty sure he'll become the first trillionaire as well (next to Elon Musk perhaps), but still, he'll be a theoretical one.

[Poker Player]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you're still publicly speculating about who satoshi is you're being inconsiderate jackasses here.  It's that simple.

And how is it that you got that great idea just now to the point of insulting those who don't think like you, after being on the forum for 10 and a half years? Come on, enlighten us.

The owner clearly does not think like you, otherwise he would have taken steps to do so a long time ago. Nor does anyone else who has discussed Satoshi's possible identity in the many threads about it.

You expect to go down in history as the protector of Satoshi's privacy or something? 14 years after he has disappeared and none of the speculation about him has turned up anything that could identify him?

I think humanity needs more people with cool ideas like yours, otherwise I don't think we'll survive another year.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I will completely (without any form of objection or whatsoever) agree with the op, for over years, some users on this forum have actually taken it upon themselves to unravel the true identity of who Satoshi Nakamoto is, and since this is a very hot topic in the entire crypto currency ecosystem, it often feels like there is some kind of heavy bounty placed on Satoshi, and that bounty goes to who ever is able to unravel his true identity, and even if the outside crypto currency or bitcoin community are zealously trying to dox Satoshi, this forum is different, and I agree that users of this forum should not engage themselves in doing such, for it is indeed an act of disrespect, and disregard for or on Satoshi's privacy, for forum users to want to dox him, when we ourselves who are here and using the forum today, don't want any other forum user to know who we are, or our true identity.

It's like a saying in my place, which states that, before you punch another in the face, first punch yourself and feel how painful it Is first - if Satoshi is still amongst us, I can feel how disappointed he or they must be, seeing how hard some users of this forum are trying to dox him or them, this is something we honestly have to stop and I hope theymos and the forum mods read this thread and agree as well.

[joker_josue]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you're still publicly speculating about who satoshi is you're being inconsiderate jackasses here.  It's that simple.

Well, I think you're exaggerating a lot, and feeling excessive pain.

Everything that has been done so far makes it impossible to know who or where Satoshi is from. And you will probably never know that. Know why? Because the only way you can maintain your anonymity is from the first day to do everything you can to make it that way. And that Satoshi did very well, it was all planned from day 1. They will discover the identity of ME or YOU faster than we will find out which country Satoshi lived in.

I'm not saying that it's good or bad to research to find out who Satoshi was. But, all the information that exists is available to everyone inside and outside the forum. And therefore, talking about her within the forum should not be something prohibited or something to be regretted.

It's like a saying in my place, which states that, before you punch another in the face, first punch yourself and feel how painful it Is first - if Satoshi is still amongst us, I can feel how disappointed he or they must be, seeing how hard some users of this forum are trying to dox him or them, this is something we honestly have to stop and I hope theymos and the forum mods read this thread and agree as well.

Don't mix things up. Speculating who Satoshi is is not doxxing. Starting from this idea is wrong.

[EarnOnVictor]

I must have missed this thread due to my busy schedule these days. Though the OP is entitled to his opinion, nonetheless, the opinion looks too serious compared to the actual fact. The doxxing of a thing may be enforced against users on this forum but I can assure you that it can't be more than here, what's the point? As we speak, do you know how many investigative journalists are on this trail? You can't know until their success. Your point is however conceived because this is a Bitcoin forum, but if enforced strictly, then it means that neutrality is still not strong here in my opinion. Even in law, in most countries, doxxing is forgivable, and in many other places, it "may" be lightly punished depending on the reason for it, not to mention an online forum.

Fine, based on how this forum was created, we might collectively respect the privacy of the person who created Bitcoin and also opened this forum, it makes sense like that. But when we are now taking it too seriously, I do not see it so neutral to prove the freedom of expression.

I really would love it if Satoshi Nakamoto could reveal his/their identity to reap the fruits of his/their labour. The project is too honourable for the brain(s) behind it not to be known. I believe what people are doing is out of curiosity, but what I don't condone is too many threads pointing to the same fact here, that must stop. But for people to try and relate something to it, I do not have so much concern about that.

Let them continue to try, it will only be the case of "catch me if you can."

[ABCbits]

You're merely attempting to justify that your curiosity is somehow more important than someone else's safety.  Don't you care that you could be endangering someone?  Seems a little selfish to me.

Why should it be dangerous to know who Satoshi is? Since when do we hide that information? Is Vitalik Buterin in danger since we know that he created ETH? Is SEC chairman in danger since we know he is the chariman? Is JP Morgan CEO in danger? Is Elon Musk in danger because we know that he owns Tesla?

Surely you know public figure usually have more protection, right? And personally i'd rather not see "news" which attempt to discredit Bitcoin based on Satoshi identity (e.g. nationality and religion).

[Rikafip]

And if he thought that he would be in danger, then he shouldn't have created a Bitcoin.

Why do you think he went to such length to hide his identity?

Absolutely everyone wants to know who is Satoshi and that's a fair question.

That's not true as I definitely don't want to know he actually is and I am sure that there are many more who think the same. One of the advantages bitcoin has over other cryptocurrencies is that we don;'t know the idenitty of the creator, meaning one less vector of attack on bitcoin.

Satoshi didn't create anything wrong or illegal, so why should he be in danger even if his full name and photo becomes available? By the way, no one can obtain that, he is probably dead, only god knows.

You remind me of the people who say that only those who are doing something wrong should care about their own privacy.

[cryptosize]

That's not true as I definitely don't want to know he actually is and I am sure that there are many more who think the same. One of the advantages bitcoin has over other cryptocurrencies is that we don;'t know the idenitty of the creator, meaning one less vector of attack on bitcoin.

Why does Satoshi's identity matter (if it gets revealed), since Bitcoin is decentralized?

Maybe it would matter back in 2009-2010 when the network was small (and thus prone to 51% attacks), but not anymore...

[DooMAD]

And how is it that you got that great idea just now to the point of insulting those who don't think like you, after being on the forum for 10 and a half years? Come on, enlighten us.

I've been asking since 2015 for people to respect satoshi's privacy, so it's not exactly a sudden or unexpected change in my position:

But as intriguing as speculation might be, let's leave Satoshi be, whoever they are.  After giving the gift of Bitcoin to us, the least we can do in return is respect their right to privacy.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like an injustice that people are being so disrespectful, so I don't think I'm taking things too far in disrespecting them a little and firing off a few insults.  I've been asking politely for a while.  

Noticing the similarity in potential consequences of mistakenly accusing someone of being satoshi and doxxing someone is definitely a more recent thing.  It was something that warranted a conversation, but I honestly thought more people would be on board with the idea.

You expect to go down in history as the protector of Satoshi's privacy or something?

There's nothing in this for me.  It's just a question of ethics.  Right and wrong.

[joker_josue]

And how is it that you got that great idea just now to the point of insulting those who don't think like you, after being on the forum for 10 and a half years? Come on, enlighten us.

I've been asking since 2015 for people to respect satoshi's privacy, so it's not exactly a sudden or unexpected change in my position:

But as intriguing as speculation might be, let's leave Satoshi be, whoever they are.  After giving the gift of Bitcoin to us, the least we can do in return is respect their right to privacy.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like an injustice that people are being so disrespectful, so I don't think I'm taking things too far in disrespecting them a little and firing off a few insults.  I've been asking politely for a while.  

I wouldn't say that people are disrespecting Satoshi's privacy, because in reality nothing is known about his privacy.

Now I agree that sometimes this tireless search is a bit overused to find out who he is. But, they usually end up being the same names on the table, and they are also usually the names of people who have already passed away (unfortunately). Therefore, you will never suffer from this impossible search.

For me, the most shameful thing was the injustice that many people did against Hal Finney's family, to try to gain access to his PC. That was indeed shameful. And this is what you want to highlight and prevent from happening. But in this case, I understand that this quest to find out who the creator of Bitcoin was will end up affecting the family indirectly. Now, I understand that you can talk in a minimally healthy way about the subject here on the forum, as long as you don't go into extremism.

I believe that now the subject has come up again, because of the new emails that emerged from Satoshi. But, from what it seems, they don't reveal much more than was already known, other than technical conversations about Bitcoin.

Therefore, I think we can talk about the subject here on the forum, perhaps commenting on some news that appears on the topic, but we also don't have to be obsessed with this debate.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I wouldn't say that people are disrespecting Satoshi's privacy, because in reality nothing is known about his privacy.

I used to agree with this, but after I read some research that was conducted back in 2013 (and which didn't go viral for some reason), I consider it a lot more probable than before that he is the one I think he is. Nothing is known about Satoshi particularly, but if you start excluding candidates, you're most likely going to end up to one suspect (assuming he belonged to the known to all cryptographic community). This is the last resort to de-anonymize someone, and it's succeeded to an extent.

[Synchronice]

Satoshi didn't create anything wrong or illegal, so why should he be in danger even if his full name and photo becomes available? By the way, no one can obtain that, he is probably dead, only god knows.

Has it crossed your mind that Satoshi might be alive and sitting on top of a billion worth of bitcoin?

Satoshi might be reading our posts, laughing hard but with a little bit sadness while listening to Lana Del Ray's Summertime Sadness (slowed & reverb) at low volume. I would be happy!

snip

It's not about me or someone else, Satoshi's identity is a public interest, millions of people are interested, so no one can prohibit speculation about his identity, that's impossible. So, he should have plan B if his identity gets revealed and I believe he has it if he is alive. Anyways, I am not revealing anything since I don't know a thing about him but I strongly believe that his identity is protected and speculation about his identity is just a funny activity. Speculation about Satoshi, for me, looks like a speculation about why do we exist in this world. These questions will never be answered, discussion about them is just fun activity.

One of the advantages bitcoin has over other cryptocurrencies is that we don;'t know the idenitty of the creator, meaning one less vector of attack on bitcoin.

Yes, completely agree with you on this one!

[BlackHatCoiner]

Satoshi might be reading our posts, laughing hard but with a little bit sadness while listening to Lana Del Ray's Summertime Sadness (slowed & reverb) at low volume. I would be happy!

Summertime sadness? Come on, be more optimistic. The guy is a freaking secret billionaire, and if he lives for another decade or two, he might even be a trillionaire. And nobody will know it. Another level of flexing.  

Speculation about Satoshi, for me, looks like a speculation about why do we exist in this world. These questions will never be answered, discussion about them is just fun activity.

Probably because the popular candidates haven't convinced you of being Satoshi. But, if you start searching, you might realize something you didn't know. And yes, it's reasonable that we don't know everything about Satoshi. Only a few speculators who dedicated endless hours on searching for his identity have gathered everything in one place. And maybe even they have lost a tiny detail which is waiting to be found.

It certainly isn't philosophy.

[Poker Player]

I've been asking since 2015 for people to respect satoshi's privacy, so it's not exactly a sudden or unexpected change in my position:

Fair enough.

But I think you are fighting against the tide. First because as you can see in this very thread, not all of us share your opinion; second because there is internet beyond this forum, i.e. there is nothing stopping someone who discovered something relevant about Satoshi's identity from posting it elsewhere, and third because to persist in that even when intelligence agencies have tried to find out who he was and got nothing makes it extremely unlikely that anything relevant is going to be discovered now.

There's nothing in this for me.  It's just a question of ethics.  Right and wrong.

According to your ethical principles. Ethical principles, if you do not believe that they are established by a supra-human entity (I don't), can only be established in agreement with other human beings, and there is not always agreement.

[DooMAD]

because there is internet beyond this forum, i.e. there is nothing stopping someone who discovered something relevant about Satoshi's identity from posting it elsewhere

That argument, phrased another way, sounds like "other people are doing bad things, so it's okay for us to do bad things too".

I thought we were meant to be the ones who were advocates of the importance of privacy.  Obviously I can't expect everyone here to hold themselves to a higher standard than "Joe Public", but I'm pretty disappointed by the numbers of those who are even prepared to try.  It just seems like we're prepared to be hypocrites on this one and I think that's a real shame.

Bitcointalk users, for the most part, apparently don't respect privacy.  I'm honestly embarrassed by the attitudes on show here.

[joker_josue]

According to your ethical principles. Ethical principles, if you do not believe that they are established by a supra-human entity (I don't), can only be established in agreement with other human beings, and there is not always agreement.

So how would you ban this on the forum?

Would it no longer be possible to talk on the forum about a piece of news or an article that speculates about Satoshi's identity?
Commenting would be prohibited, any new information about Satoshi here on the forum?

[cryptosize]

According to your ethical principles. Ethical principles, if you do not believe that they are established by a supra-human entity (I don't), can only be established in agreement with other human beings, and there is not always agreement.

So how would you ban this on the forum?

Would it no longer be possible to talk on the forum about a piece of news or an article that speculates about Satoshi's identity?
Commenting would be prohibited, any new information about Satoshi here on the forum?

This reminds me of the mixer ban... do we need even more restrictions?

Especially coming from people who defend "freedom of speech" their pocket?

I mean, come on, Satoshi hasn't even moved a single satoshi from his wallets (let alone a whole BTC!), he didn't even defend himself during the CSW fiasco by signing a message with his keys, he didn't even express his opinion about big block chains vs Lightning... he had tons of opportunities to give a glimmer of presence. What's the most likely explanation according to Occam's razor?

Chances are he's most likely dead and people will defend a dead person like he's a... sacred deity? Hmmm, this sounds more like a religion/cult if you ask me.

[Poker Player]

Bitcointalk users, for the most part, apparently don't respect privacy.  I'm honestly embarrassed by the attitudes on show here.

The one who respected his own privacy the most was Satoshi, who has managed that after 14 years no one has been able to find out who he is. Not even if it was a single person or several. With that, it doesn't matter what people want to investigate because they won't get anything out of it.

According to your ethical principles. Ethical principles, if you do not believe that they are established by a supra-human entity (I don't), can only be established in agreement with other human beings, and there is not always agreement.

So how would you ban this on the forum?

Would it no longer be possible to talk on the forum about a piece of news or an article that speculates about Satoshi's identity?
Commenting would be prohibited, any new information about Satoshi here on the forum?

It seems to me that you made a mistake when quoting, didn't you? Or explain yourself better because I am precisely defending that it doesn't matter what people want to investigate about Satoshi, because they will discover the same thing that has been discovered in the last 14 years: nothing.

[joker_josue]

According to your ethical principles. Ethical principles, if you do not believe that they are established by a supra-human entity (I don't), can only be established in agreement with other human beings, and there is not always agreement.

So how would you ban this on the forum?

Would it no longer be possible to talk on the forum about a piece of news or an article that speculates about Satoshi's identity?
Commenting would be prohibited, any new information about Satoshi here on the forum?

It seems to me that you made a mistake when quoting, didn't you? Or explain yourself better because I am precisely defending that it doesn't matter what people want to investigate about Satoshi, because they will discover the same thing that has been discovered in the last 14 years: nothing.

You're right! I made the mistake of quoting. What I wanted to mention was the following:

Bitcointalk users, for the most part, apparently don't respect privacy.  I'm honestly embarrassed by the attitudes on show here.

But now it's not worth editing the post either.

Either way, I agree with you.

I wouldn't say that people are disrespecting Satoshi's privacy, because in reality nothing is known about his privacy.

I used to agree with this, but after I read some research that was conducted back in 2013 (and which didn't go viral for some reason), I consider it a lot more probable than before that he is the one I think he is. Nothing is known about Satoshi particularly, but if you start excluding candidates, you're most likely going to end up to one suspect (assuming he belonged to the known to all cryptographic community). This is the last resort to de-anonymize someone, and it's succeeded to an extent.

But you can exclude these people, and you still wouldn't know if it is or not. Furthermore, you would never be left with just one option. Know why? Because without putting a living person into the equation, that person will be able to deny and even present evidence that they are not. And if it's a person who has already died, you're left unsure whether it was or not.

And normally, the names thrown on the table are people who have already died. Because those who are alive deny being him very clearly.

[DooMAD]

The one who respected his own privacy the most was Satoshi, who has managed that after 14 years no one has been able to find out who he is. Not even if it was a single person or several. With that, it doesn't matter what people want to investigate because they won't get anything out of it.

"I've been trying to breach someone's privacy against their wishes for 14 years, but haven't been successful yet, so it's okay to keep trying"

"I've been shining lasers at passing aircraft for 14 years and none of them have crashed yet, so it can't be as dangerous as they claim"

"I've been drink driving for 14 years and no one has died yet, pour me another one"

All of these statements would be good examples of someone who knows what they're doing is wrong, but is performing mental gymnastics to try to justify continuing to do it anyway.

This reminds me of the mixer ban... do we need even more restrictions?

I'd rather it wasn't a rule.  I wish people would show some common fucking decency without being prompted.  But clearly people are not only incapable of that, but are also content to make a bunch of lame excuses as to why they shouldn't have to.

[nutildah]

I'd rather it wasn't a rule.  I wish people would show some common fucking decency without being prompted.  But clearly people are not only incapable of that, but are also content to make a bunch of lame excuses as to why they shouldn't have to.

Nah man. You can't stop people from speculating on this sort of thing. Theymos did the right thing by with-holding sensitive IP information & PMs that people may have abused for the sake of harassing satoshi (or some other poor soul who's not satoshi). In any case, no point in trying to stop it from happening. Can't stop, won't stop. All bitcoiners will speculate until the cows come home, because, after all, it is fun to guess.

[cryptosize]

Theymos did the right thing by with-holding sensitive IP information & PMs that people may have abused for the sake of harassing satoshi (or some other poor soul who's not satoshi).

How exactly would people have access to Satoshi's forum IP addresses and PMs? (btw, Satoshi used Tor to hide his IP address, so it's not like an IP reveal would do much...)

Also, what prevents CIA/NSA from asking Theymos for that data? Wouldn't he comply to their orders?

Judging by the mixer ban, chances are he would...

[nutildah]

Theymos did the right thing by with-holding sensitive IP information & PMs that people may have abused for the sake of harassing satoshi (or some other poor soul who's not satoshi).

How exactly would people have access to Satoshi's forum IP addresses and PMs? (btw, Satoshi used Tor to hide his IP address, so it's not like an IP reveal would do much...)

There's a few famous instances where he may have slipped his "real IP address" in the early days. Its pretty well documented, just need to do a Google search or two to find out about it, and all the related conspiracy theories. Theymos mentioned a long time back that he was considering releasing some other potentially sensitive satoshi-related data, but then he ultimately decided against it, and it was probably for the better that he didn't.

Also, what prevents CIA/NSA from asking Theymos for that data? Wouldn't he comply to their orders?

I suppose if it was part of a subpoena or something, then yes, he would. A famous instance of this is what happened to pirateat40 and also the Ross Ulbricht related accounts. Which as far as I know, their account info & contents was subpoenaed, and he complied (I could be wrong but I don't think I am).

Judging by the mixer ban, chances are he would...

Mixer ban has nothing to do with any of that. It was a pre-emptive move on his part to deter the possibility that Bitcointalk would perhaps someday become a takedown target for federal so-and-sos.

[philipma1957]

I feel like there's a prevalent double standard when it comes to protecting identities of forum users.  

If topics existed where lots of users were posting theories and collecting evidence in an attempt to unveil the real-world identity of another forum user, I don't think such threads would be tolerated.  As per the rules, doxxing is only permitted in the case of legitimate scam accusations:

here are some new rules on doxxing:

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.  There's no way people would accept it if it were their own account subject to such investigations.  If someone did ever successfully identify satoshi and published it here on the forum, then they would have clearly violated the rule.  Ergo, users are attempting to break the rules every time they publicly try to link:

a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

This should not be happening.  There are inherent dangers in revealing someone's identity, particularly if they are considered wealthy.  The user in question, or even their family, could be at risk of falling victim to burglary, kidnapping, torture or other crimes (and I'm certain there are few potential targets more tempting for criminals than someone as flush with BTC as satoshi is perceived to be).  There are very good reasons why attempting to dox someone is frowned upon.  

I propose it's time for this rule to be applied properly, to end the double standard and to ensure no one is attempting to dox anyone else when there is no valid complaint of a scam.

The issue is not if he is Joe Biden Or Al Gore (his claim to fame is internet invention)
Maybe Donald Trump how bout Putin?

All of the above is idle speculation. Supposing BTC was developed by government behind the goverments.

The lizard people or the Illuminati .

Obviously knowing the inventor may never happen and is a real problem if it was not one or two clever guys  that made it. If it was made as a worldwide govenmental design to replace the Dollar ,Euro,Ruble,Yuan I think many would really fear it.

So to me proving the development as one or two guys is an important task as would be proving it was the lizard rulers.

To all I used quite a bit of ironic metaphorical people as possible creators.

I certainly would want to know if know or two guys did it or if a team of government people did it.

[cryptosize]

I feel like there's a prevalent double standard when it comes to protecting identities of forum users.  

If topics existed where lots of users were posting theories and collecting evidence in an attempt to unveil the real-world identity of another forum user, I don't think such threads would be tolerated.  As per the rules, doxxing is only permitted in the case of legitimate scam accusations:

here are some new rules on doxxing:

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.  There's no way people would accept it if it were their own account subject to such investigations.  If someone did ever successfully identify satoshi and published it here on the forum, then they would have clearly violated the rule.  Ergo, users are attempting to break the rules every time they publicly try to link:

a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

This should not be happening.  There are inherent dangers in revealing someone's identity, particularly if they are considered wealthy.  The user in question, or even their family, could be at risk of falling victim to burglary, kidnapping, torture or other crimes (and I'm certain there are few potential targets more tempting for criminals than someone as flush with BTC as satoshi is perceived to be).  There are very good reasons why attempting to dox someone is frowned upon.  

I propose it's time for this rule to be applied properly, to end the double standard and to ensure no one is attempting to dox anyone else when there is no valid complaint of a scam.

The issue is not if he is Joe Biden Or Al Gore (his claim to fame is internet invention)
Maybe Donald Trump how bout Putin?

All of the above is idle speculation. Supposing BTC was developed by government behind the goverments.

The lizard people or the Illuminati .

Obviously knowing the inventor may never happen and is a real problem if it was not one or two clever guys  that made it. If it was made as a worldwide govenmental design to replace the Dollar ,Euro,Ruble,Yuan I think many would really fear it.

So to me proving the development as one or two guys is an important task as would be proving it was the lizard rulers.

To all I used quite a bit of ironic metaphorical people as possible creators.

I certainly would want to know if know or two guys did it or if a team of government people did it.

Even if Klaus Schwab invented it, does it really matter?

The network is decentralized, so no one can control it... not even BlackRock.

Unless WEF or BlackRock acquire 51% of the hashrate to perform an attack, I don't really see why it matters who invented it.

Sure, it's useful for gossip or historical reasons, but that's it.

The fact that many people trust the shadowy Satoshi Nakamoto figure more than Jerome Powell or Christine Lagarde (btw, both are puppets, they don't really control FED/ECB) says a lot to me.

Btw, I know who invented BitTorrent. Does Bram Cohen control torrent seeders or trackers or magnet links? No, because the BitTorrent network is equally decentralized.

Most people who make a huge fuss about Satoshi's secret identity are no-coiners. People who don't even possess not even a single mSat.

Trust me, if you give them a wallet containing 1000 BTC they'll become Bitcoin maxis in a femtosecond.

Even if BlackRock manages to acquire 99% of the BTC hashrate, the cat is out of the bag... we can go to XMR. BTC spurred the ecosystem of cryptocurrencies and some of them are very private and decentralized.

I've heard some bat shit crazy conspiracy theories that Satoshi Nakamoto is a puppet (like the guys behind Silicon Valley -> but these guys are not shadowy figures, we know who Zuckerberg is, we've seen his face!), that Satoshi is BlackRock.

And when I ask them WHY does BlackRock have to spend billions of dollars to buy BTC (even though they supposedly hodl Satoshi's huge 1.1m BTC stash) they have nothing to respond to me...

I don't mind conspiracy theories (the Reichstag Nazi fire is the most famous one), but at least make sure they make sense somehow. Because if they don't, then what's the point?

[philipma1957]

Well whether one or two or three smart people invented Btc or it was put in place to end the usd down the road does not matter. We all can see the usd system is failing since nixon end the gold standard and the world trade center in 2001 the usd system appears set to be replaced.

Whether it will be btc or ltc/doge it does look like it will be a crypto pow coin.

Should be fun to see it all happen.  As for satoshi if it is a single guy/girl or a team of people does not matter much. Glad to have seen it happen.

[Poker Player]

"I've been trying to breach someone's privacy against their wishes for 14 years, but haven't been successful yet, so it's okay to keep trying"

"I've been shining lasers at passing aircraft for 14 years and none of them have crashed yet, so it can't be as dangerous as they claim"

"I've been drink driving for 14 years and no one has died yet, pour me another one"

Well, no, you raise false analogies to justify what you previously believe. The first one is totally false because you don't know about Satoshi's wishes. Maybe he is laughing all this time at everyone who is trying to find out who he is like "keep trying, come on!.

And the other examples involving activities with a high risk of murder, the first one of mass murder, are clearly false analogies.

You started the thread with a false analogy and I already responded to you:

And I suppose we can also fire guns in the general direction of people as long as we don't actually hit them?  No, pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

I just don't buy your analogy. The correct analogy is people shooting in the desert where there is no one and after 14 years you come to tell us that there is a danger of someone getting killed.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Theymos did the right thing by with-holding sensitive IP information & PMs that people may have abused for the sake of harassing satoshi (or some other poor soul who's not satoshi).

How exactly would people have access to Satoshi's forum IP addresses and PMs? (btw, Satoshi used Tor to hide his IP address, so it's not like an IP reveal would do much...)

Judging by the update Theymos had given a few years ago about data removing, any IP and such things of the forum are automatically removed which is older than 3 or 6 months. I can not remember the exact duration, sorry.

Glad to have seen it happen.

Best part is, you, me and others are a part of the change that has started. We don't need to learn it from a historian because we are part of the history.

[Casdinyard]

I feel like there's a prevalent double standard when it comes to protecting identities of forum users.  

If topics existed where lots of users were posting theories and collecting evidence in an attempt to unveil the real-world identity of another forum user, I don't think such threads would be tolerated.  As per the rules, doxxing is only permitted in the case of legitimate scam accusations:

here are some new rules on doxxing:

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.  There's no way people would accept it if it were their own account subject to such investigations.  If someone did ever successfully identify satoshi and published it here on the forum, then they would have clearly violated the rule.  Ergo, users are attempting to break the rules every time they publicly try to link:

a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

This should not be happening.  There are inherent dangers in revealing someone's identity, particularly if they are considered wealthy.  The user in question, or even their family, could be at risk of falling victim to burglary, kidnapping, torture or other crimes (and I'm certain there are few potential targets more tempting for criminals than someone as flush with BTC as satoshi is perceived to be).  There are very good reasons why attempting to dox someone is frowned upon.  

I propose it's time for this rule to be applied properly, to end the double standard and to ensure no one is attempting to dox anyone else when there is no valid complaint of a scam.

You made a massive curveball of a topic and in retrospect, it makes total sense. At the end of the day, Satoshi Nakamoto is a bitcointalk user, and is thus inclusive of all the rules and regulations that are imposed upon this forum and its users, including the right to his private information and the right to not reveal it.

I am one of those people who are so against the revelation of Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and all that shit, but only because I think people are investing all their efforts in a fruitless labor. When they could've been investing those talents and the progresses they have made to further bitcoin's reach and extent. To me it's enough that Satoshi is the creator, he didn't have to reveal who he is or how he's doing since that would take away from what bitcoin is supposed to be, a secure, anonymous, end to end payment system. Magnifying this rule against Satoshi's invasion of privacy could actually smother the attempts of users here who can't make good posts to speculate upon his identity and whereabouts, since if possible this could mean that the mods could block or delete posts alluding to this topic.