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

[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).

[1715222071]

1715222071

[1715222071]

1715222071

[1715222071]

1715222071

[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?