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.

[1714223923]

1714223923

[1714223923]

1714223923

[1714223923]

1714223923

[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.