= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wei_Dai comments on AALWA: Ask any LessWronger anything - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (611)
Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. First of all, crypto-anarchy is very different from plain anarchy. We (or at least I) weren't trying to destroy government, but just create new virtual communities that aren't ruled by the threat of violence. Second I'm not sure Satoshi would even consider himself a crypto-anarchist. I think he might have been motivated more by a distrust of financial institutions and government monetary authorities and wanted to create a monetary system that didn't have to depend on such trust. All in all, I don't think there is much risk in this regard.
I haven't personally made any attempts to find out who he is, nor do I have any idea how. My guess is that he's not anyone who was previously active in the academic cryptography or cypherpunks communities, because otherwise he probably would have been identified by now based on his writing and coding styles.
I think at this point it doesn't matter too much, except to satisfy people's curiosity.
No, because along with a number of other reasons not to patent it, the whole point of b-money was to have a money system that governments can't control or shut down by force, so how would I be able to enforce the patent? I don't think Satoshi would have patented his ideas either, because I think he is not motivated mainly to personally make money, but to change the world and to solve an interesting technical problem. Otherwise he would have sold at least some of his mined Bitcoins in order to spend or to diversify into other investments.
Thank you so much Wei Dai for all the answers.
You say other previously active member would have been identified base on this writing and coding style. There is exacly what Skye Grey says he/she's doing for matching Szabo with Satoshi on the blog LikeinaMirror - he say's he's 99,9% sure Szabo is Satoshi. https://likeinamirror.wordpress.com/2014/03/
Dorian Nakamoto theory may have any ground?
What made you think Satoshi motivation was distrust rather than crypto-anarchy? Someone that have loose money for instance in Lehman Brothers banrupcy? It was also in 2008
Why is anonimity important to crypto community? Just to confirm, Wei Dai is a pseudonym?
Thank you again
I agree with gwern's answers and will add a couple of my own.
No, I doubt it.
Grey's post is worthless. I haven't written a rebuttal to his second, but about his first post, see http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ruluz/satoshi_nakamoto_is_probably_nick_szabo/cdr2vgu
Because he said so. Haven't you done any background reading? (And how many private individuals could have lost money in Lehman Brothers anyway...)
Seriously?
No, it's real.
The concerns in this space go beyond personal safety, though that isn't an insignificant one. For safety, It doesn't matter what one can prove because almost by definition anyone who is going to be dangerous is not behaving in an informed and rational way, consider the crazy person who was threatening Gwern. It's also not possible to actually prove you do not own a large number of Bitcoins-- the coins themselves are pseudonymous, and many people can not imagine that a person would willingly part with a large amount of money (or decline to take it in the first place).
No one knows which, if any, Bitcoins are owned by the system's creator. There is a lot of speculation which is know to me to be bogus; e.g. identifying my coins as having belonged to the creator. So even if someone were to provably dispose of all their holdings, there will be people alleging other coins.
The bigger issue is that the Bitcoin system gains much of its unique value by being defined by software, by mechanical rule and not trust. In a sense, Bitcoin matters because its creator doesn't. This is a hard concept for most people, and there is a constant demand by the public to identify "the person in charge". To stand out risks being appointed Bitcoin's central banker for life, and in doing so undermine much of what Bitcoin has accomplished.
Being a "thought leader" also produces significant demands on your time which can inhibit making meaningful accomplishments.
Finally, it would be an act which couldn't be reversed.
Why do you think so?
Bruce Wayne: As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol... as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.
--Batman Begins
This is interesting and something I hadn't thought about. Now I'm more curious who Satoshi is and why he or she or they have decided to remain anonymous. Thanks! You might want to post your idea somewhere else too, like the Bitcoin reddit or forum, since probably not many people will get to read it here.