Bitcoin Inventor Satoshi Nakamoto Outed By Newsweek

DoctorBit writes "According to today's Newsweek article, Satoshi Nakamoto is ... Satoshi Nakamoto — a 64-year-old Japanese-American former defense contractor living with his mother in a modest Temple City, California suburban home. According to the article, 'He is someone with a penchant for collecting model trains and a career shrouded in secrecy, having done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military.' and 'Nakamoto's family describe him as extremely intelligent, moody and obsessively private, a man of few words who screens his phone calls, anonymizes his emails and, for most of his life, has been preoccupied with the two things for which Bitcoin has now become known: money and secrecy.' The article quotes him as responding when asked about bitcoin, 'I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it, ... It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection.' I imagine that he will now have to move and hire round-the-clock security for his own protection."

Comments

Why?

[Chalnoth]

Why would he have to move/hire protection? I guess I can see that he might be paranoid enough to think it's necessary, but why would it be actually necessary?

Re:Why?

[johnsie]

People do crazy things when money and power is involved. He's right to want to protect himself.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's now public that he's sitting on nearly half a billion dollars somewhere.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would he have to move/hire protection? I guess I can see that he might be paranoid enough to think it's necessary, but why would it be actually necessary?

He is now a target for anyone who wants a potentially huge stash of BTC... whether it is really him or not, someone will presume it is.

Re:Why?

[interkin3tic]

Because once Newsweek finds you, they'll pester you to death to subscribe, for interviews, to talk about them, to let people know that they didn't die completely when they went online only, and can you spare some change for a sandwich.

Re:Why?

[SJHillman]

That seems like the sort of thing that should have gone in the summary, because it's a vital piece of information for having the summary make sense.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, but it does match the public misconception. It's commonly believed that he's sitting on nearly half a billion dollars, and facts to the contrary won't even slow down those who will try to collect.

This is why if you ever do anything in your life that people might want to know about, never EVER answer a request for an interview with anything that could even be used to find a bit of truth. "Off the record" means "this will get into the headline" and everything you say can and will be used against you to get pageviews. The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin.

Re:Why?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why would he have to move/hire protection? I guess I can see that he might be paranoid enough to think it's necessary, but why would it be actually necessary?

Given the sorts of weirdos who end up stalking ordinary celebrities, I'd flee this gravity well at relativistic speed if I were The Celebrity among some of the more... peculiar... elements of bitcoin fandom.

Re:Why?

[sunking2]

There are lots of rich people in the world. Most don't hire personal security. I've yet to see an entourage of folks accompany Warren Buffet into Dairy Queen when he wants a blizzard.

Re:Why?

[gmuslera]

Oblig xkcd. He is the weakest link in the unbreakable encryption of his bitcoin wallet.

Re:Why?

[i kan reed]

Especially among people whose inclinations include avoiding governments at all costs.

Re:Why?

[geekoid]

""Off the record" means "this will get into the headline""
and you base that on...what, exactly?

Re:Why?

[MisterSquid]

This is why if you ever do anything in your life that people might want to know about, never EVER answer a request for an interview with anything that could even be used to find a bit of truth. "Off the record" means "this will get into the headline" and everything you say can and will be used against you to get pageviews. The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin.

Your advice is a good one for subjects of a possible exposé or smear campaign, however, out of hand dismissing journalists as people without integrity is not in the best interests of an informed public and (probably) in many cases unwarranted.

When I was a university professor, the Chronicle of Higher Education asked for an interview about what it's like to be single and a new faculty (ha!). I agreed to an interview and, on several occasions, said that I wanted to say a few things "off the record" about the behavior of colleagues and the spouses of colleagues (ahem). Some of what I said off the record was juicy and I told my interviewer those things to contextualize my "on the record" remarks.

The article was published, my female colleague who was written up got a couple of marriage proposals, and everything attributed to me was on the up and up.

I know not all journalists adhere to a code of ethics, but I believe that many do. Clamming up when a story needs to get out may protect you, but one needn't be suspicious form the get go.

Re:Why?

[MickyTheIdiot]

When Soros spends money on campaigns it's bad.

When Koch spends money on campaigns it's good.

Re:Why?

[Chris Mattern]

I know not all journalists adhere to a code of ethics, but I believe that many do.

Problem is, it can be tough to know which kind you've got until it's too late.

Re:Why?

[Pope]

Because it's now public that he's sitting on nearly half a billion dollars somewhere.

He's not sitting on anything but 800,000 internet fun bucks until he cashes them into real money.

Re:Why?

[schnell]

"Off the record" means "this will get into the headline"

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. In journalism, certain words have certain meanings and any journalist working for a reputable publication will adhere to those strictly.

"Off the record" means "I am telling you, Mr./Ms. Reporter, because I think you should know, but you can't print it or link it to me." The information may still show up in the article because there is no prohibition on "second sourcing," however - it means that if I say "off the record, X got fired for embezzling" and the reporter asks someone else that question and they say yes with it not being off the record, then it's fair game. Experienced interviewees use "off the record" as a tool to either influence the reporter's contextual view of the situation or to lead them to ask questions of other people in that direction. Inexperienced interviewees don't know how to use it, or are not good about making very clear what is on/off the record, and frequently end up getting burned.

Similarly, "on background" means "You can report this piece of information, but you can't say it was me who told you." Whenever you read a story that says "Senior administration officials said..." it is because the person who told that to the reporter said it "on background." It's usually used when people want to get information out but they would get in trouble if people knew who it was that said it.

These are the kinds of rules that a reporter from The Washington Post, CNN or other "mainstream media" outlets will follow scrupulously. If you're talking to someone from Huffington Post, Gawker or sensationalist rags like that - not so much. That's why it's very important to know whom you're talking to and judge the information you disclose accordingly.

Dealing with the media is pretty straightforward if you know the rules, but most "regular" people (i.e. not celebrities, politicians, etc.) don't know or understand the rules and they can be burned by them. The bottom line is that if you are savvy and experienced with the media, you can use tools like "off the record" and "on background" to your benefit. If you are not experienced, the best idea is to avoid them and not say anything that you do not want to see in print, connected to your name.

The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order

Oh, and by the way, as a former reporter, I can tell you that if I asked you for an interview and you tried to get a restraining order, that would 1.) never be granted by a judge, and 2.) would make me dig into your story far more deeply because I'm pretty sure you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide but just don't want to do the interview for privacy reasons (or you suspect the agenda of the reporter), simply decline the interview politely or ask to do it by e-mail where you will have the ability to consider your answers and have everything in writing in case your are misquoted. If you do actually have something to hide, either just decline the interview request or - preferably - have your lawyer answer it.

Re:Why?

[Ralph Wiggam]

From the blockchain records, someone mined almost a million coins in the very very early days. There were a few small outgoing transactions, and then haven't been touched since Satoshi disappeared in 2011. It doesn't make much sense for those bitcoins to belong to anyone else.

Re:Why?

[Attila Dimedici]

Wow, you really believe that? You believe that a man who as a teenager helped the Nazis loot the Jews of Europe before killing them (after having been taken in by a non-Jewish family so that he was not killed by the Nazis along with his Jewish parents) only does what he does "out of necessity".? And its not like that childhood action was not followed up by similar behavior as an adult (not as blatantly evil, but with a similar disregard for how his actions negatively effected others).

Re:Why?

[JoeMerchant]

I don't know about GP's experience, but any time I have explained anything to a reporter, it has come out printed as something completely twisted from it's original meaning. Case in point: told reporter "our technology has flown on Space Shuttle missions", printed in story: "Company Vice President says "their technology is going to the Moon!"" with the implication that the company stock is going to "rocket up" in value.

Re:Why?

[RightSaidFred99]

No, he isn't. He should try to sell $0.5Bn and see how much money he actually gets. It's like having stock - you need a buyer.

Re:Why?

[DaveV1.0]

The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin

This comment states one of the best response to a request for an interview is to murder the requester and it is now at +5 interesting? What the actual fuck, people? The person who posted this comment is apparently a paranoid psychopath and you are effectively praising him.

Re:Why?

[Copid]

I could definitely see some of the people who lose a ton of money if/when the Bitcoin fad ends deciding to blame the guy who started it all rather than themselves for jumping in.

Re:Why?

[DaveV1.0]

And, from the Koch brothers' and their supporters' views the Koch brothers are doing it out of necessity to try and stop Soros and his ilk from destroying the country.

Re:Why?

[nurb432]

Even better: Why was his privacy violated by Newsweek in the first place?

Re:Why?

[lgw]

As anyone who lived through the dot-com bust knows: never defer taking gains for tax reasons. Better to give half to the government than lose it all when the bubble bursts.

But I highly doubt he has that many bitcoins - I suspect most of the bitcoins mined in the early days were simply lost soon thereafter, as they weren't valuable enough to be worth keeping track of. No reason to think he had a significant share of the early BTC, even if he did hold on to his own.

 

Re:Why?

[Kremmy]

In some ways, Bitcoin bootstrapped itself on the black market. If the Bitcoin fad ends, I see no reason to believe it won't stay steady and strong in the dark undercurrents like the other currency alternatives (Ukash?) in place and being used for such things. Is that scary?

Re:Why?

[SethJohnson]

Here's the difference.

If a gang of thugs captures Warren Buffet, there's not a lot they can torture out of the old codger. It's not believed he has secret knowledge that may be worth billions of dollars.

There could easily be foreign criminal syndicates who could suspect Nakamoto knows a secret backdoor to the algorithm that can be exploited to easily generate bitcoins. The potential riches might be incentive for them to gamble a kidnapping and torture operation.

Lots of wealthy people DO hire security to accompany them in public places. Remember the false-flag conspiracy theories about the private contractors standing around the finish line at the Boston Marathon during last year's bombing? Those guys were security hired by wealthy people running in the marathon. The risk of kidnapping does exist for people in the US. Patty Hearst can corroborate that.

Re:Why?

[GameboyRMH]

Fact checker? Even for the stuffy old companies who have such a person on staff, some stories are Too Good To Fact Check!

Re:Why?

[SethJohnson]

What makes his so-called stash of bitcoins worth the effort of trying to go after him for a cut any more than how wealthy any one of the other multimillionaires or billionaires in the world happens to be?

This is pure speculation, but that's all we have to work with right now.

Nakamoto has worked as a scientist on several secret military projects. This has given him some insight into the ongoing US government research into time travel technology. He must know that by attaching his own identity to the creation of bitcoin, he would become a lucrative target for criminal time travelers. By keeping his identity anonymous, he was protected against time travelers visiting him on the day he created the algorithm and having it stolen from him.

Re:Why?

[brokenin2]

He's not sitting on anything but 800,000 internet fun bucks until he cashes them into real money.

I think you mean until he caches them into United States fun bucks..

Re:Why?

[lennier]

Because if he dies and didn't leave an error

.... not even a kernel panic?

Re:Why?

[lennier]

By keeping his identity anonymous, he was protected against time travelers visiting him on the day he created the algorithm and having it stolen from him.

Well, now we know what John Titor was really looking for with his leet IBM 5100 mining rig.

Horrible Journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, they put this guys life in danger. Shame on them.

Re:Horrible Journalism

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Seriously, they put this guys life in danger. Shame on them.

These are 'journalists', in the dreadful contemporary sense. If they thought that 'quiet, eccentric, mathematician brutally murdered in suspected cyber-revenge' would have an ROI greater than the legal exposure, they'd probably kill him themselves just to be first to the body...

Hiding in plain sight.

[splutty]

Kudos to him for not ever trying to get into the limelight about this.

Not sure what repercussions this will have for him and his family as persons, but it's kind of nice to see this sort of stuff can still happen :)

Guess he got taught well by the diverse companies insisting on secrecy!

Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I imagine that he will now have to move and hire round-the-clock security for his own protection."

Really?

Does Bitcoin work like River City Ransom? If I punch him enough times, will a flood of shiny coins spew from his unconscious body?

Re:Protection?

[camperdave]

If I punch him enough times, will a flood of shiny coins spew from his unconscious body?

Possibly.

Re:Protection?

[FlyHelicopters]

That's fine, then hit him with the wrench until he tells you were the passwords are written down.

And if he no longer has the passwords, then no, you won't get money, but he'll still end up dead, you would never leave him as a living witness anyway.

Conspiracy nuts are going to love this one!

[johnsie]

a career shrouded in secrecy, having done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military

"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[unimacs]

So somebody is in charge of Bitcoin? What do they do?

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do they do?

They do what the Bitcoin Protocol was always intended to do: create and maintain the world's largest SHA256 Rainbow Table.

You didn't think this was all about about creating a decentralized crypto-currency did you?

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[psionski]

Write code, fix bugs, create promotional material and documentation. It's a software project, what else would they be doing?

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[alostpacket]

But what does it do? What is it encoding/decoding?

"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[grnbrg]

It's not encoding anything. Miners are basically doing sha256( sha256( block header info + random number )) until the result has (currently) about 15 leading zeros.

There is no room in the protocol to do anything else, or solve some sort of background problem.

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[gorzek]

I assume you're asking how the "mining" works, and that's actually pretty easy to explain.

Each bitcoin block is generated with a SHA256 hash of the block's header. Presumably, the header information is not guessable, otherwise it would be pointless.

The SHA256 hash becomes the "target." In order to successfully mine the block, you must produce a hash with a value lower than the target. The lower the target, the harder it is to mine the block. Since SHA256 hashes (as far as I know) do not leak any information about the plaintext, the hashes are attempted essentially at random. Successfully mining a block is essentially like winning the lottery because there is no known way to make educated guesses about what text might produce a hash below the target's value.

Once an acceptable hash has been generated by a miner, it is submitted to the network with a proof of work that permits the rest of the network to essentially check the solution. At that point, the block is considered completed, the transactions are processed, and the successful miner is awarded the transaction fees plus 20 new BTC.

I don't think the rainbow table comparison is apt because you're not attempting to produce hash collisions, only find hashes below a set value. Finding a collision is exponentially more difficult, by design.

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Typical anti-Bitcoin bullshit.

Wikipedia: A pyramid scheme is an unsustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.

1) Where is the "promise" of payment or services that never gets fulfilled? Find a block and you get paid (in Bitcoin, sorry... a claim that Bitcoin isn't "real" doesn't hold water here).
2) Where is the "enrollment" of other people in the scheme. I mine, I've never recruited anyone into a "scheme".
3) Bitcoins have value. As a group people have assigned value to them. The fact I can go to an exchange and get money based on a bitcoin proves that. Just because the product is digital doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you think it's a scam I can respect that, but write something that says why you think it is a scam. Don't come out and yell buzzwords like '"pyramid scheme" and "ponzi scheme" without justifying how it fits in to the accepted definition of the term.

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[AmiMoJo]

He means developers. He doesn't contribute to development of code in any way any more. Implementation flaws in the cryptography are someone else's problem.

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[davek]

Close, but not quite.

I assume you're asking how the "mining" works, and that's actually pretty easy to explain.

Each bitcoin block is generated with a SHA256 hash of the block's header. Presumably, the header information is not guessable, otherwise it would be pointless.

The SHA256 hash becomes the "target." In order to successfully mine the block, you must produce a hash with a value lower than the target. The lower the target, the harder it is to mine the block.

The "target" is in fact the difficulty. Essentially a difficulty of 1 means an applicable proof-of-work block solution would be less than 2^256 >> 1 (I could be wrong on the max size, I'd have to look it up). A block "solution" is a sha-256 hash of (merkle root (which is generated by doing a merkle tree starting with the transaction IDs of all the transactions since the last block) + some other header stuff + a nonce). The header stuff is completely public and known. The "work" miners to is generate trillions upon trillions of those nonces (which is just a word for a random piece of data), calculate the sha-256, and see if the resulting sha is less than the target.

Successfully mining a block is essentially like winning the lottery because there is no known way to make educated guesses about what text might produce a hash below the target's value.

Once an acceptable hash has been generated by a miner, it is submitted to the network with a proof of work that permits the rest of the network to essentially check the solution. At that point, the block is considered completed, the transactions are processed, and the successful miner is awarded the transaction fees plus 20 new BTC.

It's fees + 25 BTC. But that will change eventually, as we approach the max of 22 million BTC in circulation.

I don't think the rainbow table comparison is apt because you're not attempting to produce hash collisions, only find hashes below a set value. Finding a collision is exponentially more difficult, by design.

A "rainbow table" in this case would have to have a number of entries greater than the size of particles in the known universe, I think. We're talking about stupidly large numbers here.

Setec Astronomy

[wiredog]

It was only while scouring a database that contained the registration cards of naturalized U.S. citizens that a Satoshi Nakamoto turned up whose profile and background offered a potential match. But it was not until after ordering his records from the National Archives

Guess the Privacy Act doesn't apply to individuals.

Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000

[Idou]

Other billionaires require some kind of impossibly complicated strategy to steal their billions. . .

Hope he takes the necessary precautions, though. . . Crypto-currencies are awesome. He deserves to spend the rest of his days in peace (For a crypto-genius, he could have picked a better pseudonym, though . . .).

Re:Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000

[Idou]

Two things:
-Crypto-currencies can still be awesome without "long term inherent stability" (are you sure you are a "geek?")
-You do realize that math covers everything in our universe and BEYOND. Accordingly, I would be careful about what constraints you put on it. . . as it is statistically more likely that your mind is just creating artificial constraints.

Irregardless, thanks for the links.

Re:Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Crypto-currencies can still be many things without "long term inherent stability", except for currency of course.

Re:Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000

[CreatureComfort]

Yeah, cause that pile of Deutschmark dad buried in our back yard was such a great idea. Lasted all of 54 years as a currency with "inherent stability". At least they will still take them in exchange for Euro "indefinitely", or until they change their minds.

Inherent stability, long term or not, is NOT a requirement for a currency to be useful. Just ask Argentina, Zimbabwe, heck, even China has to manipulate the hell out of the world markets to keep their currency "stable". All of those, and really EVERY currency that isn't the current "Reserve Currency" is still valuable to people making exchanges with it every day for food, shelter, work, etc. Maybe not AS valuable as the reserve currency in the world market, or in the home country of that currency, but still useful as a measure of portable, convertible value.

Re:Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000

[Mr. Slippery]

You do realize that math covers everything in our universe and BEYOND. Accordingly, I would be careful about what constraints you put on it. . . as it is statistically more likely that your mind is just creating artificial constraints.

Ah, the irony.

Math is a creation of the human mind, and by its nature can never go beyond the limits of human ability to understand. The universe, on the other hand, is not bound by the limitations of the nervous systems of a group of balding apes, and I have to agree with J. B. S. Haldane's suspicion that "the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Re:Model Trains?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I wanna know more about his trains-- does he have a cool layout?

It's pretty spartan, hey got caught up in the trains themselves. Each set of cars is arranged in a very specific sequence that he really gets worked up about, and I've noticed that it takes him longer and longer every time to decide on and add a new car to the end of the train....

Re:if you drive a toyota corolla that doesn't auto

[TheCarp]

> - Also, if he went to a state college and now calls himself a libertarian, I have to call that out.
> That is also a "Silicon Valley" thing.

so a person who uses any state resources which they and their parents before them paid for....this should limit what opinions they are allowed to form later?

I was raised catholic and took first communion, and later came to realize the whole God thing was a sham, am I stuck being Catholic?

Seems like a raw deal to me.

Poor Guy

[Metabolife]

He just wanted to be left alone, leave him alone.

I reject your reality and substitute my own....

[FilmedInNoir]

This is Satoshi Nakamoto:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9rqm...

and his friend. They create crypto-currencies and attend raves.

Pretend?

[medv4380]

I'm not sure if this is actually the guy, but conspiracy theories will fly about it forever so I don't care if he is or isn't. However playing 'Pretend the government agencies are coming after you.' with a child is enough for me to dismiss the guy as crazy.

Re:How do you disable audio ads on /.

[Meneth]

You are also not using AdBlock. :}

The article is probably wrong

[alihm]

I don't beleive he is Satoshi. Dorian Nakamoto has three amazon reviews. His english is not good. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/p...

Re:Protection from what?

[sjbe]

Because if I can get him alone in a room I can get all of that money with no proof I have it. With banks involved it gets much more difficult to get away with stealing $500 million.

You've have to liquidate it and engage in some pretty serious money laundering through the banks to actually make use of the bitcoins in any meaningful way. Furthermore even if he does have 800K bitcoins he doesn't have $500M. To convert that many bitcoins to dollars would crash the market. When you hold that large a percentage of a market you can't sell without moving the market. The price would plummet if any significant amount was sold so while we can't tell exactly what it is worth you can be sure it is a LOT less than $500M.

Re:What impresses & baffles me

[oodaloop]

What I find impressive and baffling is how people assign value to things that have no value for any purpose other than a means of exchange

I thought you were going to make some pithy remark that the U.S. dollar is little different from Bitcoin in that regard, but perhaps you haven't realizede that yet.

Why is this Article Beign Taken Seriously?

[Stormy Dragon]

There's no actual concrete evidence of any of the author's claims, just tons of speculation. Yet it's being treated like it's undeniably true.

Szabo?

[Capt.Albatross]

I thought the evidence previously presented, that Nicholas Szabo was Satoshi, was plausible, albeit circumstantial. I suspect that this Satoshi Nakamato's involvement with Bitcoin was not as the primary innovator or leader, while the the person(s) who did play those roles prefer for Newsweek (and the rest of the world) to think otherwise.
     

Obvious Hoax

[Martin S.]

Newsweek : This man is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Sheriff : "What?" The police officer balks.
Sheriff : "This is the guy who created Bitcoin?

Are we really supposed to believe that a Police Officer would know such geek trivia?

Seems to be a little overly dramatic.

Re:Obvious Hoax

[BasilBrush]

Are we really supposed to believe that a Police Officer would know such geek trivia?

I have a friend who takes no interest in geek stuff, but he raised the topic with me last time I saw him. The Mt Gox incident made the national news. So yes, it's perfectly feasible a police officer had heard of them.

Re:Obvious Hoax

[barlevg]

THIS! I work in an office filled with programmers, research scientists and software devs--when I told them Satoshi Nakamoto's true identity was revealed, they all said, "who?"

He's just a patsy

[Patent Lover]

The real inventor was Keyser Soze.

I heard from a totally unreliable source . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . that it was actually the K**h brothers who contracted with the Russian Mafia to invent Bitcoin, and they set Nakomoto up as the fall guy. I'm sure it is totally bogus, in spite of the salaciousness and viral rumor-mongering appeal. Has anyone got any completely unsubstantiated confirmation of this?

Re:Outed?

[DoctorBit]

OP here - the submitted headline used the verb "doxed" rather than "outed". On a separate note, r/bitcoin has been raising some interesting doubts about the correctness of the article: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoi...

I wasn't aware this was unethical...

[sirwired]

I was not aware it was inherently considered unethical journalism to uncover those who wish to remain anonymous. Peeling back anonymity can help shed light on the reasons somebody does what they did. Background, motiviations, current involvement, etc. are certainly newsworthy things to examine.

And why is his life in danger?

Re:US campaigns. Soros is citizen of Hungary

[hamburger lady]

soros has been a US citizen since 1961. probably longer than you've been alive.

Re:What impresses & baffles me

[theskipper]

Reminiscent of this humorous (and insightful) look at cash compared to bitcoin:

http://ledracapital.com/blog/2...

Re:Protection from what?

[Idimmu Xul]

Dude there are Mclaren MP4s for sale for Bitcoins, people are buying land and mansions with them, you can get takeaways delivered, bars and restaurants accept them, other than gas/water/electric youre basically set. Converting $500M bitcoin to cash is MASSIVELY short sighted.

You could just take them and probably live off them in an extremely luxurious lifestyle, or at the same time you could sell 1 or 2 a day which wouldnt move the market at all giving you both an awesome life style and cold hard cash.

Irrational

[Martin S.]

There are posts on Bitcoin Talk demanding Mr Nakamoto carry out signed Bitcoin transactions to prove that he was the currency's originator.

That is irrational demand because he doesn't claim to be.

https://bitcointalk.org/index....

Re:Lost coins

[Ralph Wiggam]

I find it hard to believe that someone else mined a million coins (6% of the total), lost their private key, and never mentioned it on the internet after they became worth a billion dollars.

Something that struck me as odd...

[ttybeast]

"I obtained Nakamoto's email through a company he buys model trains from."
For some reason this quotation from the newsweek article stood out to me.
I know it's standard practice for lots of businesses to sell their email lists
but this came off to me as strange. A reporter calls up looking for a single
customers email address and you just give it to them?

Why use his real name if he wanted anonymity?

[Dr. Spork]

Something doesn't add up. If he used anonymizers even for email, why did he attach his *real name* to the Bitcoin project? Vanity? Or what?

Re:Lost coins

[brokenin2]

about 100,000 individual someones, each of whom mined (on average) 10 or so coins?

OK, first, you *can not* mine 10 or so bitcoins. There were no mining pools at first, and that is the only way people mine fewer coins.. And that's not really even correct.. Mining pools mine 25 bitcoins these days, and then share them with their members.. What we're talking about is directly mining coins here, which got mine 50 coins at a time for the first four years or so.

Also, IIRC, most of these coins are held by just a few addresses, not spread among 100,000. The entire population of the bitcoin community was probably less than a few thousand people during the first year.. During the first months it was more like 20 or 30.... maybe less..

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

If the answer is "Well his life is in danger because he has lots of money in Bitcoins that can be stolen!" well, then there's another flaw in Bitcoins, or at least in keeping Bitcoins on your own hardware, which is what BTCheads have been advocating since the Mt. Gox 'asploded.

This isn't an issue for a normal rich people, because they don't keep their money in something like paper currency that can be easily stolen. It is in banks. So you break in to their house and kill them... well you don't get any of their money. The bank doesn't say "Oh hey you killed the guy, so by RPG loot rules you get his money!" If that's a concern with Bitcoin because it is like keeping lots of cash on hand, well that's another disadvantage now isn't it?