One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy (whether or not it ever delivered, other people can debate). But there's a special kind of horribleness in working so hard to unmask someone who is in part famous because they helped build a privacy-protecting payment system.

Do people who spend time obsessing over the fact that they might not personally get to know the real world identity of one famous person understand how much it undercuts every other argument they will ever make about privacy? Shouldn't the Bitcoin community be collectively the biggest and most forceful group of advocates for leaving Satoshi the heck alone?

The hypocrisy of a website called "Invest In Blockchain" popularizing what is essentially a giant doxing campaign is apparently lost on this article's writers/editors.

"One of the big selling points of Bitcoin originally was privacy"

Really? I would say that the primary, and basically only, selling point was the lack of a central authority (I think it is interesting that Bitcoin was announced during a major financial crisis that shook confidence in the banking system). Satoshi stated this in the original whitepaper and took the time to explain the concept of electronic payments without central banks on the cryptography mailing list. Privacy seems to have been unimportant to Satoshi, who basically left it as an open problem (he speculated that something like an anonymous remailer could be created for Bitcoin, and ultimately such things were created).

As I say every time this comes up, the Bitcoin whitepaper makes no mention of the work on e-cash, which is telling for two reasons. First, it means that Satoshi was probably not very familiar with the academic research on cryptography and almost certainly was not involved in the cryptography research community (so we can eliminate Hal Finney, among others). Second, it means Satoshi probably was not very interested in payment privacy, since anyone who did even a cursory review of previous work would have come across David Chaum's work on e-cash or his Digicash startup. The fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy; it just means he was a cryptography enthusiast.

> the fact that Satoshi used remailers and PGP does not mean he was someone who cared deeply about privacy

:shrug: I would take it as a strong indicator. Who else other than someone who cares about privacy uses a remailer? I'm not sure I buy the argument, "they were just anonymously registering domains for fun because they liked cryptography."

That being said, my point wasn't that Satoshi himself listed privacy as a selling point of Bitcoin, but that the community listed privacy as a selling point (and still often does). The hypocritical part isn't about what Satoshi intended Bitcoin to be -- it's seeing people who have argued that part of Bitcoin's importance is privacy then turn around and say, "except for this guy."

>It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy.

I agree that it is unsettling to watch a once in a lifetime concept that has privacy at it's core with a potential to empower so many in the future being ripped apart. At present, there is absolutely no information available other than speculation on whether it is a person(s), group(s) or a state-actor involved. Which coupled with no movement on the genesis block, with so much at stake ─ unfortunately, the attempts to de-anonymise or the prospect of more charlatans, will only increase and become even more bizarre.

>More generally: It horrifies me that, when confronted with someone who created something neat and only wanted privacy, everyone's instinct is to deprive them of their privacy. What the fuck, humanity?

I'll be concerned about Satoshi's privacy when privacy is a concept that applies to anyone in modern society.

As it is, Satoshi is being treated no differently than anyone else the internet finds interesting.

That's entirely my point.