Satoshi Nakamoto
Article
Satoshi Nakamoto is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between January 21, 2021 and September 12, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as “Speculating on the identities of people like … Satoshi Nakamoto”; “I’m not even sure the public needs to know the name of Satoshi Nakamoto”; “I’m not saying Satoshi Nakamoto was a CIA asset”. It most often appears alongside California, Lawrence Lessig, NYT.
Metadata
- Category: People
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: January 21, 2021
- Last seen: September 12, 2024
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- California (2 shared issues)
-
- Lawrence Lessig (2 shared issues)
-
- NYT (2 shared issues)
-
- Oakland (2 shared issues)
-
- Russia (2 shared issues)
-
- Trump (2 shared issues)
-
- Twitter (2 shared issues)
-
- 7500 people signed a petition (1 shared issues)
-
- @halomancer1 (1 shared issues)
-
- ACX (1 shared issues)
-
- Alex Tabarrok (1 shared issues)
-
- Amazon (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
...but I was also grateful to get some emails from journalists trying to help me understand the perspective of their field. They point out that reporting is fundamentally about revealing information that wasn't previously public, and hard-hitting reporting necessarily involves disclosing things about subjects that they would rather you not know. Speculating on the identities of people like Deep Throat, or Satoshi Nakamoto, or QAnon, or that guy who wrote Primary Colors, is a long-standing journalistic tradition, one I had never before thought to question. Many of my correspondents brought up that some important people read my blog (Paul Graham was the most cited name). Isn't there a point past which you stop being that-guy-with-a-Tumblr-account who it's wrong to dox, and you become more like Satoshi Nakamoto where trying to dox you is a sort of national sport? Wouldn't it be fair to say I had passed that point?
With all due respect to these reporters, and with complete admission of my own bias, I reject this entire way of looking at things. If someone wants to report that I'm a 30-something psychiatrist who lives in Oakland, California, that's fine, I've had it in my About page for years. If some reporter wants to investigate and confirm, I have some suggestions for how they could use their time better - isn't there still a war in Yemen? - but I'm not going to complain too loudly. But I don't think whatever claim the public has on me includes a right to know my name if I don't want them to. I don't think the public needs to know the name of the cops who write cop blogs, or the deadnames of trans people, or the dating lives of sexy cyborgs. I'm not even sure the public needs to know the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. If he isn't harming anyone, let him have his anonymity! I would rather we get whatever pathologies come from people being able to invent Bitcoin scot-free, than get whatever pathologies come from anyone being allowed to dox anyone else if they can argue that person is "influential". Most people don't start out trying to be influential. They just have a Tumblr or a LiveJournal or something, and a few people read it, and then a few more people read it, and bam! - they're influential! If influence takes away your protection, then none of us are safe - not the random grad student with a Twitter account making fun of bad science, not the teenager with a sex Tumblr, not the aspiring fashionista with an Instagram. I've read lots of interesting discussion on how much power tech oligarchs should or shouldn't be allowed to have. But this is the first time I've seen someone suggest their powers should include a magic privacy-destroying gaze, where just by looking at someone they can transform them into a different kind of citizen with fewer rights. Is Paul Graham some weird kind of basilisk, such that anyone he stares at too long turns into fair game?
35: I’m not saying Satoshi Nakamoto was a CIA asset, but isn’t it weird that “Satoshi Nakamoto” is Japanese for “central intelligence”?