Technology

59017 readers

5117 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

232

Peter Todd in hiding after being “unmasked” as bitcoin creator (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Todd’s urgent dismissal of the documentary reads to Hoback like an attempt to throw Satoshi-hunters off the scent. “It doesn’t surprise me at all that Peter would go on the offense. He’s a master of game theory—it’s what he does. He has spent a lot of years now muddying the waters,” says Hoback. “He’s an unbelievable genius.”

I haven't seen the docu, but I did like his (Hoback's) docu about Qanon, Q: Into the Storm.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is an easier way, just sign something with Satoshi's private key and no one will have a doubt that you are Satoshi. No need for all this ridiculous drama.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Technically that's the same thing. Both are signatures with a private key.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Agreed, except that moving coins costs money while signing something with the private key doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Both actions would cost billions more than any amount they would move or a signed transaction.

The price would crash knowing those coins were back in play.

It'd be a huge influx of potential coins considered to be lost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That’s not accurate. Any serious investor would assume the coins still exist and could be moved. Selling the coins would roil the markets but that’s no different than if someone with a majority stake in a stock (eg DJT) were to dump their shares.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Any serious investor would be estimating how many other people are not serious investors, and understand that those unserious people would swing the price.

There's no value to bitcoin except people's expectations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

You’re not wrong but in general prices are moved by market makers who are trading large quantities. I can imagine assuming that the guy who invented bitcoin and went to such lengths to conceal his identity would not have access to his coins.