IMO, It Doesn't Matter Much Who the "Real" Satoshi Nakamoto Is ...

... but if it is Adam Back, as John Carreyrou claims in the New York Times, I have to say:

Job well done, Mr. Back.

Not very many people really, noticeably change the world, even fewer change it for the better, and even fewer knowingly in advance change it for the better.

The writings (on e.g. the Cypherpunks list) of both Back and "Satoshi Nakamoto" display both a clear understanding of what "the better" is, and a clear desire to accomplish it, and Back has a discernible record of working to do so over a long period (supporting PGP and opposing the US regime's attempts to prevent its spread, for example -- I'm old enough to remember that fight, and to have sent a copy to a friend abroad just because the regime said I mustn't).

We've got Satoshi's work product, and we're far better off having it than not having it.

Knowing his or her "real" name or not won't change that, and I'd personally prefer that his or her privacy be respected. I hope Mr. Back isn't given a hard time by the paparazzi and so forth. But I'm sure he will be.

One of Those Rare Occasions ...

... I actually agree with something I read at Salon. Quoth Andrew Leonard therein:

Exposing [Bitcoin creator Satoshi] Nakamoto's identity is the very definition of "news."

Now, I'm not assuming that Leah McGrath Goodman, of Newsweek, got the right Nakamoto (the person she identifies says he isn't that guy).

Nor do I know what all Goodman did to obtain the information she thinks she obtained. If she broke into Nakamoto's house, stole and rifled through his briefcase, that kind of thing, then she violated his rights ... not by knowing that he is who she says he is, but by doing those specific things.

But if she got her facts right, and if she did so without violating any of Nakamoto's real rights in the process ... well, there's no such thing as a "right to demand that people not know who you are or what you did."

The claim of a right to privacy -- a right to demand that people not know something (or share what they know) -- is an "intellectual property" claim. And like all "intellectual property" claims, it's Grade A Horseapples.

Now, just to be clear: I don't agree with Leonard on anything else in the article. I don't believe for a minute that the outing of Satoshi Nakamoto, even if it turns out to be true and accurate, kills Bitcoin. And it sure as hell doesn't kill cryptocurrency as such. Someone's living in a fantasy world. But that someone is Andrew Leonard, not libertarians.