5 ms·
I don't think it's a legal issue. People want to know who it was and credit where it's due. Satoshi didn't do anything wrong but distributed consensus was fina
by mortallywounded 3y ago
I don't think it's a legal issue. People want to know who it was and credit where it's due.
Satoshi didn't do anything wrong but distributed consensus was finally solved (or so it seems) and that's a big deal.
- reactordev 3y agoIdolization of Satoshi is strong. For that reason alone, if I were him/her, I would disappear. The work is self-evident and the idea a dime a dozen. The execution of it and the fact that it was accepted is what we should be idolizing. Which is exactly what happened. BTC became a thing and was no longer an idea. I reject anyone claiming to be Satoshi because Satoshi would never claim to be Satoshi. ;)
- mortallywounded 3y agoThat's why I hope the truth comes out. If say, Satoshi is Len, then Satoshi is no longer a god. He's a regular dude, that suffered like many people and tragically took his own life. There's a lot to unwrap there.
- reactordev 3y agoMaybe, we are better off NOT knowing. Having closure could mean the end of BTC. It could mean the end of a lot of things. It could also be beginnings, no doubt. However, like Schrödinger’s cat, it’s best if it’s kept in a state of quantum entanglement.
- falserum 3y agoQuantum superposition