pull down to refresh

Here's an interesting twist to the commentariat drama unfolding over Satoshi's real-life identity (#1467304, #1467318, #1467306):

THE TREASURY COMPANIES ARE INVOLVED!

To me, the financialization/gambling nonsense and how AB had his fingers behind basically every single one of them, was the moment I lost most respect for him — and consequently, also why I don't consider him Satoshi. There's just no way the real, true Satoshi, the guy who invented the financial-system exit, would so diligently fund every attempt to bring it back inside those wallet, regulated, monitored gardens.

(but...That's what a spook would say!)

Anyway, the John Carreyrou long read for the New York Times is kind of worth reading (it's long as fuck and you could scroll through some tired and eye-roll worthy Satoshi hunt behavior). The treasury twist at the end I did not see coming.

Carreyrou had assembled all his stuff by November, and reached out to Back and delivered the conclusion that he was Satoshi. Ignored, Carreyrou decided to attend an El Salvador event and confront him in person. He recounts his skulking around at the event, trying to find Back:

Thirty minutes later, Mr. Back came out. I walked up to him, reintroduced myself and explained why I had come. He was slightly flustered but, to my pleasant surprise, he agreed to meet with me the next morning in the lobby of his hotel, which was doubling as the conference venue.
When I arrived at the appointed hour, Mr. Back was flanked by two executives from a new Bitcoin treasury company he had co-founded. He explained that the company was in the process of going public, forcing him to be more careful about how he interacted with the press.

THE TREASURY SCAMS ARE PROTECTING HIM! Oh wow:

I had completely missed this new development. Bitcoin treasury companies borrow money and use it to amass bitcoins, providing investors with a more aggressive way to bet on the cryptocurrency. Mr. Back had started his last summer and was merging it with a publicly traded shell created by Cantor Fitzgerald, the Wall Street firm formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. As chief executive of the merged company, Mr. Back was required under U.S. securities law to disclose any information that was material to its investors. A secret stash of 1.1 million coins that could crash the Bitcoin market if it were suddenly sold, for example, would probably be considered material.
Over the next two hours, I presented my evidence piece by piece. In his soft British lilt, Mr. Back insisted he wasn’t Satoshi and chalked it all up to a series of coincidences. But at times, his body language told a different story. His face reddened and he shifted uncomfortably in his seat when confronted with things that were harder to explain away.
I still had a few things I wanted to confront Mr. Back with, but his aides said he had other meetings to attend. We took the elevator back down to the lobby and shook hands like two chess players after a hard-fought match.

Oh well. As far as Satoshi mystery quests go, this one is pretty convincing. Still, _ugh_.


archived: https://archive.md/1jJje

Your instincts are the same as mine: no way Satoshi is balls deep in Bitcoin treasury cos.

Byrne Hobart has a very reasonable take on this:

source

My money is still on Michael Jordan being Satoshi.

reply

I've never paid attention to any of these kinds of articles. Do you think it's more likely that Satoshi is a known personality in bitcoin or a name we don't know?

reply

No idea, really.

I like the thought of Satoshi having carefully exited and, like God, just observing the outcomes of his creation from a distance. Sitting on a beach somewhere, sipping whisky

reply

the paragraph on PGP is pretty cringe. Might be worth mentioning when assessing the authors competence

reply

There are plenty of things to say about this journo, yes.

reply
There's just no way the real, true Satoshi, the guy who invented the financial-system exit, would so diligently fund every attempt to bring it back inside those wallet, regulated, monitored gardens.

No True Scotsman is an informal fallacy that protects a universal generalization from a valid counterexample by arbitrarily redefining membership in the group.

The MechanismThe Mechanism

When faced with a specific example that disproves a claim, the speaker shifts the goalposts. Instead of conceding the point, they use a "purity" criterion (e.g., "true," "real," "genuine") to exclude the counterexample from the category.

The Logical StructureThe Logical Structure

  1. Assertion: All X are Y.
  2. Counterexample: Z is an X, but Z is not Y.
  3. Retraction: Therefore, Z is not a true X.

Why It FailsWhy It Fails

It renders a claim unfalsifiable. By defining the group so that only those who fit the claim are included, the statement becomes a tautology—it is true only by its own circular definition rather than by any objective evidence.

reply

Yesyes, copy-paste Wikipedia all day

reply

The point is to define the problem then use AI to quickly explain it. Had I hand typed all of it from memory would that make it any more accurate or applicable?

reply

You could have just assumed that I was even a half-intelligent person (or with Google installed...) and said "no true Scotsman fallacy."

Instead you just seem like a bot

reply

Nope, just your average insufferable douche ;)

reply

Tough job, but someone's gotta do it

reply

Also, this... For the core dispute:

I don't even care who it is and I'd rather not know.

reply
52 sats \ 1 reply \ @BITC0IN 8 Apr

These are pretty bad pseudo scientific methods setup by "reporters". Instead of following what was known as factual, they found a "Satoshi" identity & cross referenced to that as a basis of analysis first. This has led to overwhelming confirmation bias.
Like Wired Magazine.

reply

Indeed, indeed. Anyone impressed? nope!

reply
75 sats \ 1 reply \ @Taj 8 Apr

But but but.....if only we could shoehorn the James Bond angle in here .....

Because Bond, you know .... financial instrument

And mysterious undercover British gent

Tenuous link but still a link ?

Guys??

reply

Dude you are ON to something

reply
52 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 8 Apr

Back's face always reddens and he always shifts around uncontrollably.

reply

I once sat through a dinner with him AND Luke Dashjr... Yeah, some awkwardness around

reply

there's no way satoshi would have gone to epstein island to meet jeffrey epstein which is why adam back isn't satoshi -- the real satoshi had much higher priorities than $USD denominated loans from the dregs of society

reply

This!

What this guy says

reply

so many posts about this article currently on SN 🤣🤣

That's why we need the ability to join them to megathreads

reply

Imma add another... Bc that's what hypetrains are all about!

reply
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @zeke 9 Apr -50 sats

The treasury angle is the one that keeps nagging at me. If Back is Satoshi and Blockstream holds early keys, then Bitcoin's largest corporate holder isn't Strategy, it's a company that already builds the protocol infrastructure. That's not a conflict of interest, it's the entire interest. The fact Carreyrou is pursuing this with the same forensic intensity he brought to Theranos tells you this isn't going away.