Quote

Publishing someone's private messages without their consent is
generally considered unethical. In some situations it is less of a
big deal and may be excusable, in others it is a really big deal.

Satoshi didn't make those emails public and I think it's not really
anyone elses right to do so. If he wanted them public, presumably he
would have made them public or would make them public now. Breaking
his trust is a disrespect to the great contribution he made to the
world.

Publication of his private emails may create personal risk of theft or
physical harm for him and his family. The damage created from a loss
of privacy can't be undone and it may not be obvious from even careful
analysis what elements of a message may be revealing. Even the
smallest of details could be potentially identifying. Disclosure of
his private correspondence may have terrible consequences, far worse
than publishing most other person's private emails.

From message which have previously been leaked, we know that Satoshi
complained about the fixating and focusing on him and his identity.
Too bad the people he complained about doing this did not respect his
wishes.

His private messages have also been utilized by scammers to aid their
inept impersonations.

Obsession with Bitcoin's creator detracts from the greatness of his
accomplishment: he built a system where it doesn't matter who created
it or why-- because we don't have to trust it or each other.

I hope that people will delete private messages they have and forever
protect them from disclosure rather than publish them.

I have done so, and whatever I have or find I will not disclose and
will continue to endeavor to secure so that I cannot disclose it
through error or future weakness. Perhaps if you sit back and
consider this some you will realize that there is some merit to these
points, and you'll choose to abandon this project. I hope you do.

Cheers,

Quote from: CipherionX on August 11, 2017, 06:09:48 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on August 11, 2017, 05:39:33 PM

Shameful. Shameful if they're legit, shameful if they're edited.
...

I appreciate your perspective, Greg. I had these e-mails for a couple of weeks now, and I took the time to analyze each sentence closely before sharing. I was unable to find anything that points in one person's direction, although that's not to say there isn't something there. There's just so much history in these e-mails that I really didn't want to disappear.

Now we see why Satoshi had to disappear. He obviously could not trust anyone. Would he have answered any of Mike Hearn's questions if he knew that the e-mails were going to be published online? How do you know that your analysis is sufficient to prevent any harm?

You haven't addressed any of the points in the above quotation. Just because there was so much history there means that it is okay for you to act unethically?