Satoshi Nakamoto is culturally forbidden from ever again using his own forum.

A.

For years, I have had many questions raised about my possible usage of alternate pseudonyms. Some are possibly true; some are definitely false. As a matter of personal policy, I refuse to answer any of them: I neither admit nor deny. I do not acknowledge my alternate pseudonyms, unless I have a positive reason to do so; and I do not deny alt accusations that are actually false.

When I have done nothing wrong, there is no reason for me to invade my own privacy by admitting to the ones that are true. If I were to deny any of the ones that are false, I reasonably expect that I would then be accused of lying about it—indeed, I would be placed in a classic Kafkatrap whereby denial is taken as evidence that the accusation is true. And selectively admitting or denying some would reduce my anonymity set for others, by process of exclusion—in essence, by partition-attacking myself in the manner further described below. The wisdom of my policy is well-considered.

B.

This forum was founded by a pseudonymous cypherpunk Tor user, who called himself “Satoshi Nakamoto”. However, the forum has accreted a self-appointed clique of vigilantes who delight in hunting for real or imagined alternate pseudonyms. They demand answers to questions they have no proper cause to ask—and in the manner of an inquisition, they accuse people of dishonesty for any answer other than a confession.

Denial means that you are lying. Refusal to answer equates to denial, which means that you are lying. Ignoring all questions on grounds of none of your business equates to lying. The bare fact of using an alt results in accusations of being a so-called “fake newbie”, even when no attempt is made to pretend that one is an actual newbie.

My own experience has left me wondering: What would happen, if “Satoshi Nakamoto” were to attempt returning to his own forum under an alternate pseudonym?

To avoid any suspicion that he was a so-called “fake newbie”, he would need to play dumb about Bitcoin—thus rendering any engagement here a waste of his time and energy. It would probably be obvious that he was a knowledgeable Bitcoiner, with long experience. Those who relish outing pseudonyms and violating others’ privacy would give him no peace.

He would surely be harassed with alt accusations—many alt accusations, many of them false. He would be unable to deny any of them: Denying the false ones would set him up so that if he were ever asked, “Are you Satoshi?”, then refusal to answer would be an admission. And ultimately, he would be unable to avoid ever giving even the slightest suspicion that he may be Satoshi. He would be the same actual person, with the same style and the same substance. It would probably just be a matter of time before he was hit with that dread question, “Are you Satoshi?”, or with public speculation that effectually outed him.

Satoshi could not afford to risk it.

C.

In 2020, a high-profile forum member suddenly vanished: Lauda said goodbye.

There has been some unreasonable speculation that she may return under an alternate pseudonym. There have even been some ridiculously stupid assumptions that she must. This has left me wondering: What would actually happen, if she were to try it?

First, she would be tagged as a “fake newbie”. There would probably be demands that she disclose her “main account”. And she could not reliably conceal the style and substance of her personality. She attained fame as Lauda, because she has a unique character and rare abilities. If she were return under another name, she would still have the same character and the same abilities.

Not if, but when someone sooner or later suspected her of being who she actually is, clueless idiots and trolls would demand that she acknowledge being Lauda. If she refused to answer, then she would be accused of dishonesty—of dishonestly denying what she neither admitted nor denied.

It is likely that she would also be accused of being other people who, in fact, are not her. She could not deny those accusations, either: If she were to deny them, then her real identity could be discovered by process of elimination. It is a bruteforce partitioning attack: Accuse someone of being everyone they could plausibly, or even not-quite-imaginably be, and then see which accusation she doesn’t deny.

Why ruin one’s own privacy by destroying one’s own anonymity set? It is very foolish to deny false alt accusations. Tenfold so, when truthful denials are also stereotypically met with accusations of lying. Any policy other than “neither admit nor deny” is shooting oneself in the foot.

Yet even if she took a firm “neither admit nor deny” stand to all questions, it is probable that sooner or later, she would nonetheless be outed as Lauda. And then, she would also be falsely accused of dishonesty for refusing to admit or deny that she was Lauda. Until then, she would be accused of dishonesty for refusing to admit or deny false accusations connecting her to random accounts.

She could not afford to risk it.

D.

Some discussion venues have an administrative policy forbidding more than one account per individual person. The policy is of arguable value; its merits depend on the particulars of the venue. In some cases, it may make sense. Here, it wouldn’t—here, on a forum founded by a pseudonymous cypherpunk—here, on a forum where the administrator has sometimes banned people for doxing him in violation of forum rules. This forum has a high expectation of privacy, and an explicit tolerance of NEWNYM.

An administrative restriction of one account per individual is entirely different than a self-appointed clique of vigilantes, who feed their own egos by trying to out people for no reason.

For the most part, the latter are also hypocrites. Most of them operate under a pseudonym. Some of them claim that alternate pseudonyms should be explicitly acknowledged. But they themselves neither disclose nor acknowledge their “real life” identities—and they probably don’t disclose their forum pseudonyms to people who know them by their “real” names. Moreover, it is reasonable to presume that most of them probably have alternate pseudonyms in other Internet venues, which they do not disclose here.

The word “pseudonym” literally means “false name” (< ψευδώνυμος, < ψευδής + ὄνομα). For anybody who ever uses a pseudonym without full disclosure of identity, it is dishonest to criticize the use of multiple unacknowledged pseudonyms.

Some critics of pseudonymity do not commit this dishonesty. For example, Vod openly publicized his “real name” and physical location; he doxed himself on his own website, linked from his forum account. I disagree with Vod on this issue, for other reasons; but at least, he was honest and consistent in his opinion about it. Those who do not self-dox are self-serving hypocrites when they unreasonably pry into others’ use of multiple pseudonyms.

Regardless, everyone who is categorically opposed to unacknowledged multi-account pseudonymity creates a culture that forbids Satoshi from returning to his own forum.

E.

Do you wish that Satoshi should be able to return to his own forum under an alternate identity? If you imagine that he has, then you have not considered the realities described above—but do you dream that he should be able to, if he is still alive?

Embrace privacy culture!

Don’t ask questions about others’ pseudonyms, much less demand answers, unless there is is a strong reason such as evidence of fraud based on the usage of multiple identities.

Do not thoughtlessly speculate with a total lack of discretion. If you must chortle to yourself over what you suspect is some neat little discovery, at least have the decency to be subtle about it. I do as I say, here: I have noticed some things I kept quiet about, and only discreetly inquired out of curiosity in PM if e.g. someone outed his multiple pseudonyms on a different forum.

Make reasonable use of alternate identities yourself. And don’t abuse them: Do not sockpuppet, scam, troll, or evade bans! Do not buy and sell accounts, which is the conveyance of false reputation. Just feel free to compartmentalize your public activities according to the subject matter: Pick a new name, hit the NEWNYM button, and make yourself a new forum account. This is life in cypherspace: It is the cypherpunk way.

Have a health problem you want to discuss? Confused by an abusive relationship with a manipulative psychopath? Suffered a very embarrassing financial wipeout with a margin account? Got a harmless but unusual kink? Want to talk altcoins, without being insulted and ridiculed by your buddies in the Wall Observer? (Now, that’s kinky!)

More importantly: Do you have solid evidence of wrongdoing by a DT member? Not dumb trolling with bare accusations, much less with empty insults: Evidence. On a forum where the “DT gang” is real, and shooting the messenger is customary, bringing a strongly-evidenced accusation against a DT member is more controversial than all but the most marginalized political opinions.

Most importantly in principle: Do you have any controversial opinions?

This is privacy culture and freedom of speech:

Quote from: theymos on August 28, 2012, 09:17:31 PM

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

Italics are theymos’.

Do it for yourself. Do it on principle. And do it for Satoshi.

It is useless and meaningless to say that anyone who suspects a Satoshi sighting should keep quiet. The only theoretical possibility for Satoshi’s secret return is a social norm, a community nomos, that makes it taboo to speculate on alternate identities or “main accounts” without adequately strong reasons for asking.

If we had such a strict taboo here, then maybe—just maybe Satoshi could risk popping up with an alt account for a little chit-chat with us. Of course, we would never know it; the whole point is that we would never know it. But at least, such a thing would be possible.

As it stands, it is impossible. Satoshi would only try creating an alt here, if he were a total fool. Satoshi was not a fool. Therefore, I am morally certain that Satoshi has no alt accounts here on the forum that he founded.

And that’s sad.

SAD. 😿