(Note: responded quickly before removing. I’ve since edited this comment now that I have more time. Also I’m not the person who downvoted your post.)
I definitely did not intend to cause anyone or their family danger (or harassment, etc.), so I’ve removed the post.
Mostly in the selfish interest of showing that I wasn’t being negligent, I did consider this risk before posting. That’s why I noted that I have no information beyond what’s already public and was taking into account that since I heard this speculation on a podcast which involved one relatively prominent cryptocurrency person (I won’t say who so as not to publicize it further), it seemed unlikely that my post would add additional noise.
All that said, I still agree that even a small chance of harm is more than enough reason to remove the post. Especially, since:
it seems like you’re more involved in the crypto community than I and therefore probably have more context than I do on this topic; and
my own version of integrity includes not doing things that only don’t cause bad outcomes because they’re obscure (related to my second point above).
Thank you. Yes it is a real problem, speaking from experience from the people I personally know. The reason these events are not talked about much is that any press just makes the problem worse—it gives a bunch of copycat muggers the same bright idea. So unfortunately you get a bunch of speculation and not a lot of observable evidence of the downsides of that speculation, so people don’t realize the harm that has been caused.
There are people who have been killed in attempted bitcoin muggings. Speculating on the Internet that someone is possession of >1 million bitcoins is like tattooing a big target on their back they can’t get rid of.
For the record I’m one who downvoted Mark; I don’t agree with him and I think it sad that you, an1lam, removed the original post which I don’t think did any harm whatsoever (reasons should be pretty obvious, a random short-form post about an hypothetical movie somehow it’s evidence that Hal was Satoshi? I do not think so at all.)
The risk to innocents is real. Physical security is a really hard problem for people in this space, and the police won’t protect those at risk. Does one post on one rationalist website really matter? Yes, for the same reason your vote matters at the ballot box. This is the collective action problem. If nobody self-censors a statement that puts people at risk, the risks only increase over time and those who help propagate the info are morally culpable.
(Note: responded quickly before removing. I’ve since edited this comment now that I have more time. Also I’m not the person who downvoted your post.)
I definitely did not intend to cause anyone or their family danger (or harassment, etc.), so I’ve removed the post.
Mostly in the selfish interest of showing that I wasn’t being negligent, I did consider this risk before posting. That’s why I noted that I have no information beyond what’s already public and was taking into account that since I heard this speculation on a podcast which involved one relatively prominent cryptocurrency person (I won’t say who so as not to publicize it further), it seemed unlikely that my post would add additional noise.
All that said, I still agree that even a small chance of harm is more than enough reason to remove the post. Especially, since:
it seems like you’re more involved in the crypto community than I and therefore probably have more context than I do on this topic; and
my own version of integrity includes not doing things that only don’t cause bad outcomes because they’re obscure (related to my second point above).
Thank you. Yes it is a real problem, speaking from experience from the people I personally know. The reason these events are not talked about much is that any press just makes the problem worse—it gives a bunch of copycat muggers the same bright idea. So unfortunately you get a bunch of speculation and not a lot of observable evidence of the downsides of that speculation, so people don’t realize the harm that has been caused.
There are people who have been killed in attempted bitcoin muggings. Speculating on the Internet that someone is possession of >1 million bitcoins is like tattooing a big target on their back they can’t get rid of.
Thanks, that helps contextualize.
For the record I’m one who downvoted Mark; I don’t agree with him and I think it sad that you, an1lam, removed the original post which I don’t think did any harm whatsoever (reasons should be pretty obvious, a random short-form post about an hypothetical movie somehow it’s evidence that Hal was Satoshi? I do not think so at all.)
The risk to innocents is real. Physical security is a really hard problem for people in this space, and the police won’t protect those at risk. Does one post on one rationalist website really matter? Yes, for the same reason your vote matters at the ballot box. This is the collective action problem. If nobody self-censors a statement that puts people at risk, the risks only increase over time and those who help propagate the info are morally culpable.