> i agree with the sentiment, however, it’s wishful thinking.
if you’re trying to persuade me that i shouldn’t use SN as an unwilling test subject, save your breath: i’m not engaged in any effort to de-anonymize him. his project is founded on adversarial mechanics within an extrajudicial (i.e. lawless) space: it’s naive to think those mechanics won’t bleed over from the project to its adjacencies. that’s the point i’m trying to make.
Your comment still could be read as justifying "he was asking for it", or at least "he should have expected it". I'm not sure if that's what you intend, but I don't agree with that.
When Satoshi left Bitcoins were worth essentially nothing (and obviously when it was created). There is no shortage of example 'experts' from back then that were convinced that Bitcoin would always be worth nothing or nearly so. In such a state Bitcoin is just some random obscure open source P2P application (in fact, Wikipedia initially deleted the article on it exactly as such).