The article gives one answer: Satoshi owns lots of bitcoins. The article mentions 1.1M BTC. At the current rate this is about 500M US$. I think lots of people are eager for this amount of money. Finding out who legitimately owns this money could have a large influence on the exchange rate of bitcoin. Also if these BTCs would be "let free" this could even destroy bitcoin - a lot of power.

Also the more philosophical argument: At the moment there is a large controversy in the bitcoin community about whether the blocksize should be increased or not. If we found out who Satoshi is and can provide evidence what blocksize is nearer to Satoshi's "original vision" this could change the balance of power in the Bitcoin community.

TLDR: It is about money and power.

Okay, so this is kind of what I've been assuming.

So, why would discovering the real-life identity impact the exchange rate? What exactly would be different if Satoshi stepped out on an aircraft carrier with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner today?

I find the philosophical argument fascinating. It's like a bunch of Antonin Scalias arguing about the need for a strict constructionist view of the Founder's vision, to then find a foothold for draping it around their own subjective views for legitimacy? I had no idea shit got this real in the Bitcoin world.

> So, why would discovering the real-life identity impact the exchange rate?

If we came to conclusion that Satoshi was a "I mined lots of early blocks who gave a really high block reward. And you all were all parts of this 'Ponzi scheme' which made me rich" kind of person - I can image quite well the consequences for the BTC exchange rate.

If we found out that Bitcoin was an experiment by some CS genius that got a little bit out of control in scope, the trust many have in the Bitcoin protocol (reflected by the exchange rate) would probably decrease, since people could conclude that Bitcoin wasn't as thought-through as many Bitcoin advocates want the world to believe.

On the other hand, if we concluded that Satoshi was some computer scientist whose expertise simply rather lies in cryptography and who secluded himself from Bitcoin simply for the reason that he knows that the next steps will need an expert for scaling of systems for which he will be no help, but he is sure the further development of Bitcoin is in good hand, this would probably increase the trust people have in Bitcoin and thus increase the exchange rate.

I could write down lots of other fictional examples, but I think the idea is clear.

Indeed, several sci fi books and movies can be written until revelation of the actual Satoshi. :-)

That's a great response, and extremely helpful for understanding what's going on from the outside. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain.

It could be argued that if Satoshi is a person, and that person created Bitcoin on equipment provided by a workplace, during work time... and if those first 1 million bitcoins were mined on equipment owned by a workplace...

Then depending on the legal jurisdiction of that person...

* The employer have a claim on the IP and the initial licence was incorrect

* The employer have a claim on the bitcoins

* The employer could have a claim on any core patent that arises

This is just from a UK patent law based view where it is repeatedly made clear to employees not to work on side projects or other things on work equipment and time.

So there is a potential legal risk, if it's determined that Satoshi was working on this using his employers resources.

Well, shit. That's pretty heavy. I suppose I would want to remain anonymous if I was concerned about that scenario.

Doesn't matter if you did a good job documenting and proving that you didn't use work equipment. I remember a speaker once telling an audience something like don't even use the same brand pens or notebooks purchased by your employer to jot down your ideas and stuff.

Well, of course, as long as those are the rules and the scenario. The grandparent offered a bit different scenario.

The moral is quite clear, though: don't ever, ever use someone else's equipment and time to build your own thing.

And now I realize how heavy that scenario is too. Dang. That's heavy.

Plus the Capital Gains Tax payable on 1.1m bitcoins when sold...

Becoz Satoshi owns approximately 1 Million Bitcoins - that is 6% of the total bitcoins.

I don't think that provides a satisfactory explanation. Plenty of people have a lot of X, and nobody gives a shit.

Who has 6% of the total gold?

Who has 6% of the total rice?

Who has 6% of the total 56K modems?

Maybe this is Bitcoin's version of identifying the 0.01%.

It's somewhat ironic, because I hear and read all this fluff about the anonymity of Bitcoin and how attractive that is, but everyone's just dying to out Satoshi.

Just human curiosity, I am assuming.

If the (or one of the key) developers of the Windows operating system somehow managed to remain anonymous into the early 80s, and then personal computing skyrocketed, many people who were the peers, adversaries or customers of such a person would be genuinely curious who they were.