>Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not particularly sympathetic in that particular case.

What should his financial state have to do with his want to retain privacy?

> Satoshi likely became filthy rich off of his invention

Should I do like you and exclude from the sympathy due to every human being those who are filthy poor if I don't like the poors? Or will you invoke some special exemption clause making it totally ok, like it's ok to punch up but not down?

If I should not, maybe you should ask yourself if respect should exclude those who you dislike, because other people may dislike those you like... or even yourself.

Perhaps I phrased that poorly. It's not Satoshi's wealth that matters, but rather the source of his income—he became rich from his invention. I believe that should open him up to scrutiny, for the same reason that publishing investment advice should open you up to more scrutiny than publishing sports trivia.

(I don't want to imply that Satoshi did anything untoward, because I don't think he did. However, it's a valid thing to want to investigate.)

Still phrased pretty poorly in my opinion. You've sort of just reworded your original comment with some additional assertions that don't really make any sense. How is the individual(s) in question and their hard work that they've decided to unleash free of charge for anyone to use as they see fit even a little bit close to publishing investment advice? Your argument really comes off as being envious in some way or otherwise bitter.

No, it's still not a valid reason to investigate someone who's made it very clear they do not want any scrutiny.

What's to investigate? Are you upset about potential tax fraud or something?