151–160 of 161 posts
Once again, you have a journalist ruining a person's life by claiming they created BitCoin. Wired better be able to back it up.
It's just as shitty whether it's true or false. Either way, they're deliberately exposing someone to unwanted public attention to sell magazines and ad impressions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I read on other sources, he is under investigation for tax issues by the ATO for a number of years now. Perhaps the ATO felt they need to move quickly when news broke out (suggesting he is the BitCoin creator), to secure his assets before they are transferred / moved.
I doubt that this [very] clever person would put his bitcoins at risk of a seizure at his/her home
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof for these ludicrous statements please.
i admit i don't have conclusive proof. however, is it really 'ludicrous' to speculate that those in power seek to destroy bitcoin in any way possible? especially when taking into account how vocally anti-establishment the bitcoin community has become.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proof for these ludicrous statements please.
i admit i don't have conclusive proof. however, is it really 'ludicrous' to speculate that those in power seek to destroy bitcoin in any way possible? especially when taking into account how vocally anti-establishment the bitcoin community has become.
No one is that afraid of the bitcoin community, or of bitcoin itself. The bitcoin fringe is only novel in their application of the blockchain towards the problem of reducing the risk in organized crime. The world has heard the anarchist, anti-bank rhetoric before, and for that matter, from groups that actually blow up banks and murder people to further their goals.
There seems to be no evidence of any government seeking to "destroy bitcoin in any way possible." One would expect there to be fewer bitcoin based companies openly operating if that were the case. Rather, it appears that governments have reacted to bitcoin by defining it in terms of their existing regulatory frameworks, and deciding whether or not, and how, it can legally be used and taxed.
So yes, it does seem a bit ludicrous.
The guy introducing himself - seems quite plausible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE&feature=youtu.be...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just as shitty whether it's true or false. Either way, they're deliberately exposing someone to unwanted public attention to sell magazines and ad impressions.
Everything they publish is for that purpose whether it exposes someone or not. At least this is actual news if it's true and not mindless reprints of known information.
Obviously. It's okay to make money off of things that are helpful or at least harmless. Not okay to make money off of hurting innocent people.
> At least this is actual news if it's true and not mindless reprints of known information.
So what? Facts are not inherently virtuous. If I published a report on your intimate personal habits, would you feel better if everything in the report was true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems pretty well backed-up. Several leaked emails and deleted blog posts with Wright voluntarily identifying as Nakamoto. Certainly not as cavalier as Newsweek were last year when trying to out that other fellow. That doesn't mean it's not carefully crafted bullshit on his behalf
Not backed up. An unreliable source creates emails and blog posts that say it's him. End of story, right? No, not by far. This dump is worthless as evidence so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not backed up. An unreliable source creates emails and blog posts that say it's him. End of story, right? No, not by far. This dump is worthless as evidence so far.
But at least he was asking for it this time, unlike Dorian Nakamato.
The guy introducing himself - seems quite plausible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE&feature=youtu.be...
This guy is sending my bullshit detector off the charts. I'll bet that the story here will turn out to be that he's built a backstory around being Satoshi in either an attempt to get famous, or some fraudulent scheme to profit from it. On reading the tax stuff, I'm wondering if he's told the Australian Tax authorities that he is Satoshi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Satoshi really wanted to realise the value from his bitcoin holdings without being subject to a huge amount of tax he/she/they would ideally relocate to Germany where the tax office has said that if you hold them for over 1 year there is no capital gains tax (or equivalent) to pay. That this guy was looking to move to the UK, where banks have been quite wary of bitcoin, (although the bank of england has not) is an…
Yes, but under Australian capital gains tax law, moving the coins overseas is a "taxable event", and he'd have to pay the capital gains tax on the capital gain based on the value at the time he moved them.
I guess the point being given that be is not satoshi nakamoto because if he was he would have been a lot more organised than it seems he has been.