Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Face Behind Bitcoin?

mag.newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 703 posts

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#341

Post by [deleted] »

omegaham wrote: post #149
bane wrote: post #101

Topic other than discussing the irresponsibility of "outing" a guy using the clever tricks of using his name and public records look ups. > A libertarian, Nakamoto encouraged his daughter to be independent, start her own business and "not be under the government's thumb," she says. "He was very wary of the government, taxes and people in charge." > What you don't know about him is that he's worked on classified stuff…

Oh god yes. I'm currently a relatively junior flunky in the Marine Corps, and the GS civilians who work here are hilarious. "We need to cut the fat!" We work at a minor airbase in the middle of nowhere... oh. Oops. Whatever we are, it sure as hell ain't muscle. "Government spending is out of control" while talking about how they exploit the DTS system to get as much per diem as possible. "Those lazy people who expect…

[deleted]

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#343

Post by [deleted] »

potatoman2 wrote: post #265

"This man is Satoshi Nakamoto." "What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life." - I do not believe this exchange took place. The police would've had his name from his initial call to them, and a random officer from the Sheriff's department would not likely recognize that name as the creator of Bitcoin. Just saying.

[deleted]

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#344

Post by TDL »

bane wrote: post #274
rayiner wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rhetoric aside, I've met almost no libertarians of the anarchist persuasive in D.C., the kind who reject the existence of government. There are a lot of small government conservatives, though, but I think they object more to the 60% of the budget that is comprised of transfer payments and aid to states than the 5-10% of the budget is comprised of federal payroll. More generally, compartmentalization isn't hypocrisy.…

> I've met almost no libertarians of the anarchist persuasive in D.C. Anecdotal I know, but quite a few of my friends are former military of some type and their facebook feeds are jam pack full of libertarian group reposts. > Everyone has the programs that they like and the ones they don't. It's too bad that the rhetoric is "shrink government" not "I don't like this specific program". Because the former statement cre…

Have you ever considered the fact that former military personnel harbor some anti-government sentiments because of the experience with military? They have lived a fairly authoritarian lifestyle for an extended period of time, it's understandable that they develop a distaste for govenrment.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#346

Post by scarmig »

frogpelt wrote: post #231
candybar wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't everything, but racism is a significant part of what's motivating the economic right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics Obviously, a lot of people are caught up in the bubble without being racist or even being aware of the implicit racism of those around them, but much of the motivation behind the right's demonizing rhetoric against the freeloaders seems rooted in race. Edit: also, http://e…

That's what you've heard? Couldn't the argument be made that the other side is rooted in racism too since it appears their goal is to keep a large percentage of African Americans completely dependent on the government fixed-income for their whole lives? That's what I've heard, anyway.

That's clever, but it's silly to dispute that the Right in the USA has relied on racism as a tool of political power for, well, decades. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. all relied on heavily on racist tropes (see the wiki entry on the Southern Strategy for a basic introduction to this, which has been admitted by the principals of the time), and you can see very distinct racial patterns and reflections of Confederate heritage in voting records (that is, Obama underperformed Kerry in white demographics, despite doing better overall, and doing even worse among whites in onetime Confederate states).

None of this is to say that welfare dependency isn't an issue, or things like affirmative action aren't harmful to minorities (in fact, Nixon majorly expanded affirmative action programs in order to tame and integrate blacks into subservience to a racist society).

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#347

Post by droopybuns »

mseebach wrote: post #132
bane wrote: post #101

Topic other than discussing the irresponsibility of "outing" a guy using the clever tricks of using his name and public records look ups. > A libertarian, Nakamoto encouraged his daughter to be independent, start her own business and "not be under the government's thumb," she says. "He was very wary of the government, taxes and people in charge." > What you don't know about him is that he's worked on classified stuff…

First, "deeply conservative" and "libertarian" aren't freely interchangeable. Second, it's a quite small branch of libertarianism that doesn't recognise any role for the state (and thus, taxation) at all - and the one they do recognise is mostly concerned with security.

These kinds of discussions highlight an annoying defect in the human condition. We adore taxonomies. From Music to Painting to Architecture to Biology to Software Engineering to Mathematics. Every single discipline depends taxonomies. It's even part of our social foundation.

Conversationally, it is critical for many people to map their peers, friends & families to these taxonomies. They seem to need to be able to define you as a conservative, liberal or whatever. Along the way, any sense of true, genuine compassion goes out the window until they interact with you more and find where their modeling isn't correct. Then they redefine their cubbyhole for you, unless you entertain or arouse them. Then you're Truly Unique.

So for what it's worth, I appreciate that you're trying to defend a more independent view point, but I argue that doing so on a message board (and in this thread in particular) is utterly futile.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#349

Post by rzt »

uptown wrote: post #71
continuations wrote: post #29

Does the concept of privacy mean anything to Newsweek?

I see it as good investigative journalism. You don't think the single person that potentially originated a new form of global currency that's dominating headlines, and receiving the attention of world leaders is newsworthy? I'm a firm believer in privacy - but when something one has put into the world stands to have a massively disruptive force, it's worth exploring who that person is, and what their motivations are.

Absolutely agree.

Bitcoin is one of the hottest news stories right now. People want to know more about Bitcoin. A big question about Bitcoin is "who created Bitcoin?" Newsweek answered that question.

This is journalism 101.

Many of you disagree with this premise –– and I sympathize and understand why you're upset –– but this is how the system operates.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#350

Post by joyeuse6701 »

bane wrote: post #101

Topic other than discussing the irresponsibility of "outing" a guy using the clever tricks of using his name and public records look ups. > A libertarian, Nakamoto encouraged his daughter to be independent, start her own business and "not be under the government's thumb," she says. "He was very wary of the government, taxes and people in charge." > What you don't know about him is that he's worked on classified stuff…

Hypocrites are everywhere even in the private sector, nothing particularly strange that they exist in the public one.

>I've even pointed out point-blank that their salaries are paid for by the same taxes they rail against incessantly and are met with blank stares or wry grimaces before they launch into an extended soliloquy about "values" or personal responsibility or some such.

There's this kind of sick expectation of consistency. I think it's fine if someone directly benefits from taxes and calls for their decrease. You make a villain out of them, but when someone like Warren Buffet says 'the rich can contribute more' you applaud him even when he directly benefits from less contribution. Anytime anyone espouses some belief and doesn't reflect adequate action to demonstrate that belief you could fault them for it. If you're going to fault the deeply conservative anti-federal government types for being inconsistent, you may as well fault everyone who doesn't meet your standard, less you yourself become the inconsistent one.

Post reply on HN