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

421–430 of 703 posts

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#421

Post by BillyMaize »

rzt wrote: post #339
BillyMaize wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with the name Paul Brown in the Cincinnati area (where the Paul Brown stadium is) I deal with this almost daily. I'm sick of meeting someone and about 75% of the time they go "oh, do you own the stadium?". I'm seriously starting to think about moving far away so I don't have to hear it anymore. I don't even like football! I also went to high school with a guy named John Conner and everyone use to thank him…

People also probably give you immense grief over the ridiculous tax deal the stadium has with Hamilton County. :p

I wish, most people don't seem to care. I for one would rather see my tax dollars go to something useful like education.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#422

Post by john_b »

arrrg wrote: post #67
nwh wrote: post #22

Being labeled Satoshi regardless of truth is pretty much going to get you robbed, kidnapped or killed. This dude lives in this town and has $400M of untraceable currency? The article gives his name, face, address and relatives. You can be sure as hell that somebody will do something stupid to try and get to it. I wouldn't wish this label upon anybody, it's exactly why the community tries to avoid speculating about it…

Doxxing? That is such a stupid term. It’s called journalism. Reporting on people with a huge impact on the world is sort of what journalists do. Of course that includes identifying information. Sure, publishing identifying information of people who did nothing special is unethical but that can hardly be said about Satoshi. If the story is correct then this is some insanely rich dude who got rich by inventing Bitcoin…

> "Sure, publishing identifying information of people who did nothing special is unethical but that can hardly be said about Satoshi."

This is wrong on so many levels. Here is a guy who created arguably the largest financial innovation of the century and who only wants to be left to live a humble, private life instead of claiming his riches, and you think that a mass of curious strangers have a right to intrude into his life, jeopardizing his safety and that of his family just so you can have the satisfaction of putting a face with a name?

Journalism isn't the same as stalking. This is a man who clearly values his privacy and who had it compromised by his own overly talkative family and by questionable actions on the part of Newsweek (note that they carefully omit how they acquired his email from the model train website). Your response encapsulates everything that is wrong with celebrity voyeurism in America.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#423

Post by [deleted] »

cpwright wrote: post #61
bachback wrote: post #20

worst reporting I've seen. it implies this person has admitted working on bitcoin. actually that's not even true, if you read the words. why on earth all this work, just to chose a real name? this does not make any sense. as if SN could not haven chosen a name to deflect his identity.

This quote tells you how sloppy the journalism is: "Even so, Bitcoin is vulnerable to massive theft, fraud and scandal, which has seen the price of Bitcoins whipsaw from more than $1,200 each last year to as little as $130 in late February." The MtGox price in February was meaningless, a more accurate representation would have been $1,200 to somewhere around $500 that reputable exchanges were selling for (I don't kno…

[deleted]

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#424

Post by furyofantares »

cpwright wrote: post #61
bachback wrote: post #20

worst reporting I've seen. it implies this person has admitted working on bitcoin. actually that's not even true, if you read the words. why on earth all this work, just to chose a real name? this does not make any sense. as if SN could not haven chosen a name to deflect his identity.

This quote tells you how sloppy the journalism is: "Even so, Bitcoin is vulnerable to massive theft, fraud and scandal, which has seen the price of Bitcoins whipsaw from more than $1,200 each last year to as little as $130 in late February." The MtGox price in February was meaningless, a more accurate representation would have been $1,200 to somewhere around $500 that reputable exchanges were selling for (I don't kno…

I believe it is intentionally misleading, not sloppy.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#425

Post by npizzolato »

masmullin wrote: post #398
verroq wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that he's in much trouble with his 400m

I doubt that he even has that bitcoin anymore. I expect that he lost the coin and thus is bitter and doesn't want to talk about it.

What makes you say that? It seems wildly speculative (at least, far more than the opposite opinion of believing he likely still has the coins he's believed to own).

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#426

Post by fredsted »

danielweber wrote: post #116
jnbiche wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that's a picture he posed for? She probably got it from one of the family members she spoke to.

I am now unsure of that and backing away from that position. Is there a print-version of this article? That would show the photo credit in the margin. Too bad photo credits don't seem to be the custom on the web.

Yeah, Newsweek is going print again tomorrow. What a coincidence, huh?

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#427

Post by dragonwriter »

bmelton wrote: post #406
dragonwriter wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work…

Bad example on my part, perhaps. I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. I agree that in the example I gave, that would be hypocritical. I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.

> I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath.

Contractors don't.

> I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.

Its not necessarily incoherent (but, still, IMO, somewhat odd) to argue that it is immoral to choose to benefit from violations of the Constitution only if you have sworn a special oath. That argument isn't about the Constitution, just the binding nature of oaths.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#428

Post by chimeracoder »

fedups wrote: post #410
enraged_camel wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>And I think that would be especially true of the libertarians I have known. If I were to generalize about them, I'd say that on average they're unusually thoughtful and unusually principled. Most people don't even try for a coherent political philosophy. Libertarianism will look like a "coherent political philosophy" only if you're a young white kid from an affluent family.

This is the most original and convincing argument against libertarianism that I've heard.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's about as original and convincing as saying that "liberalism is a 'coherent political philosophy' only if you are a poor inner-city black kid whose parents are on welfare".

They make for witty-sounding quips, but both are ad-hominems[0] that do little to actually address and argue against the tenets of either philosophy.

[0] (In before someone points out that this is not a true ad-hominem because it attacks a stereotype (and a straw man at that) rather than a specific individual).

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#429

Post by glenra »

bradleyjg wrote: post #280
spindritf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the paradox of the deeply conservative anti-federal government types who work for the government - directly or as a fed contractor Those are the people who have a realistic, first hand understanding of the government innerworkings. Also, a contradiction between believing that allocation of capital would be more efficient under a less centrally-influenced system, and being willing to accept higher pay and benefits fro…

Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. On the theoretical side it goes back to the whole Trotskyism/Stalinism debate.

> Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor.

Okay, I give up: What are you expecting to find upon doing that? Most libertarians I know are in favor of free movement of labor and open immigration in general. The current Libertarian Party Platform includes this bit:

"Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

(source: http://www.lp.org/platform )

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#430

Post by Yorn »

rthomas6 wrote: post #232
topynate wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like he's 'on the spectrum' - very strong commitment to the literal truth goes with the territory. As does desire for privacy, tendency to work alone obsessively on unusual projects, lack of interest in money (or in being rich, rather)...

That's an interesting observation and now that you pointed it out, I think I agree with you. However, I think that more than autistic people lack interest in "being rich". If I had $400m, I'd buy a house and pay off our car. The remaining $399.5m would be invested. I'd take out $40-50k per year for spending. Extravagant lifestyles are overrated, I think.

Speaking as a sometimes paranoid libertarian with a reasonable amount of Bitcoin, myself, I can say the two things preventing me from cashing out of any portion of it is the likelihood I would be identified and the fact that any sales of it I have to pay taxes on. I purchased a house this year that I could have afforded several times over in Bitcoin, but instead took out a loan just like anyone else.
Post reply on HN