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

471–480 of 703 posts

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#471

Post by john_b »

npizzolato wrote: post #441
john_b wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

I would argue that there is in fact a public interest in learning more about the inventor of what is "arguably the largest financial innovation of the century". Learning more about his life and others involved in bitcoin can help us understand the motivations of the individuals that led to its creation. The fact that a man who worked in classified government projects for a long period of time went on to create bitcoi…

They could also simply be decent human beings and not post his address or a picture of his house at all, much less what kind of car he drives and its license plate.

Right now there is nothing stopping any crook smart enough to set up a bitcoin wallet from breaking into his house and demanding Nakamoto transfer some or all of his bitcoins to it. Most wealthy people keep their wealth in banks, but the keys to Nakamoto's wealth are probably on a hard drive in that house.

The transaction would be on the public blockchain, but it would be irreversible and difficult to follow after enough mixing.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#472

Post by anigbrowl »

judk wrote: post #215
discardorama wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile Bill Gates, who is worth 200X more than SN, continues to waltz around in public.

Bill Gates spends millions of dollars per year on personal security.

So? Nakamoto can spend money on security too if he feels like it. As a cryptographer he's surely familiar with the adage that 'tehre's no security in obscurity,' and I'm only surprised it's taken this long to ID him.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#473

Post by georgemcbay »

masmullin wrote: post #405
seanalltogether wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection." Seems like a confirmation?

or false confirmation. He might not have invented bitcoin but know all about it (because of his name). He would know that acting all shadowy and evasive would make him seem more like the real Satoshi. tl;dr - Give me proof, not vague "seems like he confirmed it."

What about good old Occam's Razor? Seems pretty obvious to me that if the details in this article are true (and they likely are) this is indeed "the" Satoshi.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#474

Post by gress »

anigbrowl wrote: post #453
3pt14159 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well bane let me, a libertarian, explain to you why I worked for the government while I was a libertarian. Sometimes the solutions that are government mandated or subsidized would appear in a different form if the government didn't run them. So, for example, mass transit, like subways would still exist if the government didn't use coercion to fund and run it, it would just be owned by private individuals. Just becaus…

So, for example, mass transit, like subways would still exist if the government didn't use coercion to fund and run it, it would just be owned by private individuals. Given the dearth of private subway companies, I question this claim. There are lots of places where a subway would be highly desirable but doesn't exist, why hasn't some entrepreneurial soul built one already?

False.

The London Underground, the earliest subway system, was initially built as a patchwork of private railway systems that were later brought under government control.

Most of the subsequent systems (e.g. Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg) used the London system as a reference.

So, mass transit did in fact arise as a result of private entrepreneurship. The reason subways don't exist in places where it would be 'desirable' is because of government interference, or simply poor economics.

And I'm not even a libertarian.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#475

Post by gknoy »

johnward wrote: post #109
jxf wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but this lowers the bar to any random yahoo who's capable of a Google search, rather than just "determined attackers". That's part of the issue.

Yeah this lowers the bar to the level that any random person that is dumb enough to rob a bank or gas station could find the guy.

Given that San Bernardino county and its neighbor, Riverside county, have a reputation as a "meth capitol" of California, my guess is that a substantially higher number than average of people within easy driving distance of this man might fit into that category. Perhaps not "dumb", but "desperate" enough.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#476

Post by freefrancisco »

fivethree wrote: post #353
cgore wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of people seem to be confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. Libertarians typically do see roles for SOME government, and those roles are typically the military, judges, roads, police, and the like. Not other things though, so no Social Security, no Obamacare, no National Endowment for the Arts, and no space program (other than for space weapons, so get rid of NASA and establish some sort of "US Star F…

Libertarians view of government is, 'I want to be allowed to do whatever I want while everyone else is restricted to doing what I want them to do.' It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought.

"It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought", except that it is not libertarianism. Before putting any amount of thought into demolishing a "dumb ideology" you should probably put some amount of thought into correctly defining and characterizing what that ideology is. In your terms, libertarian's view of government is more along the lines of 'Everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as what they do doesn't violate the rights of others'.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#477

Post by rosser »

prostoalex wrote: post #450
rosser wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you claim Social Security money, you aren't "getting back" what you put in/was "taken" from you. Your contribution is already gone, disbursed to current recipients. When you ultimately collect, that money is similarly coming out of someone else's pocket.

It's the same with the bank deposits - would you expect do get exact same dollar bills with serial numbers you've deposited every time you use an ATM? Are you then looting somebody every time you make a cash withdrawal?

No, in fact, it's not the same with bank deposits. Of course you don't get back the same dollar bills; frankly, that's an offensively specious false analogy. But when you deposit money into a bank account, you still own that money; if you were to close your bank account tomorrow, you'd get a cheque for the balance.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a "pay as you go" program. When you contribute money into the Social Security trust fund, it is used to satisfy payments to current recipients. If it's still solvent and operating when you retire or become disabled, then you can expect to receive benefits similarly (though, technically, retirement/"old age" and disability benefits come from different funds).

Moreover, if the fund were to go insolvent — or Congress were to shut the program down — tomorrow, you would have no recourse. (Whereas with bank deposits, you have recourse at least up to the FDIC insured maximum.) If you renounce your US citizenship, or decide to fund your retirement yourself, you don't somehow magically get back the money you contributed, and you're still subject to payroll taxes in the latter case.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#478

Post by gasull »

olalonde wrote: post #463

Meta: this submission has 811 point and was posted only 5 hours, yet it is at #11 position. Is this the regular HN algorithm at work or is it weighted down due to its controversial nature? (I'm not trying to imply there is any conspiracy... I actually remember reading that submissions with a high vote to comment ratio are weighted down but I'm not completely sure)

Probably it has been flagged because it's full of speculation.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#479

Post by rosser »

rsanders wrote: post #445
rosser wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you claim Social Security money, you aren't "getting back" what you put in/was "taken" from you. Your contribution is already gone, disbursed to current recipients. When you ultimately collect, that money is similarly coming out of someone else's pocket.

You never get your money back out of a bank; you get somebody else's money, if there ever even was physical money involved. And you never step in the same river twice. I think that's all splitting metaphysical hairs.

In this case, it's actually not hair-splitting; see my reply to your comment's sibling. You both demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how Social Security works.
Post reply on HN