541–550 of 703 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't refuse to listen her but I'd question her morality if she continues to knowingly put the lives of people in danger just for her pay cheque.
You've sidestepped the primary point. If anyone experienced in the field is classified as a hypocrite. Then where should the detractors legitimately come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 'desira…
Not true. The Corporation of the City of London put up most of the money with the goal of alleviating congestion. The chief visionary, charles Pierson, was the solicitor (a sort of lawyer) for the City. http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/first-day-lond... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway#Establishm... Same deal with new York's subway - therre were private companies involved but they were s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
However, I give you Hanlon's Razor on this. It's more likely that this Satoshi flubbed his words when speaking about bitcoin rather than intentionally mislead the journalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What are the "details"?
Rest was just conjecture on the writer's part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/ATILATX3PEXZ4/ref=cm_cr...
Letter voting for an art rail project (search for "nakamoto"): http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/Fin...
Google cache of a recent event where he was at (look for the guy in the yellow baseball cap): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I do anything of note that would make any of this information interesting to the public? I think I did not. If you want to put the work in and find all that out you are free to. I never once said that everyone should actually provide journalists with that information just like that. They still have to put the work in. Do that if you want to, but I don’t think you will find anything interesting.
So a person loses their right to privacy when enough strangers take an interest in them? Nakamoto barely provided Newsweek with any information at all. The rest was obtained (possibly illegally?) by snatching his email from a website he had done business with. After that, she pretended to have an interest in trains to spark a conversation and get initial information. She then stalked him and interviewed his family.
Depends on why strangers take an interest in them. I think it is reasonable to say that Nakamoto has made himself a public figure [1], so journalists should be able to research them within the confines of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I do anything of note that would make any of this information interesting to the public? I think I did not. If you want to put the work in and find all that out you are free to. I never once said that everyone should actually provide journalists with that information just like that. They still have to put the work in. Do that if you want to, but I don’t think you will find anything interesting.
So a person loses their right to privacy when enough strangers take an interest in them? Nakamoto barely provided Newsweek with any information at all. The rest was obtained (possibly illegally?) by snatching his email from a website he had done business with. After that, she pretended to have an interest in trains to spark a conversation and get initial information. She then stalked him and interviewed his family.
Depends on why strangers take an interest in them. I think it is reasonable to say that Nakamoto has made himself a public figure [1], so journalists should be able to research them within the confines of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding your point about paranoia: Here's an example of people in Ecuador executing a father and son for a mere $20,000: http://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/1zktth/quito_... This is what the Nakamoto family now has to worry about. It wasn't a random killing. There were at least 6 people arrested in connection with the murders. Apparently the robbers had people inside the bank who they were paying to aler…
Nakamoto doesn't live in Quito, Ecuador.