The Face Behind Bitcoin? • Hacker News Board

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#561

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 8:41 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #403

ctdonath wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said everything is outrageous? That X is not uncommon doesn't mean everything is X.

Your claim is that my examples are "outrageous", which implies they are unusual or uncommon. But they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous. If my examples of common behavior is outrageous, then every behavior, from common to rare must be outrageous by the definition of the word. In fact my original post is questioning why examples like this are so common. If really pressed, I suppose I could go through m…

they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous.

Our definitions differ. I'm going with "very bad or wrong in a way that causes anger; too bad to be accepted or allowed; going beyond all standards of what is right or decent; deficient in propriety or good taste".

I'm aware of the phenomenon, and noted that it is plainly in abundance throughout the sociopolitical spectrum.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#562

Post by john_b » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 8:45 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #539

john_b wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than a polite social fiction. It's a moral requirement for many of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution to have any meaning. E.g. try exercising your right to an attorney when the prosecution logs all your communications. Or try exercising your right of assembly to discussion union membership while your employer monitors the meeting. If Americans give up on privacy and decide it's not worth fighting…

And the legal scope of those situations is correspondingly narrow. I'm not against a right to privacy, which is why I said I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment to make it explicit. I'm saying that you don't have a comprehensive right to privacy now. Moral rights are what you want, legal rights are what you actually have. I don't thinkt eh right to privacy is entirely unilateral; if it were, journalism could not…

> " Moral rights are what you want, legal rights are what you actually have."

This sounds like a purely philosophical disagreement, so I won't pursue it much. From a practical perspective, I partially agree with you. A right without any teeth to back it up isn't much use in practice. In constitutional forms of government, it's the law that provides the teeth (as law ultimately devolves into a question of how and when force can be used, and against whom). But a more cynical perspective is that the teeth are all that really matter, and the moral arguments are all justifications for getting teeth in the first place. It's that latter, more cynical perspective that I am opposed to.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#563

Post by SamReidHughes » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 8:48 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #513

rsanders wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may well misunderstand how Social Security works. However, the point of my comment is that it's hardly the only system to which one might contribute funds, incurring some future obligation of (re)payment on the part of that system, which is later discharged using funds that were most recently in "someone else's pocket". Either it's a trivial point that applies pretty broadly outside of SS, or you meant something mo…

Your misunderstanding is, at least in part, in thinking that contributing to SS incurs an obligation to you on the part of the program. Technically, it doesn't even have an obligation to current recipients, let alone future ones.

It doesn't matter though. If social security were made of your actual money the end result would still be the same -- your money would go towards investments in the past, and you'd get paid back by people benefiting from those investments.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#564

Post by Iftheshoefits » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 8:51 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #326

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things are all possible--but unlikely, in my experience. I've worked for the government and for government contractors. I did not ever come across even one single self-proclaimed conservative or libertarian individual who fell into any of the "maybe" hypotheses you describe. To a person there is one word to describe them: hypocrite. They did exactly what the parent wrote: railed against government while earning…

I've been in exactly his position, and formed much of my libertarian-style beliefs in direct response to what I saw working within the government. Having seen it happen anecdotally in literally dozens of cases, I don't think it's that unlikely.

Did you continue working for the government after forming said beliefs? If so, then I suggest that either your beliefs aren't that strong, or else you're a hypocrite. In either case, "unlikely" is not "impossible."

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#565

Post by latj » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

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…

I've read this sort of sentiment before. Here is what is confusing you.

You are trying to over-simplify the complex political philosophy and worldview of a person.

To say that someone is a libertarian, for example, tells you almost nothing about that person.

I am one of those "all models are wrong" kinds of people, but if you were trying to model the beliefs of a person, I would say the minimum questions are:

1. In the ideal state of the universe, how is humanity organized?

2. In the ideal state of the universe, how are the humans close to you organized?

3. How should one act to aid the transition towards the ideal state?

To explain the individual you are describing who is anti-federal government but works for the federal government, there are a number of hypothetical people we can imagine.

For example, one could believe that in the ideal state there is no organization of power at the global or federal government level (#1). But they could also believe that (#3) there is nothing an individual can do to speed up that transition in any meaningful way. They may be waiting for some cultural evolution of humanity or a game-changing shift in technology (e.g. unlimited free access to power).

Or they could believe that the way to transition is by participating to ensure that it does as little evil as possible- or they could even be actively undermining the system from within. There are countless possibilities that could explain what you are describing.

On the other hand, they could just be big fat hypocrites. ;)

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#566

Post by path411 » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

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.

In the online article it says:

"Satoshi Nakamoto in Lancaster, Calif. Credit: Photo via Photobucket.com via Satoshi Nakamoto (Wagumabher)"

Sounds more like she uncovered his personal photobucket and took an image.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#567

Post by 3pt14159 » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:00 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #393

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…

> When you live in a system that coerces you into giving up half of your income it doesn't mean that you are in the wrong for working for it or even taking things like subsidies. I'm positing that it does. In fact, there's only one case where I can find working for the government while thinking it shouldn't exist is workable, and that's working for the government in a capacity where you can dismantle the government.…

It isn't hypocritical because I find myself in a system that accepts coercion. If I disagree with communism should I refuse work and perish from starvation? No! I'm already within the system that make unethical demands. It isn't a choice between living free and working within an unethical system, it is a choice between working within an unethical system or working within an unethical system in a different manner. With your logic, if one sees the state as an actor of evil should he not cease all action? The state can only function with revenue, so would it not be better to live in the wilderness away from the state?

This is false. The state has it's own violence that one can constantly object to, but it does not stop one from selling labor on the market. Put another way: The state uses violence to coerce resources from individuals and to coerce other individuals not to compete in certain industries (like mass transit). That is where the sin is. To be an engineer at a public transit system or to be a income earner that pays taxes, both prop up the state in their own ways, but neither of them necessarily willingly works for a state run enterprise, but they both do.

It is not inconsistent with my beliefs because my beliefs do not hold those that work for or contribute towards the state through taxes as liable for the ethical misconduct of the state procuring taxation through force. It sounds like a tautology, but it is not.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#568

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:02 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #182

mseebach wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Something I've learned over the years is that there are a tremendous number of highly different personal philosophies that call themselves "conservative" or "libertarian" that share only the loosest similarities, but the people who self-identify these ways also seem to comfortably self-group and display similar behavior and thought patterns. This is regardless of the textbook definitions of what these philosophies sh…

Your interpretation of "anti-government" is misapplied & misguided. Conservatives and libertarians will, when duly prompted and given time to elaborate, give you a detailed description of how government should exist and function - not the absence of government, but a positive review of how it should be (including a robust military). They're not anarchists by any means.

The government they're "anti" is one which confiscates enormous fractions of productive citizen's incomes, spends far beyond that revenue stream incurring impossible-to-repay debt, twists & breaks the guiding verbiage of the constitution granting it powers, and generally is so far from the aforementioned ideal that the temptation is to scrap it all and start over.

One can also learn the necessity of functioning within a disliked system, sometimes living off & taking advantage of it, because the dominant system makes preferable alternatives unworkable. Working within that system may also make one painfully aware of what's wrong with it, with circumstantial realities making it impractical to do much other than take the money and bitch about it on Facebook.

Hey, there's plenty of people who hate their jobs, employers, industry, etc. - regardless of sociopolitical persuasion of both employee and employer.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#569

Post by bmelton » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:02 PM UTC

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #564

bmelton wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in exactly his position, and formed much of my libertarian-style beliefs in direct response to what I saw working within the government. Having seen it happen anecdotally in literally dozens of cases, I don't think it's that unlikely.

Did you continue working for the government after forming said beliefs? If so, then I suggest that either your beliefs aren't that strong, or else you're a hypocrite. In either case, "unlikely" is not "impossible."

Watching the inner workings of a three letter agency in action formed beliefs that caused me to seek employment elsewhere. That said, going elsewhere required some degree of financial sacrifice, and I don't fault others for not necessarily being willing to go as far as I did with stable, good-paying jobs as dear and precious as they are.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#570

Post by john_b » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #43

Blahah wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? From the photo of his house, people on reddit have already got his address. And the photo shows his car registration. They also explicitly state he's got keys worth ~$400 million. Seems like painting a target on him.

The photo of the house and the car is extraneous, I agree. However, there is he, apparently posing for a photo. This is a man who decided to use his own family name in the Bitcoin papers, and the journalist simply searched people with the family name to find a decent match and did a lot of leg work.

If the article is correct, Nakamoto only spoke to her in person at his house and with the police present. The photo would have to have been taken by a family member or some other person, and acquired by the author through someone else (probably family).