The Face Behind Bitcoin?

Post by argumentum » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:17 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #503

michaelt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't the lack of a denial in this instance tantamount to an admission? I mean, if it were me, [...] responded to questions about Bitcoin with "bit-what-now"? If all his friends and family know he shares his name with the creator of bitcoin, he might have already heard all the jokes and think "not this shit again" as well as not being able to credibly deny knowing about it. There's a british general who goes by Mike…

Hearing jokes about it and having a reporter turn up from a well-known national news publication seeking an interview are two entirely different things. Really, these are the sort of arguments I'd expect from a surly 13-year old. If he was some coincicentally named private individual, the obvious thing to do would be to deny being the celebrity Nakamoto, and possibly to advise the reporter to discuss the matter with…

Post by john_b » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:19 PM UTC

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.

Post by prostoalex » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:19 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #482

prostoalex wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their personal security spending runs millions of dollars a year. For example: http://gizmodo.com/5517656/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-has-17m-wor...

So? He can afford it. I'm pretty sure that the real issue here is that if he starts spending his money he's going to get hit with a very large tax bill which he would rather not receive.

Post by mpyne » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #207

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…

Non-fing-sequitur straw-man. We can point at ANY part of the sociopolitical spectrum and find hypocrites. I could spew the same sort of such outrageous examples about liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists but won't because it has nothing to do with the topic. Suffice to say Nakamoto did have a change of mind and did do something world-changing about it. And, golly, he is a libertarian who made a herculean effort…

Post by argumentum » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:23 PM UTC

npizzolato wrote: post #571

argumentum wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely not bizarre, hypocritical, paradoxical or even ironic. By your logic, every libertarian who disagrees with taxes (or the level of taxation) should break the law and face the consequences (of a miserable, tortuous life in prison). It's one thing to have a political view, and argue for it. Democracies (and republics) wouldn't have a chance of working if citizens didn't take this much upon themselves. At…

Oh please. Do we have to drag everything to its extreme? The consequences of not paying your taxes are not anywhere near the same as the consequences of not accepting a job in a government position. One lands you in jail. The other lands you in a private sector job, maybe with a pay cut.