The Face Behind Bitcoin? • Hacker News Board

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#591

Post by dpcheng2003 » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:48 PM UTC

jxf wrote: post #28

So Newsweek outed a guy who allegedly owns half a billion dollars in pseudo-untraceable, digital cash? I hope they're also going to chip in for a permanent security detail... More seriously, I think they could have done a better job reporting on the identity without giving so much away: * A picture of his house is posted, identical to the one in Google Street View * The license plate is relatively clear in the high-r…

I think the real story is how Satoshi unveiled the elusive Newsweek reporter. I didn't realize those were still around! /sarcasm

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#592

Post by gnarbarian » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:48 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #169

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…

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…

As a federal/state contractor myself. That's what happened to me. My job has driven me to a libertarian viewpoint over a period of years after seeing inefficiency and wastefulness of the organizations I deal with. This is across many state and federal departments.

And I do make an effort to push them toward more cost effective technologies and processes but the sad truth is they don't want to hear it because they prefer to waste money on oracle licenses and aligning text on reports nobody will ever read, than have their budget reduced.

There really ought to be incentives/bonuses built in for employees in govt who can successfully cut their budget and perform the same job at the same level of quality. We would instantly see a drastic reduction in the cost of our government.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#593

Post by mpyne » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:49 PM UTC

Torgo wrote: post #375

winstonsmith wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These quotes are not just Orwellian, but straight out of Animal Farm : >He doesn't like the system we have today and wanted a different one that would be more equal. He did not like the notion of banks and bankers getting wealthy just because they hold the keys," says Andresen. "Four legs good, two legs bad." >Holding the keys has also made early comers to Bitcoin wealthy beyond measure. "I made a small investment in…

The analogy to holding bankers' keys in bitcoin is holding 51% of mining power, and not a percentage less. Just having a lot of bitcoin gives you the ability to affect the price of the currency, but again this is directly proportional to how much you hold, not because of an artificial power like legal authority to take advantage of fractional reserve, or being a member of the Fed.

> not because of an artificial power like legal authority

This is like saying "natural" foods are inherently better (or alternately, that processed foods are inherently worse).

There's nothing inherently wrong with "artificial" power as it may very well be superior to the idea that shit will just "naturally happen" and whatever will be, will be.

Militaries since the dawn of history adopted artificial power early, not because warriors around the world somehow converged on the same artificial Kool-Aid, but because organized armies were much more effective in combat.

This is not to say that "command & control" is always inherently better (and indeed modern armies tend to practice German-style "centralized planning, decentralized execution"). Likewise the free market is a fairly widely-acknowledged success story as opposed to a planned economy.

The point is rather that "no artificial power" is not a selling point or way of winning an argument on its own. On its own, it's nothing more than a suggested policy option, like saying Ethernet is better than Wifi or that CLI arguments should start with / instead of -.

The effectiveness of such policies can only be determined in light of all the evidence of each case in question.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#594

Post by mpyne » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:55 PM UTC

weavejester wrote: post #328

arrrg wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you didn’t understand me. A. You have to put in the work and actually find stuff out. That’s what journalists do. B. You have to report on something relevant and interesting to the public. Some random person who didn’t do anything of any note is not relevant. Publishing identifying information on them is unethical. Publishing identifying information on someone hugely influential is very much ethical.

So if someone does something of note, they give up their right to privacy, even if that could compromise their own safety?

That's basically what keeps the paparazzi in business, yes. There's a reason the First Amendment rights were listed first, as well, which is the same reason the Guardian has been doing much of their Snowden coverage out of their New York office; press freedom is a big deal, even when that's inconvenient for you...

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#595

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

nwp90 wrote: post #542

anigbrowl wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you aware of the history of the City of London Corporation? And its voting structure? If so, to try to equate it with any other government anywhere, seems rather disingenuous. If not, I suggest you have a look on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

Yes, I worked in the City for years and considered living there as a resident too, when I was living in London. Just because it has an unusual structure doesn't alter the fact that it's a governmental body, and to claim otherwise because of its commercial roots is absurd.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#596

Post by gnarbarian » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:57 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #390

wpietri wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what your proposed cognitive model of anti-government government workers is missing is something Upton Sinclair pointed at: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I've worked for financial trading companies and for advertisers before, but I can't do that work anymore because I think those industries mainly make the world worse. Not won't d…

>>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.

Or someone from a former soviet block country, or Cuban/Venezuelan expats.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#597

Post by mpyne » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 9:57 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #338

Amezarak wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a quick Google search and found plenty of information about Bill Gates, including pictures of his house. In fact you can do this with just about anybody. How and why is he at more risk than any other multimillionaire for whom all this information is public?

Bill Gates uses his money. That means that he can use some of his money on security. He would be in much more danger if he neither used his money nor kept his money in institutions that would raise alarms to authorities if you tried to force him to withdraw all of it.

Nakamoto could use his money too, if he's worried about security. Whether he does or not isn't up to Newsweek.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#598

Post by gnarbarian » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 10:02 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #512

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…

It's true that most self-identifying libertarians would not self-identify as anarchists. But it's also true that the origins of a lot of libertarian thought comes from anarchism.

Libertarians strongly believe in both human rights and property rights. This includes legal/judicial enforcement of contracts and a court with the authority to mediate disputes and punish criminals. Also this includes a police force to help enforce these rights.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#599

Post by argumentum » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 10:02 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #588

argumentum wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he was some coincicentally named private individual, the obvious thing to do .. Why is that so "obvious"? That may be the obvious choice for you , and maybe it's even the "correct" choice. But fame is incredibly enticing ego food.

In which case he has no reason not to say 'why yes I am that international man of mystery!' and milk it for all the gains its worth, eg TV interviews and speaking invitations and so on. Lots of other people have done this sort of thing, and there's nothing illegal about it, just a social cost if you're caught out. It doesn't make sense to argue that he's shunning the media and seduced by fame at the same time.

If he did that, he'd quickly be found out as a fraud. Being demure is the only way to be a "plausible" Satoshi.

I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I don't know, obviously, but I do know that people do things for many strange and contradictory reasons.

Here's a real world example: Hundreds of people have claimed that their father, brother, friend, odd uncle, strange neighbor etc were the Zodiac killer.

Many such claims came along with a lot more "evidence" than has yet been presented about "Dorian S. Nakamoto". Clearly, most of those claims (or all) are false.

Or even something like this: http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/11/sweden-notorious-s...

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#600

Post by mpyne » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 10:02 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #241

arrrg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The press has a lot of knowledge of high interest to the public that they never publish for various reasons. Sometimes they can't prove a relation, other times they don't feel the public can deal with the information and finally sometimes they are simply asked not to post it. the primary kind of stories where this is normal is with politicians. In other words. You argument would have some more weight if it was used e…

> It's not in the public interest to figure out who the creator of bitcoin is. It serves no purpose. It ads no value to bitcoin.

But it is in Newsweek's interest to find the creator of Bitcoin, if they can get the scoop.

It's the free market plus the Bill of Rights (specifically the First Amendment) in action. A perfectly libertarian thing just happened here, IMHO.