The Face Behind Bitcoin?
641–650 of 703 posts
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#642Earlier 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…
He didn't get rich by just holding the keys, he got rich by getting involved in new tech early. In fact, he helped build something he believes will change the world. Entirely different scenarios.
He (the banker) didn't get rich by just holding the keys, he got rich by getting involved in new tech early (credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, stated income loans, MERS, etc.). In fact, he helped build something he believes will change the world (easy credit for borrowers, safe high yield investments for teacher's pension funds). Never mind that these innovations lead to a housing bubble, a global financial crisis, the borrowers bankrupt and the teachers eating cat food in their retirements, the banker and all his accomplices think he is a cross between George Bailey and Albert Einstein.
The banker blows a housing bubble, Satoshi blows a bitcoin bubble. I would concede that so far the housing bubble has done far more damage, but if bitcoin "succeeds", that could change.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#643This is the best "He is the only person I have ever known to show up for a job interview and tell the interviewer he's an idiot - and then prove it."
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably not actually him.
Then why not simply say so? If she's misquoting him and he actually has nothing to do with Bitcoin, then he could easily sue for libel.
64 year old post stroke retired government security contractor with a paranoid streak who doesn't want to talk to a reporter in any way shape or form to the extent he called the police as soon as she shows up and the evidence she wants us to take as an admission that he is whom she thinks he is is a couple of sentences of dismissive talk about no longer being involved in "that thing".
I find it had to believe that was actually the admission she made it out to be, considering the lengths the real Satoshi took to remain anonymous, it just doesn't make sense that is the venue he would choose to voluntarily rescind his until now well maintained anonymity.
Taken altogether all we have is a collection of completely circumstantial evidence coupled with plenty of things that suggest he is not the real Satoshi and the sole final admission is supposedly hurriedly made in an offhand manner direct to a reporter whom he clearly does not want to have anything to do with.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#645Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why not simply say so? If she's misquoting him and he actually has nothing to do with Bitcoin, then he could easily sue for libel.
64 year old post stroke retired government security contractor with a paranoid streak who doesn't want to talk to a reporter in any way shape or form to the extent he called the police as soon as she shows up and the evidence she wants us to take as an admission that he is whom she thinks he is is a couple of sentences of dismissive talk about no longer being involved in "that thing". I find it had to believe that wa…
Oh and the he flatly denies that it is in a two hour interview directly afterward, to boot. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BITCOIN_FOUNDER_DE...
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
And the free market plus the Bill of Rights plus tort law could punish Newsweek if they're wrong. See my tweet about legal liability: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/441711365888040960
Well, who enforces tort law? The guys with the guns stealing the money from all of us. A government strong enough to suppress the free press is strong enough to oppress the liberties of us all. Etc. etc.
Calling Newsweek 'trash journalism' to shred it of press protections won't do either, as otherwise that would put Wikileaks at risk.
Even if the conclusion of the article is wrong I don't see how you introduce legal liability in the face of the Peter Zenger trial, as long as the facts presented were true (or reasonably believed to be true).
Talking to one's relatives and co-workers is not a crime, after all (and how could it be otherwise; should the government regulate who we can speak to?).
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nakamoto could use his money too, if he's worried about security. Whether he does or not isn't up to Newsweek.
You assume he could. He may not actually still have access to it. This situation isn't really comparable to the general public learning that somebody may or may not have a few million in investments and savings accounts. It is closer to the general public (excluding the police) learning that somebody may or may not have a few kilos of coke stashed somewhere in their home. This hypothetical bitcoin wealth, and the hyp…
The blockchain is visible to all... of course it would attract outside attention.
But only if Nakamoto were actually able to spend it! If he's not able to spend it then he can't hire security I guess, but that would also put him at much lower risk of being burglarized for goods he can't give up. The important thing would seem to be making it clear he doesn't have access (that is, if he doesn't).
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#648Earlier quoted context omitted.
A term exists for such self serving and convenient thinking: cognitive dissonance. The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and yet at the same time have no problem using the fruits of scientific labor like air travel, the Internet or clean water. People just do what's most convenient for them at the time.
The "science-hating religious person" is just a straw man for Dawkins and the like. Most religious people have no problem with science, and see no contradiction between the two. Many of them even are engineers, scientists, and doctors, often some of the most renowned of their fields. The groups who actually do see a contradiction typically aren't hypocritical at all about it, to the point of not getting blood transfu…
Religious thinking and science are contradictory thought models. Believe in both and you are a hypocrite. The fact that someone sees no problem doesn't mean there isn't one.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#649Earlier quoted context omitted.
A term exists for such self serving and convenient thinking: cognitive dissonance. The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and yet at the same time have no problem using the fruits of scientific labor like air travel, the Internet or clean water. People just do what's most convenient for them at the time.
> The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and yet at the same time have no problem using the fruits of scientific labor like air travel, the Internet or clean water. Tone it down or be more specific. You are making a very sweeping generalization. And do not worry, I am not going to get into an extended conversation on this.
That is specific. You cannot believe in imaginary beings and so simultaneously claim that you also believe in science. Doing so just indicates that one is a complete hypocrite.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is... you'd likely see inefficiency and wastefulness in most private sector jobs as well. Almost guaranteed. There are some types of services, like crucial infrastructure, where failure is not an option, hence government, hence sacrificing efficiency in favor of dependability.
Except that I also work in the private sector as well. I have both private and public clients. It's MUCH MUCH worse in government. Also if you're seen as wasteful at a large company you're more likely to be shown the door. The larger the organization the more room there is for waste within its ranks. No organizations are larger than the government.
Speaking as a government employee, not a contractor, we are actually more efficient than my previous private sector jobs. But then again, we have a "build it don't buy it" culture here with a lot of love for open source throughout our services and really only use consultants on ultra specific jobs, due to head count caps from our legislature. Sure there's some union cruft here and there but I've seen similar dead weight in the private sector.
Perhaps you should consider consulting for less well-funded segments of the Government? The constraints make for ingenious solutions.