Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Face Behind Bitcoin?

mag.newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 703 posts

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#661

Post by mindcrime »

bradleyjg wrote: post #280
spindritf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nationalist and libertarian are not orthogonal in practice. Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor. On the theoretical side it goes back to the whole Trotskyism/Stalinism debate.

Try talking to any self professed libertarian about free movement of labor.

Just about every self-professed libertarian I know (and I know a lot) support total freedom of movement of labor. Many of them actually oppose the very idea of nation-states and national borders in general.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#662

Post by crazy1van »

mpyne wrote: post #586
crazy1van wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You make a villain out of them, but when someone like Warren Buffet says 'the rich can contribute more' you applaud him ... Good point on Buffet. Claiming the rich should pay more taxes but having an army of accountants and lawyers on staff to minimize your tax burden seems very hypocritical.

It's not at all hypocritical, as long as he pays that new higher (but minimized-by-army) tax burden, should it actually go through. That's like saying an NFL cornerback who liked the old "push out" rules shouldn't try to push receivers out of bounds before making a catch, as is permitted with the newer rules. You can argue for different rules while playing the game with the rules that are actually on the books.

I disagree.

Warren Buffet's personal income tax rate is not a competitive sport. It only affects his take home pay. I could kind of see your analogy holding for the taxes his company pays because they have to compete with other companies. But I believe Buffet is arguing for a higher personal income/capital gains tax rate. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-...

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#663

Post by anigbrowl »

davesque wrote: post #622
anigbrowl wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from the guy not saying 'no, I am not the inventor of Bitcoin, you have the wrong Satoshi Nakamoto.'

Assuming that he actually said that, of which the author of the article has no proof.

Most journalists carry handheld audio recorders for this very purpose.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#664

Post by mpyne »

frogpelt wrote: post #640
mpyne wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if it was this easy to track him down then I somehow suspect that the U.S. gov't, at least, was not actually trying to do it.

They don't usually write articles about the people that they find.

No, the media usually writes the articles. Just ask DPR.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#665

Post by mpyne »

weavejester wrote: post #654
mpyne wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety?

> Since we're talking ethics, rather than legality, do you believe it's ethically sound to post someone's personal details, and then make (possibly false) claims about them that may compromise their safety?

I don't think it's ethically sound to post his address, license plate information, city, etc. Especially since it leads to crazy media car chases and other sorts of paparazzi-style insanity that I wouldn't wish on anyone, let alone a guy who just wants to be left alone.

I'm also partial to arguments based on safety. It was one of the many reasons I was opposed to what Bradley Manning did, for instance.

However the risk to those affected by Manning was much larger than the risk to Dorian, and in any event I can't remember many people on HN saying before not to post stories about rich people since the unwashed thugs might stick a shiv in them and rob them.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#666

Post by crazy1van »

bane wrote: post #634
crazy1van wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working for the government does not grow the government. The government has decided to grow by hiring a new employee. Your action to take or reject the job doesn't change that. However, believing the government should be smaller and then voting for politicians who want to grow your sector of the government does seem hypocritical.

> Working for the government does not grow the government. Working productively for the government, specifically when non-government alternatives exist, does. Let's say you work in transportation, should you work for the DoT or the company that owns all the toll roads in the region? Let's say you do a damn good job for the DoT and because of your work you drive the the cost per traveled mile per person (or whatever t…

Interesting point. I see how that applies in your DoT / toll road example but that works because they are in a sense two competing entities. That's not the case with a big chunk of the government. For example, a highly productive patent office employee really doesn't do anything to justify the office's existence unlike your DoT worker example. In some ways, issuing a lot of patents might actually prove the patent office should not exist.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#667

Post by Crito »

mpyne wrote: post #647
Crito wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Taking the wallet would not attract attention. Only transferring the coins would, and that could be done hours, days, weeks, hell even years after you've finished beating Satoshi with a wrench in his basement. You could be on step "Getaway" before the rest of the world was notified that something was going on.

Stealing the fortunes of conventional multi-millionaires however necessarily involves interacting with the outside world at the time of the theft. Unless they are drug dealers anyway... there is a reason that drug dealers get hit by thieves so often, and it isn't only because the thieves know they will hesitate to contact police.

If he can no longer access the coins (either because he intentionally destroyed the keys, or because he neglected backups), then proving that to be the case would be damn near impossible. In this hypothetical case, Satoshi may very well believe that he has a better chance of making it unclear that he is actually Satoshi.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#669

Post by baddox »

Jtsummers wrote: post #287
MadManE wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking advantage of the existing situation for maximum personal gain doesn't indicate doublethink. It only indicates that they care more about themselves than they care about "the greater good" - which, in my opinion is how it should be. Somebody's going to be getting paid for doing nothing - it might as well be me.

It's doublethink or hypocrisy to complain about people getting fat off the government dole while getting fat off the government dole.

So am I a bad person for advocating exercise and a healthy diet despite generally failing to observe my own recommendation?

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#670

Post by icebraining »

bane wrote: post #634
crazy1van wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working for the government does not grow the government. The government has decided to grow by hiring a new employee. Your action to take or reject the job doesn't change that. However, believing the government should be smaller and then voting for politicians who want to grow your sector of the government does seem hypocritical.

> Working for the government does not grow the government. Working productively for the government, specifically when non-government alternatives exist, does. Let's say you work in transportation, should you work for the DoT or the company that owns all the toll roads in the region? Let's say you do a damn good job for the DoT and because of your work you drive the the cost per traveled mile per person (or whatever t…

Your analogy works only in the particular case of industries where there's public and private competition; it doesn't apply to many cases. For example, my country doesn't have any private toll roads. How would working for the State prove that it's more effective than toll roads?

And believing that the State cannot be effective is just one of the reasons to oppose its growth. There's more opposition to the State besides the Tea Party, you know?

Post reply on HN