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

681–690 of 703 posts

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#681

Post by Amezarak »

Crito wrote: post #667
mpyne wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Generally, kidnapping and torturing a suburbanite and/or his family attracts some attention.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#682

Post by ThomPete »

mpyne wrote: post #646
declan wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are missing the point.

It doesn't matter how you turn it around. Journalists always have a choice and they constantly keep stuff out of the public.

What matters is not whether they are legally allowed to do these things but whether they should had.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#683

Post by Torgo »

mpyne wrote: post #593
Torgo wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well yeah, I am just saying that "bankers keys" are like having administrator access. It's built into the system, it's not hacking. But you can still abuse it. "bankers keys" don't have an analogy in bitcoin because there's no defined administrator role, your power is proportional to your holdings. Well, there is a soft administrator power, which is, being a primary developer on it.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#684

Post by icebraining »

bane wrote: post #678
crazy1van wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 off…

Well, to specifically look at your patent example. Patents are one of the few things most types of Constitutionally focused Libertarian movements explicitly allow (U.S.C. Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8). But more generally, there are lots of things that only governments can do, that no free-market alternative can provide comparably, or can provide structure to where the non-government solution provides inefficient chaos.…

What does this have to do with the hypocrisy issue?

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#685

Post by theorique »

astrodust wrote: post #382
theorique wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My government job is cool, because I do work and stuff. Other people, of course, suck at the government teat, and drive welfare Cadillacs to the welfare office to pick up their food stamps and welfare check to pay for their 15 kids by different fathers. In other words, if you do it, it's wrong and you need to change. If I do it, it's because you just don't understand. (Edit: Do we need an irony tag? This is a humorou…

If only it was actually humorous...

ouch ...

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#686

Post by theorique »

mattgibson wrote: post #401
theorique wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My government job is cool, because I do work and stuff. Other people, of course, suck at the government teat, and drive welfare Cadillacs to the welfare office to pick up their food stamps and welfare check to pay for their 15 kids by different fathers. In other words, if you do it, it's wrong and you need to change. If I do it, it's because you just don't understand. (Edit: Do we need an irony tag? This is a humorou…

This is called the fundamental attribution error: If I do it, I know the circumstances so it's understandable, whereas if you do it, the circumstances are unclear so I blame your (assumed to be unpleasant) personality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Thanks, I hadn't known there was a psychological term for it.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#687

Post by baddox »

bane wrote: post #652
baddox wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Which is often what happens right? Where do you draw the line? What about using tax-funded roads, or regulated industries like air travel?

It doesn't mean I agree with that method. But it's at least internally consistent and I can respect the ideology and politics from it. I happily think that my taxes help buy the civilization I enjoy. I actually believe the concept that government is not some impersonal monolithic bureaucracy, but is what Lincoln enshrined as "by the people, of the people and for the people". When the IRS makes a mistake and gives me…

> I actually believe the concept that government is not some impersonal monolithic bureaucracy, but is what Lincoln enshrined as "by the people, of the people and for the people".

In my view, that is either an untestable (and therefore essentially meaningless) hypothesis, or it's a testable hypothesis that fails nearly every test.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#688

Post by baddox »

Jtsummers wrote: post #675
baddox wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not at all, that's only loosely comparable. To really make it a fair comparison: You'd be a bad person if you thought that obesity was a sign of moral failings, and looked down on those people. All while stuffing your face with your third cake of the day, washing it down with your second liter of coke. If, in that situation, you couldn't recognize yourself as obese and consequently suffering from the same "moral fail…

Ok, so exercise and diet generally isn't a moral issue these days (sloth and gluttony aside). So what about things that are widely considered virtuous, like keeping promises and appointments, being honest/genuine, not being selfish, not being a dick, etc.? I fail at those things a lot as well, but still consider violations to not be virtuous. Perhaps I don't actually look down on people (at least until they make those violations their norm), but I would still advocate these virtues despite failing at them myself.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#689

Post by Jtsummers »

baddox wrote: post #688
Jtsummers wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, that's only loosely comparable. To really make it a fair comparison: You'd be a bad person if you thought that obesity was a sign of moral failings, and looked down on those people. All while stuffing your face with your third cake of the day, washing it down with your second liter of coke. If, in that situation, you couldn't recognize yourself as obese and consequently suffering from the same "moral fail…

Ok, so exercise and diet generally isn't a moral issue these days (sloth and gluttony aside). So what about things that are widely considered virtuous, like keeping promises and appointments, being honest/genuine, not being selfish, not being a dick, etc.? I fail at those things a lot as well, but still consider violations to not be virtuous. Perhaps I don't actually look down on people (at least until they make thos…

Do you acknowledge that it's a personal failing of yours even when you also find it undesirable in others? Then you're being at least somewhat fair and reasonable.

Do you shun others when they fail at it? Do you respond poorly when someone calls you out for having the same problems? Then you're somewhere in that hypocrisy/doublethink territory. (from what you've written it sounds like you're in the first group, not the second.)

It's really a lot about the degree and self-awareness of the individual. A federal employee is not a hypocrite for wanting smaller government. A federal employee is a hypocrite/doublethinker for failing to acknowledge that they want a smaller government, their program is too large or wasteful (F-35!) and that they should be affected by cuts.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#690

Post by hisabness »

mcphilip wrote: post #15

Apparently the author of this newsweek piece will be on CNBC sometime this morning: https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/441544016421978112

the best part of the interview is when she says she used a team of investigators similar to the CIA, and then goes onto thank only 2 people for their work. hilarious.
Post reply on HN