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

391–400 of 703 posts

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#391

Post by mseebach »

bane wrote: post #308
jeremyt wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take you at your word that you're actually curious. I think you're seeing hypocrisy here when there is really a lot less in reality. People who are in favor of a certain outcome have no obligation to act as if that outcome has already come to pass. This is why I don't give liberals a hard time because they are in favor of higher taxes but don't voluntarily pay higher taxes themselves. First of all, most…

> I'm going to take you at your word that you're actually curious. I actually do find it curious, but frustrating. I have a great many friends, who I quite like in normal face-to-face interaction, who I've FB friended, and found I had to unfollow their feeds because in private they turn into rabid ideologues...from every part of the political spectrum. In this case I'm isolating conservative/libertarian folks, but I…

> Yeah that's true in theory. But it can get out of control. It's like attending a rally about having too many strip clubs in your neighborhood, then chilling out after the rally in your local neighborhood strip club.

It's a strained analogy, as strip clubs are fundamentally about the thing people who are opposed to them find objectionable - the stripping. Most things government is about these days isn't the thing libertarians or conservatives oppose.

They generally don't oppose that education or the environment is being studied or recommendations are being created - they oppose that the government coerces people to pay for the study and follow the recommendation.

If you're a passionate researcher of things environmental, you probably won't be able to pursue your passion if you cut out government employment - and if you live near DC, most jobs will be "contaminated" by government. Nothing about libertarianism compels you to move to a less government-y place just so you can work a more ideologically pure job.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#392

Post by michaelq »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #81
nwh wrote: post #22

Being labeled Satoshi regardless of truth is pretty much going to get you robbed, kidnapped or killed. This dude lives in this town and has $400M of untraceable currency? The article gives his name, face, address and relatives. You can be sure as hell that somebody will do something stupid to try and get to it. I wouldn't wish this label upon anybody, it's exactly why the community tries to avoid speculating about it…

Also, if Nakamoto wishes to remain private, then it's their right to remain private.

He used his real name. And a distinct name, at that. There are only 8 results on LinkedIn for "Satoshi Nakamoto", and at least one of them is a fake one. If he truly wished to remain anonymous. And despite this, it took journalists 5 years to find him. If he'd made up a name, he could have probably been anonymous for life. But he chose vanity over anonymity. And now he's an outed public figure. He can no longer sue for 'slander' and must instead argue the much more difficult case of 'libel'.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#393

Post by bane »

3pt14159 wrote: post #324
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…

Well bane let me, a libertarian, explain to you why I worked for the government while I was a libertarian. Sometimes the solutions that are government mandated or subsidized would appear in a different form if the government didn't run them. So, for example, mass transit, like subways would still exist if the government didn't use coercion to fund and run it, it would just be owned by private individuals. Just becaus…

> When you live in a system that coerces you into giving up half of your income it doesn't mean that you are in the wrong for working for it or even taking things like subsidies.

I'm positing that it does.

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?

Privatization of previously government run programs is one of the example methods for doing that. I'm not interested in discussing the politics of this method, or if it is good or bad. I'm interested in cases where somebody specifically holds a viewpoint, then does everything in their power to work against that very viewpoint.

You were perfectly capable of finding a job that wasn't with the government, yet you specifically chose to apply, interview, get hired and maintain employment with an entity that you didn't agree with. I bet you signed paperwork and everything and happily collected your taxpayer provided paycheck.

It's actually the very definition of hypocrisy to the letter. In fact you put effort into ensuring that you behaved as a hypocrite.

It sucks, and sometimes people do hypocritical things. I'm not condemning you for it. But I do think it's more useful to call a thing what it is and proceed from there.

If you say "I'm a hyprocrite, it sucks and I know it but...meh." I'm actually fine with that.

But saying you aren't when you explicitly, textbook definition, are, is silliness and no amount of explanation or word bending can change that.

It's this exact behavior, this lack of meta-cognition and self-awareness that I find explicitly curious. You haven't explained why you engaged in hypocritical activities at all. You simply said that you did it and that what you did isn't hypocritical and you should be free and clear from behavior inconsistent with your beliefs because...?

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#394

Post by crazy1van »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #350
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…

Hypocrites are everywhere even in the private sector, nothing particularly strange that they exist in the public one. >I've even pointed out point-blank that their salaries are paid for by the same taxes they rail against incessantly and are met with blank stares or wry grimaces before they launch into an extended soliloquy about "values" or personal responsibility or some such. There's this kind of sick expectation…

> 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.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#395

Post by dragonwriter »

bane wrote: post #366
omegaham wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god yes. I'm currently a relatively junior flunky in the Marine Corps, and the GS civilians who work here are hilarious. "We need to cut the fat!" We work at a minor airbase in the middle of nowhere... oh. Oops. Whatever we are, it sure as hell ain't muscle. "Government spending is out of control" while talking about how they exploit the DTS system to get as much per diem as possible. "Those lazy people who expect…

One of the things I find curious is the dichotomy between rhetoric and intent. "We need to shrink the government!" Sequestration happens "Well not those specific things I like!" Doesn't that imply then that those bits that shouldn't have been shrunk are therefore not part of what they think is "the government"? Considering that the list of things that usually people who want to shrink the government think should be e…

> Doesn't that imply then that those bits that shouldn't have been shrunk are therefore not part of what they think is "the government"?

No, what you are doing is demonstrating the fallacy of division. The proposition "we should shrink government" is not equivalent to, and does not imply, the proposition "we should shrink every individual component of government".

There is a legitimate case to be made that many people who would assert the need to shrink government in aggregate haven't actually considered things sufficiently and would not maintain that position if they considered things program by program, by it is quite wrong to argue that not wanting some particular programs to be cut, by itself, contradicts wanting the government cut in aggregate.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#396

Post by demo9898 »

sounds wrote: post #98
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…

If you're so comfortable with journalism, I'd like to interview you. But first please provide: • Full names and home towns of your children and your wife • Picture of your house – include a clear photo of your car's license plate • Your home town, so anyone can locate you on Google Maps • Your work history • Your net worth • Your health history • Any notable personality traits you have, so the whole world can comment…

The following is a 'proof-of-concept' comment that will be taken down within 24 hours or at user arrrg's request, whichever comes sooner.

Extracted from user's own comment history:

Nationality: German, Caucasian

Location: In proximity to Bonn; possibly residing in an apartment within a zone with a higher than average ethnic population.

Occupation: Computer related

Educational background: possibly engineering / physical sciences

Siblings: At least one sister

Operating system: OSX or higher

Screen resolution: 1440x900, 15.4 inch screen

Primary and secondary education: possibly in Bavaria; victim of bullying.

Political affiliations: self-identified socialist

Police record: 1 traffic stop, no citation; 1 5 euro fine for jaywalking.

Age: 25 or older

Possible attendee of: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/schedule.html

Possible mis-identification: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/Fahrplan/speakers/4144.ht... (video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBQ8xRM3jQk)

Living room audio: Airplay speaker

Mobile phone: iPhone 5s

Screenshot of user's google search results: http://imgur.com/a/Yco1R#0

Possible user of: Inkpad, iTunes

Apple maintenance record: In 2007, MacBook Pro battery suffered an unusual number of failures, requiring repeated replacement.

preemptive quotations from user's own comment history in response to possible responses:

quoted 47 days ago: "The only legitimate use case to me seems not displaying possibly sensitive information"

quoted 144 days ago: "Naming and shaming? What the hell are you on about?"

"Sometimes I hate stupid engineers. They are such assholes sometimes that just do not get it at all. This fucking thing is some stupid fun. Nothing more. I’m not sure what this cynicism burning with the power of a million suns shit is all about."

"Seems pretty reasonable to me that on a page like this every piece of content deserves its own history state. At least it’s a completely valid view, nothing to go apeshit over."

Note: quotes are deliberately out of context.

Note 2: The above information is sufficient to personally identify the user if someone is willing to spend the research effort.

Note 3: Personal opinions about the user's personality/character have been avoided.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#398

Post by masmullin »

verroq wrote: post #192
sounds wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine. Your skills give you the power, with a little effort, to invade someone's privacy. Because he's famous, you're more likely to pick on him. A journalist has the ability to take that to a whole new level by really shining a spotlight on it. Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.

I doubt that he's in much trouble with his 400m

I doubt that he even has that bitcoin anymore. I expect that he lost the coin and thus is bitter and doesn't want to talk about it.

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#399

Post by dragonwriter »

bmelton wrote: post #369
Jtsummers wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but…

> Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets.

If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution.

> It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in.

So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?

Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?

#400

Post by crazy1van »

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.

If they argued for bigger government because it directly benefits them, they'd be criticized for that too.
Post reply on HN