For a professional journalist to sink to such a level - with zero consideration for others in order to advance their own career - never ceases to amaze me.
Isn't that what professional journalists routinely do?
The Face Behind Bitcoin?
501–510 of 703 posts
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#502Isn't this entire article illegal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_informa... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy_law#Califor... Whatever. Satoshi-san can sue if he likes. The damage done in the article alone is devastating for even persecution charges.
No. Those laws only make it illegal to release information, or insufficiently protect it, in a legal relationship of trust and guardianship (and to gather such information by pretending to be party to such a relationship). No such relationship exists here, and unless a SSN (or equivalent protected identifier) was released, it's merely ethically questionable, not illegal.
Even if it was, lawsuits are entirely public, and filing and litigating one would result in exponentially more publicity than this article has already given him.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest I agree with you that there quite a few red flags about this article. However, short of Newsweek outright making everything up, isn't the lack of a denial in this instance tantamount to an admission? I mean, if it were me, and I valued my privacy that much, I would a) have used an actual pseudonym, b) responded to questions about Bitcoin with "bit-what-now"?
isn't the lack of a denial in this instance tantamount to an admission? I mean, if it were me, [...] responded to questions about Bitcoin with "bit-what-now"? If all his friends and family know he shares his name with the creator of bitcoin, he might have already heard all the jokes and think "not this shit again" as well as not being able to credibly deny knowing about it. There's a british general who goes by Mike…
Hearing jokes about it and having a reporter turn up from a well-known national news publication seeking an interview are two entirely different things. Really, these are the sort of arguments I'd expect from a surly 13-year old.
If he was some coincicentally named private individual, the obvious thing to do would be to deny being the celebrity Nakamoto, and possibly to advise the reporter to discuss the matter with his lawyer.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#504There's one thing that doesn't add up: why would such a privacy conscious man use his real name on a project he thought might be illegal? If he was so serious about his privacy, he would not have used his real name in public.
Why would Bitcoin be illegal?
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
Minor correction. Slander is oral; libel is written. Nothing to do with public figures or not. The distinction you're looking for is that, for public figures (which may or may not apply in this case), actual malice--as opposed to just falsehood--may need to proven in order to get a judgement.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#506Earlier 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…
My understanding from my Libertarian Ron/Rand Paul friends is that they believe the Federal government should not have a single program that's not explicitly specified in the U.S. Constitution. It's not really a viewpoint I totally agree with, but people who are really deep students of the philosophy come across as pretty internally consistent in their viewpoint. I think their's a good place for this type of politic.…
> My understanding from my Libertarian Ron/Rand Paul friends is that they believe the Federal government should not have a single program that's not explicitly specified in the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitutionalist argument is mostly an outer limit on their support for government programs. They also believe that the federal government shouldn't do many things that it is expressly empowered to do in the Constitution.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#507Earlier 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…
ITYM "no government-sponsored space program".
Right. The whole SpaceX/Armadillo Aerospace/etc. situation that is developing now is almost definitionally Libertarian.
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#508The biases of this article aside, he sounds like a very interesting man. It saddens me that the way we found out who he really is was by a very gross invasion of his privacy. A sit down interview (in person or virtually)would have been much more interesting. I would have liked to have known eventually, but not like this
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> 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?
Re: The Face Behind Bitcoin?
#510Earlier 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…
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.
Murder is terrible
brb gotta murder someone.