781–790 of 905 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well given they have hunreds of millions of dollars to protect themselves with, it seems like it would be a good time to start using it.
Imagine mafia knocking on your door and putting a gun to your head because some journalist figured out you are secret billionare. Not cool?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's most of his name. Long before his full name became common knowledge, you could already Google "Scott Alexander psychiatrist" and find him almost instantly.
That part of things is what really made this entire argument all apart of me. There are ~50k psychiatrists in the US. Roughly, 1 in 10k people in the US is named Scott. Mathematically, that means knowing "Scott is a psychiatrist" brings you down to ~5 people. Even if we assume there's some outlier clustering of people named Scott who are psychiatrists, we're still talking about some small number. Surely adding in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Water? Like, from the toilet?
Ah yes, the cautionary tale where the leadership is willing to accept their own faults, seeks out the most competent to solve their issue, despite initial reservations are willing to go with the suggestions provided and a public that, upon being provided evidence accepts it. Kinda hopeful, if one thinks about it, the Eugenics nonsense notwithstanding…
They also consumed all of the french fries and burrito coverings, and were otherwise reduced to eating Flaturin -- "Hand-to-Mouth Goodness". Let us also not forget about the Great Trash Avalanche of 2506.
It was only towards the very end that they came 'round to using water (from the toilet!) for crops, put the smart dude in charge, and they all lived happily ever after.
Perhaps it'd have been a better fit if they actually killed the protagonist, Not Sure, and faded to black after the last edible plant was shown to wither and die. Maybe the end credits could have even included sepia-toned photos akin to those from the Siege of Leningrad, with slow Ken Burns-style layered pans and zooms documenting the peril.
But, I mean: It was supposed to be a comedy. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not reading your suggested implication at all in the other person's comment.
It’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?
You're assuming and extrapolating.
"this particular case" ≠ "never"
Simple question for anyone who’s familiar with this world of journalism: how does the author and the NYTimes cope with the fact that making such claims paint a huge target on the person they claim to have “unmasked”? Satoshi’s wallets are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and there have been kidnappings/torture/murders for much less than that. Do they just not care about the ethical implications? And really, for…
This one is challenging I think because the article itself is so thin. The evidence seems really shaky. That said, clearly a lot of people really do seem to care who Satoshi is, so it doesn't seem like its out of the question for a newspaper to print an article claiming to answer that question. > Do they just not care about the ethical implications? Did Satoshi not care about the ethical implications of creating bitc…
Nobody seems to be angry at the inventor of coins and bills, though.
The simplest filter to exclude potential Satoshi candidates is to read Satoshi's early posts discussing bitcoin which never seems to come up in these convos. He had a calm, cool, consistent, professional demeanor. Always worlds different than the people people claim him to be. You'd have to believe these public figures were playing 4D chess where they invented a persona and spent a couple years impeccably roleplaying…
This comment rings true to me as someone who contemporaneously read Satoshi's posts (not from the very beginning but on bitcointalk.org). People are underestimating how difficult (and probably pointless) it is to create and maintain a whole personality in aid of subterfuge. There are so many other easier and less risky ways to achieve the same goal than to adopt a consistent persona that's far from your own; you coul…
It's very common for this to happen when media are trying to unmask an anonymous figure. There are parallels with the furore around Burial's nomination for the Mercury Prize, journalists picking any number of seemingly random and unlikely well-known names to attribute as being him, when the truth was that he really just wasn't interested in publicity and preferred to live in peace and quiet. Now, in the days of social media etc. it seems even more unimaginable to them that someone would want to remain in the background and not claim the limelight for their work.
I'm Satoshi Nakamoto. AMA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satoshi cannot spend his fortune. If he did, it would be visible on the blockchain and bitcoin's price would collapse.
their wealth is not in a single wallet, but rather in 20k wallets. So instead transferring bitcoin, they could just hand out access those wallets.