791–800 of 905 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another example of how the article failed to do basic research.
Blockstream is mentioned multiple times, as is Back's wealth; > It was the beginning of an era in which Mr. Back quickly amassed influence and became a ring leader in the still small Bitcoin community. To staff Blockstream, he poached the top Bitcoin Core developers from their day jobs at companies like Google and Mozilla, giving him tremendous sway over the digital currency. He also became very wealthy: Over the nex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If any of those addresses sold a single sat the price would crash hard .
I would bet heavily against that. Someone selling single Satoshis from Satoshi's stash would herald the second coming of Satoshi. Can you imagine the hype?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it different from all the non-secret billionaires to say nothing of all the people with 100s of millions?
You really dont get it? Because real billionares have the money and you dont. Journalists just told everyone you are billionare, but you're just average SWE on $120k / year and absolutely no money for hiring small army of guards. Neither your own government agencies keep your back protected like they do for usual high profile people. Now go find a proof for mafia that you are not in fact have a billion bucks on USD s…
FWIW, in this instance Adam Back is also a non-secret billionaire, mostly from his public involvement in a number of ventures within the Bitcoin ecosystem. The difference is closer to 1 order of magnitude than the 4 you're proposing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No, it's not the logical conclusion of that statement. You're assuming and extrapolating. "this particular case" ≠ "never"
I can’t get past the fact that Hal Finney lived around the corner from someone called “ Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto” I know coincidences happen but that’s one hell of a coincidence
Yeah this one seems absolutely insane, how many Satoshi Nakamotos are there in the world? It's very plausible to see the name on a mailbox (or meet the person) and think "that'd be a cool handle." And it's so wildly improbable that someone else would make up exactly the name of a neighbor of one of a small clique of obscure internet cypherpunks. It's not like the name was "John Smith" or anything. But I don't know ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The actual Satoshi could forfeit 90% of their BTC and still have more than they could know what to do with. Ha, that may be technically true but when did you ever find a billionaire who would be OK with it?
Bill Gates is doing just that; to name one of many throughout recent history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not the logical conclusion of that statement. You're assuming and extrapolating. "this particular case" ≠ "never"
Which I addressed with the last sentence, if you think someone dose es special treatment, it’s even worse. What makes him special? That he’s rich?
I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, "charitable work". I'm sure a foundation like that could make a good front for child trafficking. Not that Bill would ever do such a thing obviously, his common interests with that old rascal Jeff must have strictly included other things.
Are you asserting that the Gates Foundation was a front for sex trafficking? Or are you just saying shit because you think the memes are cute and will get you social media approval? I assume you think you're adding some kind of value to the discussion, here. But who knows, maybe you just really fucking love malaria.
Do you know what an assertion is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have that backwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#Anti-reaction...
No, unfortunately they don't. Scott Alexander Siskind is definitely sympathetic to race science and neoreaction, that's WHY he wrote the "anti"-reactionary FAQ. It's probably the most popular document about "neoreaction" on the internet and made many many people more aware of neoreactionary ideas. He did this intentionally because he likes neoreactionaries and thinks they are correct about race science and that they'…
> If you're the kind of person who is naive enough ...
That wasn't necessary. But I acknowledge that I should have dug deeper before posting that.