81–90 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They obviously think this because wealthy Americans are constantly being kidnapped and tortured for their money. Happens all the time right?
I suppose the difference is that most people with a reported $400 million don't keep it in cash at home. As I understand it, Bitcoin is more like cash in that possession is ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why do the press feel entitled to literally show up on someone's doorstep in mass? Mostly? The first amendment...
You are confusing their entitlement, a psychologically concerning lack of proper upbringing, respect and human decency, with rights. I could fill your inbox with abuse, threats and sickening images arguing it’s my god-given privilege — you’d still wonder why on Earth I would feel like ruining your life like that. And as pointed out, you are wrong about to whom the First Amendment applies to.
Just that some poorly trained journalists and misguided internet armchair pundits choose to interpret it that way.
While I do feel bad for this guy's current situation (he clearly doesn't want any attention... sort of like the bitcoin Satoshi...hmm!), I really don't understand why so many people are jumping to the conclusion that this story is wrong/fake/some sort of conspiracy or whatever. If there were a reasonable way to settle it for sure, I'd bet a substantial amount of money that this is the bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto. The pi…
I don't think I know enough either way to make a good bet and I'm not sure that reporter does either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can I take you up on that bet? This is the first time I've seen reddit (since it's become a mainstream phenomenon) be more reasonable than hacker news. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zpuer/the_newsweek... > The pieces laid out fit pretty well. What pieces? That he's kind of odd, according to his family ? (if you were to take my family, which is fairly normal, 1/2 of us think the other 1/2 are odd). Who…
"What a shoddy piece of journalism." You base this conclusion on one line of speculation in the article? Did you miss the part where the journalist flew out, went to the person's house and spoke to them to confirm it was really him before running the story? Sounds like excellent journalism to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anger is coming from the bitcoin community, mostly because they're afraid for Satoshi's life. Someone could kidnap/torture him to try to get his bitcoins.
Or his family. At his departure from the project he made it obvious that he wanted to be left alone so people should respect his wishes.
Journalists are in the business of finding out information that's useful for an open democratic society in making decisions. If this person might be the genuine Satoshi, then it stands to reason he might offer useful information or a new perspective on Bitcoin or money in general.
Thus I think to not pursue this story as a journalist would be a violation of j-ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also missed the class where you should have learned that human rights are universal and are not diminished by being wealthy. It's also the wrong guy by the way.
Because asking a (possible) rich guy a question is a huge violation of his human rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also missed the class where you should have learned that human rights are universal and are not diminished by being wealthy. It's also the wrong guy by the way.
Because asking a (possible) rich guy a question is a huge violation of his human rights.
In the words of Lebowski: It's not wrong, it's being an asshole.
While I do feel bad for this guy's current situation (he clearly doesn't want any attention... sort of like the bitcoin Satoshi...hmm!), I really don't understand why so many people are jumping to the conclusion that this story is wrong/fake/some sort of conspiracy or whatever. If there were a reasonable way to settle it for sure, I'd bet a substantial amount of money that this is the bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto. The pi…
Well, yes, of course it causes cognitive dissonance. It is 2014 year now and buzz around his personality is going for a pretty long time already. Both virtual and that one Satoshi-s are said to be worried about anonimity, using VPN to send emails, etc. And yet it is said he used his real name all this time. And being discovered only now by some journalist. Seriously, it is weird just by itself, not mentioning all the…
I wouldn't be surprised if there are other programmers named Satoshi Nakamoto. McBay is a fairly uncommon name and I'm not even the only programmer named George McBay and the other one (who as far as I know isn't directly related in any way) is from Japan! Small world!
But that aside it isn't just the tech/math background, it is the total picture as laid out in the article. Unless the article is totally fabricated, which I have no reason to believe it is, the case it makes is pretty compelling.
In the video he says "I'm not involved in Bitcoin" (present tense) which is not inconsistent with what was reported in the Newsweek article: >"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection." I say this because the headline is trying to…
Well the newsweek article also included a back and forth with a police officer that likely never happened, and they also just published an article that "proves" heaven exists because a former scientist went into a coma and saw some pretty things while dreaming. I'm not sure there's a high barrier to meet here, or that we can't assume he was misquoted in the original article.
I'm Satoshi Nakamoto, and so is my wife. But seriously, if this really is the Satoshi Nakamoto and he has been seriously ill with two seperate life threatening illnesses in the recent past, how come none of those bitcoin he supposedly owns have shifted on medical bills?