So Newsweek "encourages all to be respectful of the privacy and rights of the individuals involved." It might have been nice to consider that before publishing a legible photo of Nakamoto's license plate.
It just occurred to me how ridiculous this whole article is...they cite his supposed $400 million Bitcoin stash and then post a photo of his home and license plate. I just pray nobody goes snooping around looking for his (potentially nonexistent) BTC wallet.
There are some values of Satoshi that would make some people change their minds: if it were an NSA operation, or a neo-Nazi group, or Scientologists, or Intellectual Ventures.
Personally, I try pretty hard to not use things created by assholes, even if the things themselves are good. (You can't avoid things made by people with abrasive personalities, but I don't think I regularly use anything made by a genuine asshole.)
Since being sold to the Daily Beast and then the IB Times, not very high. There are a lot of factual errors in their "Fall of France" article and even when pointed out Newsweek refuses to acknowledge any of them.
Google Newsweek and "Hitler diaries."
Google Newsweek and Quran and retraction.
They're one of the most inconsistent publications I've ever seen. Lots of great work that stands the test of time. Also some past accuracy problems that were big enough to make headlines.
> Moreover, [Newsweek] encourages all to be respectful of the privacy and rights of the individuals involved.
It takes ignorance, stupidity or both to not realize that this "encouragement" is nothing compared to the several $100M that the Satoshi Nakamoto owns incentivizing many people to trample his privacy and rights.
Why would him having a bunch of (potential) money cause a lot of people to try to bother him? Steve Jobs, for example, had a lot of (actual) money, and managed to get by OK in his Palo Alto home, whose address was very well known, and was on a public street that was easy to get to, and maintain his privacy. The same goes for most people with large amounts of money.
Is there some reason that Bitcoin millionaires are more likely to be harassed than normal millionaires?
[+] [-] DennisP|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dropbear|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jere|12 years ago|reply
Bullshit. Revealing who Satoshi is doesn't give you one shred of information to help you decide whether or not to invest in Bitcion.
[+] [-] tlb|12 years ago|reply
Personally, I try pretty hard to not use things created by assholes, even if the things themselves are good. (You can't avoid things made by people with abrasive personalities, but I don't think I regularly use anything made by a genuine asshole.)
[+] [-] lolwutf|12 years ago|reply
Whoever Satoshi is does control an amount of BTC that could significantly shift the market if they suddenly did something with it...
[+] [-] jere|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrush|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TrainedMonkey|12 years ago|reply
Can anyone comment on their editorial and ethical standards? How high are they to begin with?
[+] [-] ktsmith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GCA10|12 years ago|reply
They're one of the most inconsistent publications I've ever seen. Lots of great work that stands the test of time. Also some past accuracy problems that were big enough to make headlines.
[+] [-] tomp|12 years ago|reply
It takes ignorance, stupidity or both to not realize that this "encouragement" is nothing compared to the several $100M that the Satoshi Nakamoto owns incentivizing many people to trample his privacy and rights.
[+] [-] tzs|12 years ago|reply
Is there some reason that Bitcoin millionaires are more likely to be harassed than normal millionaires?
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kbelbina|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intslack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balladeer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justtocommenta|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]