Newsweek is running an article called The Face Behind Bitcoin
Below is the URL and an excerpt:
http://ift.tt/1gUvVsh
Two police officers from the Temple City, Calif., sheriff's department flank him, looking puzzled. "So, what is it you want to ask this man about?" one of them asks me. "He thinks if he talks to you he's going to get into trouble."
"I don't think he's in any trouble," I say. "I would like to ask him about Bitcoin. This man is Satoshi Nakamoto."
"What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life."
I'd come here to try to find out more about Nakamoto and his humble life. It seemed ludicrous that the man credited with inventing Bitcoin - the world's most wildly successful digital currency, with transactions of nearly $500 million a day at its peak - would retreat to Los Angeles's San Bernardino foothills, hole up in the family home and leave his estimated $400 million of Bitcoin riches untouched. It seemed similarly implausible that Nakamoto's first response to my knocking at his door would be to call the cops. Now face to face, with two police officers as witnesses, Nakamoto's responses to my questions about Bitcoin were careful but revealing.
The reporter (Leah McGrath Goodman) claims to have tracked down the creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.
The first question is, do you believe Goodman has enough evidence to reasonably believe the man she found is actually the creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.
I don't know much about Nakamoto and bitcoin, but Goodman seems to have made a good circumstantial case. I'm not sure what hard evidence would satisfy everyone, other than a direct admission.
The second question, whether you believe it is actually Nakamoto or not, is did she do a 'bad' thing by 'violating' this persons privacy ? She published the city where he lives, and a picture of his house address, and car with license plate.
It is not illegal, but it seems a bit unnecessary, especially considering he clearly desired privacy. The article comments were almost universally reviling Goodman for doing it.
I think it was unnecessary and wrong, mostly because I don't see any benefit to her revealing it.
Below is the URL and an excerpt:
http://ift.tt/1gUvVsh
Two police officers from the Temple City, Calif., sheriff's department flank him, looking puzzled. "So, what is it you want to ask this man about?" one of them asks me. "He thinks if he talks to you he's going to get into trouble."
"I don't think he's in any trouble," I say. "I would like to ask him about Bitcoin. This man is Satoshi Nakamoto."
"What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life."
I'd come here to try to find out more about Nakamoto and his humble life. It seemed ludicrous that the man credited with inventing Bitcoin - the world's most wildly successful digital currency, with transactions of nearly $500 million a day at its peak - would retreat to Los Angeles's San Bernardino foothills, hole up in the family home and leave his estimated $400 million of Bitcoin riches untouched. It seemed similarly implausible that Nakamoto's first response to my knocking at his door would be to call the cops. Now face to face, with two police officers as witnesses, Nakamoto's responses to my questions about Bitcoin were careful but revealing.
The reporter (Leah McGrath Goodman) claims to have tracked down the creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.
The first question is, do you believe Goodman has enough evidence to reasonably believe the man she found is actually the creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.
I don't know much about Nakamoto and bitcoin, but Goodman seems to have made a good circumstantial case. I'm not sure what hard evidence would satisfy everyone, other than a direct admission.
The second question, whether you believe it is actually Nakamoto or not, is did she do a 'bad' thing by 'violating' this persons privacy ? She published the city where he lives, and a picture of his house address, and car with license plate.
It is not illegal, but it seems a bit unnecessary, especially considering he clearly desired privacy. The article comments were almost universally reviling Goodman for doing it.
I think it was unnecessary and wrong, mostly because I don't see any benefit to her revealing it.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1jW4ila
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire