4 ms·

There's evidence of deliberate deception, alongside a suspicious lack of evidence about what transpired out of view of the public. So there are grounds to belie

by Aqueous 10y ago

There's evidence of deliberate deception, alongside a suspicious lack of evidence about what transpired out of view of the public. So there are grounds to believe this guy is full of shit.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
To play devil's advocate, this guy might be adept at deception because he's deceived people regarding his pseudonym for many years. (Just a thought.) I don't know, Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise, you don't know, we all don't know. I choose the fun explanations and wait to see if I'm right, with the completely reasonable position that I, nor anybody else, cannot possibly know if the theory is correct with the data available. The alternative is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards, which most folks seem to be doing. Who cares? Seriously, why does it matter? He is or he isn't. Wait and see. To me, Gavin Andresen's position on this is the fly in the grand conspiracy ointment, and it's funny how all of the theories involve Andresen being incompetent or compromised to work around that problem. I saw people start referring to the possibility that one of the highest folks in Bitcoin is autistic and easily fooled by a con man, and I was just laying in bed last night reading it and shaking my head. This thread is doing it, too, discussing a person they've never met and how he's lost his senses or accepted payment to lie. Giant mess. John upthread is right.
- osweiller 10y ago
  No one is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards. You do a disservice to your argument when that sort of caricature has to be the only alternative to your arguably gullible "prove a negative" attitude towards this. Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise While you claim that you have no stake or position in this, your other post borders on the bizarre, with you seemingly completely misunderstanding the arguments made and then, having carefully constructed an absurd strawman, you confidently knock it down. Anyone can be tricked by a con man with no shame. This includes very smart people. Anyone who controls the hardware and the network can render virtually any proof useless without moving outside of their control (which is extremely easy to do), and it can be a fun parlour trick. In this case we have someone with a long history of casual trickery (if not fraud) who, while under an impending cloud of peril, and with months to contrive a magic trick, convinced a single person.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    You mean convinced at least five people and three editors, and the fact that I know that should indicate that I am pretty familiar with the course of events despite your suggestion otherwise. I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush, because what I said basically presents no argument. I actually take pains to illustrate, and reillustrate in a followup, that I have no idea. It's pretty difficult to build a straw man if you readily admit that you have no idea. Kinda undermines the alleged straw man. My sole position is that the Bitcoin community very often reacts perplexingly to external stimulus, and that when I opened the Bitcoin client in 2009 and accidentally mined a block and got 50 BTC, I should have kept it instead of wiping the machine. And that people would most likely tear me apart for trying to have a little fun with the situation. (Which is happening, and I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care.) Edit: I can't reply any more, but suffice to say your last comment is probably the funniest you've made yet, in that you made it personal and hilariously so. Please continue to tell me how much I care, how gullible and absurd and foolish and wishfully-heroic I am for concocting an amusing, to me, theory for something that completely doesn't matter, and keep on dragging this thread beyond the pale of uncivilness. You're only proving my point about Bitcoin threads on HN and beyond. I already pointed out I'm having fun with my theory. You missed that and are apparently waiting for me to make it Serious, which I will continue to stubbornly refuse to do. Sorry. You'll have to Be Serious about Bitcoin with someone else, both because Hacker News won't let me continue this and also because I'm getting actual work done while this thread goes on. I will respond to this with a bit of Serious, though: > Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. I spent the first several years of my working life in journalism, and happen to know folks at two of the publications that ran with this. One of them, in particular, vetted this story far more than you'd think before betting the masthead on it after the Goodman debacle and yes, I have inside information on that which I am not going to share out of respect to a friend. I think it's quite easy to dismiss the media as incompetent and chasing views, but you should really think hard about that assertion. Bitcoin is double-confirmation territory these days for most newsrooms precisely due to Goodman. And don't worry, GQ puzzles me just as much as you.

by Aqueous 10y ago

There's evidence of deliberate deception, alongside a suspicious lack of evidence about what transpired out of view of the public. So there are grounds to believe this guy is full of shit.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

To play devil's advocate, this guy might be adept at deception because he's deceived people regarding his pseudonym for many years. (Just a thought.) I don't know, Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise, you don't know, we all don't know. I choose the fun explanations and wait to see if I'm right, with the completely reasonable position that I, nor anybody else, cannot possibly know if the theory is correct with the data available. The alternative is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards, which most folks seem to be doing. Who cares? Seriously, why does it matter? He is or he isn't. Wait and see. To me, Gavin Andresen's position on this is the fly in the grand conspiracy ointment, and it's funny how all of the theories involve Andresen being incompetent or compromised to work around that problem. I saw people start referring to the possibility that one of the highest folks in Bitcoin is autistic and easily fooled by a con man, and I was just laying in bed last night reading it and shaking my head. This thread is doing it, too, discussing a person they've never met and how he's lost his senses or accepted payment to lie. Giant mess. John upthread is right.

osweiller 10y ago
No one is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards. You do a disservice to your argument when that sort of caricature has to be the only alternative to your arguably gullible "prove a negative" attitude towards this. Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise While you claim that you have no stake or position in this, your other post borders on the bizarre, with you seemingly completely misunderstanding the arguments made and then, having carefully constructed an absurd strawman, you confidently knock it down. Anyone can be tricked by a con man with no shame. This includes very smart people. Anyone who controls the hardware and the network can render virtually any proof useless without moving outside of their control (which is extremely easy to do), and it can be a fun parlour trick. In this case we have someone with a long history of casual trickery (if not fraud) who, while under an impending cloud of peril, and with months to contrive a magic trick, convinced a single person.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  You mean convinced at least five people and three editors, and the fact that I know that should indicate that I am pretty familiar with the course of events despite your suggestion otherwise. I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush, because what I said basically presents no argument. I actually take pains to illustrate, and reillustrate in a followup, that I have no idea. It's pretty difficult to build a straw man if you readily admit that you have no idea. Kinda undermines the alleged straw man. My sole position is that the Bitcoin community very often reacts perplexingly to external stimulus, and that when I opened the Bitcoin client in 2009 and accidentally mined a block and got 50 BTC, I should have kept it instead of wiping the machine. And that people would most likely tear me apart for trying to have a little fun with the situation. (Which is happening, and I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care.) Edit: I can't reply any more, but suffice to say your last comment is probably the funniest you've made yet, in that you made it personal and hilariously so. Please continue to tell me how much I care, how gullible and absurd and foolish and wishfully-heroic I am for concocting an amusing, to me, theory for something that completely doesn't matter, and keep on dragging this thread beyond the pale of uncivilness. You're only proving my point about Bitcoin threads on HN and beyond. I already pointed out I'm having fun with my theory. You missed that and are apparently waiting for me to make it Serious, which I will continue to stubbornly refuse to do. Sorry. You'll have to Be Serious about Bitcoin with someone else, both because Hacker News won't let me continue this and also because I'm getting actual work done while this thread goes on. I will respond to this with a bit of Serious, though: > Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. I spent the first several years of my working life in journalism, and happen to know folks at two of the publications that ran with this. One of them, in particular, vetted this story far more than you'd think before betting the masthead on it after the Goodman debacle and yes, I have inside information on that which I am not going to share out of respect to a friend. I think it's quite easy to dismiss the media as incompetent and chasing views, but you should really think hard about that assertion. Bitcoin is double-confirmation territory these days for most newsrooms precisely due to Goodman. And don't worry, GQ puzzles me just as much as you.