You missed the point. The magazine has already done as much damage to his privacy as it`s possible. Destroying this thread accomplishes nothing. Thus, my next

You missed the point. The magazine has already done as much damage to his privacy as it`s possible. Destroying this thread accomplishes nothing. Thus, my next argument that you must be worried about his Bitcoin transactions (which might not remain anonymous for very long). Which is a valid concern but impossible given his notoriety now. There are just too many curious people already digging. You're implying that, because of my initial argument, I do not care about his privacy. You're wrong. Being realistic on the Internet seems to be an thankless task.