I got curious when he said he mined block 70-something. Block #78 is the only one (in the 70's) that was transferred to a wallet with any activity - I followed said activity for a little bit, and it looks like he had 2,000 BTC strewn across a bunch of wallets that he moved to one wallet in 2011. Not too shabby for an accidental nest-egg! :-)
Why does that make his comment less relevant or correct? Should we all just comment "so sad, he's way to young/talented/... to die"? Illness and death are just as ubiquitous and universal as they are sad. People get sick and die. Young people die. Talented people die.
I fail to understand how people make such a big deal out of developers dieing.
It makes it less pertinent, I didn't comment on its correctness. Reading the post it starts off as standard HN bitcoin fodder and then takes a surprising turn into, what I found to be, a personal and touching story. Hence my knee-jerk response wouldn't be: "to the blockchain! :-)".
I understand. I wasn't as touched by this plot twist of sorts (partly because I read your comment prior to reading the article, so I knew what to expect). I've seen quite a few dieing developer stories over the past few months, so I've got a similar fealing towards "death of a developer" sob-stories as you have to BC fodder: I've read it too often before :)
The "christ" at the end makes it seem like you pass judgement on the top comment, while I thought it added some value to the discussion.
>I've seen quite a few dieing developer stories over the past few months, so I've got a similar fealing towards "death of a developer" sob-stories as you have to BC fodder: I've read it too often before :)
Jesus, what does it feel like to be you?
If you're hoping to add value to the discussion, I don't think telling the world in a crude and thoughtless manner ("sob-stories") how jaded you are about the tragic illness of a fellow human passes the bar.
Many of us know this man, did you think about that before you wrote this remark? But I'm doubting that would make a difference for you.
Man, I'm off the forums for a while, Reddit, HN, this whole bunch. This stuff is getting to me (which I'm sure some rejoice in).
While I doubt many here really know the person in question personally (having read about him doesn't qualify), I'm sorry if you do (for both his illness and having offended you), and it's not as if I'm devoid of emotions.
I just don't think this is the forum to discuss such topics/stories, and I don't get emotionally attached to every bad news story that comes around. If I did, I'd be a very depressed person.
Regardless, we're getting way off track from the discussion now.
Wow, really touching. It's amazing to read his optimism about life and the Bitcoin project even after all he's going through. Here's hoping he continues to defy the odds, like Stephen Hawking has.
Before yesterday, I thought Hal Finney was probably the leading candidate for being Satoshi. Him, Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, or some combination thereof. But now it seems far more likely that Satoshi is Satoshi.
Wow, that ending hit me like a ton of bricks. I certainly have sympathy for those who invested their life savings into the Mt Gox crash and lost everything, but I doubt I could find a single one of them that could trade places with Hal and have half of his positive attitude.
That's really cold, even though I'm not much of a bitcoin believer either. And actually, it seems he hasn't necessarily benefited yet, because he's going to hold on to his bitcoins for the future. I would urge him to sell, say, half of them, at the very least and put those in more conventional investments, for his kids' sakes.
He did mention the bitcoins are in a safe deposit box, and his kids are tech-savvy. With a paper wallet, instructions, and a proper will, they'll do just fine.
Volatile object speculation, crapshoot, recurring bubble, vehicle of money laundering. There are plenty of disses against Bitcoin that at least have some validity. I'm sure there's more. But save Ponzi Scheme for things that actually fit the description.
The only reason BTC price rises is because of hype and idiots buying into the hype. Once the hype dies (as it's dying now), you can experience the pleasure of bag-holding.
Why don't you all in BTC? You are free to laugh at me when it hits 1k again.
technically, if it really is a Ponzi scheme as you state then you're saying that bitcoins will ultimately be worth zero. But in that case, he hasn't actually sold his bitcoins yet, so he hasn't benefited from the Ponzi scheme.
