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.