We should not reveal the creator. Stop it.
The sinister explanation is that they dug through my post history, saw that I'm trans (I'm very open about it, and in fact I've been discussing my name change in another thread this morning), and decided to misgender me either out of bigotry or just to be hurtful.
I'm not sure which one to believe.
your comment was stupid,I didn't check your comments, just copy-pasted your name, and really.
anyway believe what you want, I don't need any "charitable" explanations
You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out.
> And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still).
Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning.
Oh really. We are talking about four words here. So are we squinting or something, because you have to be illiterate to not read that incidentally.
> Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning.
Oh brother. Nope, you're the one redefining. See the myriad examples of "avoiding sexist language" style guides. Just because someone isn't getting raped doesn't mean there's no sexism.
>Oh brother. Nope, you're the one redefining. See the myriad examples of "avoiding sexist language" style guides.
do you whitch hunt everyine that use the wrong word? get a grip
when I talk to people on the phone they always get my gender wrong, I don't correct them because I really couldn't care less,
seriously don't you think all this is too much, just because i used a "his" and not reading a username? I admit that I shouldn't have call you idiot, I just get annoyed by the way you expressed your opinion.
Take the Amtrak engineer in the recent Philadelphia crash...as far as I can tell, he most definitely would like to remain out of the spotlight. Yet, because he happened to be the engineer at the time of the crash -- whether or not we know that he directly or even indirectly contributed to the crash -- news orgs have some legal protection in scrutinizing his life, including where he went to school, his job history, and any public social media postings.
Sometimes privacy is accorded out of tradition or convention...for example, the identity of a rape victim who is testifying in a court case is public information, though it is rarely reported except under special circumstances. But in this case, the victim did not intentionally put themselves in this position of public interest, but because court cases are considered to be important for the public to know about, the victim's identity is considered public information.
It should be said that nothing is completely cut and dry, there's always a tension between the public's right to know and privacy. But the right of privacy is usually afforded to victims and for people whom public exposure would cause greater harm than censorship -- i.e. the identity of witnesses in a state case. Bitcoin's creator does not seem to fall into this category.
Except there isn't evidence that this guy is Satoshi. So there isn't evidence that he is a public figure.
Also, choosing not to reveal someone's identity is not censorship.
On the other hand, as long as Satoshi remains unknown and doesn't spend his coins, his wealth will not grant him power.