A little regulation and over sight might have prevented all this.
Yes, but that is completely contrary to the whole reason Bitcoin exists in the first place. If you wanted a regulated currency you'd get fiat. It's wild west by definition, which is good for popcorn-muncher like me... but bad for friends of mine who have lost a significant amount of money by "experimenting" with Bitcoin. :(
Satoshi's motivations were political, his first message in the blockchain makes that clear. He hasn't shied away, he's disappeared for obvious reasons.
He/she/they talk about a need for finical transaction capability without the need of a trusted third party, but I'm not seeing how that was in any way overtly political.
Comments
Yes, but that is completely contrary to the whole reason Bitcoin exists in the first place. If you wanted a regulated currency you'd get fiat. It's wild west by definition, which is good for popcorn-muncher like me... but bad for friends of mine who have lost a significant amount of money by "experimenting" with Bitcoin. :(
Not really. Satoichi has shied away from the political motivations of a lot of the community.
Satoshi's motivations were political, his first message in the blockchain makes that clear. He hasn't shied away, he's disappeared for obvious reasons.
Speaking about this: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf ?
He/she/they talk about a need for finical transaction capability without the need of a trusted third party, but I'm not seeing how that was in any way overtly political.
Because I'm not talking about that. I never referenced the bitcoin paper, reread what I said.
What Satoshi does after releasing the creation has no bearing on the purpose behind creating something before they released it though.
Realizing that you need to shy away from something after you do something doesn't invalidate the reasons behind why you did it.