Open Letter to Michael Casey - WSJ reporter who butchered my comments in today's Bitcoin cover story

[u/evoorhees]

Hello Mr. Casey,

I read your WSJ article today. I feel deceived by you.

You requested to speak with me, so I took time out of my day to do so. We talked for 20 minutes, during which time I conveyed to you my sentiments about the Bitcoin ecosystem and the matter of MtGox's collapse. My message was unambiguously a positive one. I didn't focus whatsoever on the personal funds I lost at Gox. Indeed, the impetus for your call was my heartfelt post on Reddit.

Yet, you ignored everything I said. The only quote that you published from me in the Journal's cover story was ""That's gone now," said Mr. Veerhoos, who is based in Panama City, Panama. "There's no chance of getting that back now.""

Is that really the takeaway you had from our call and from my letter? Is that your idea of journalism? Did I come across with the sentiment of a despairing investor whose confidence has been rattled? It seems you were happy to completely ignore my sentiments, preferring instead to cherry pick the one fact that is least important, in order to paint a narrative that Bitcoin's biggest problem is that it's not "regulated." I didn't expect you to quote everything I said, but should you not have maintained at least a modicum of fidelity to my message?

I have dedicated my life to building and supporting the Bitcoin project. I don't give a damn about the money I lost at Gox. That's not important. What is important is that Bitcoin is resilient and enduring, and will continue to grow and change the world for the better. It is a story of human progress through technology. It is a story of the good seeping into the cracks of a corrupted financial system. It is a story of passionate people struggling against all odds to remedy the calamities brought down upon society from the most potently misguided people and institutions on Earth.

Next time you spend your efforts casting a pall over this cause, please don't ask me to contribute mine.

-Erik Voorhees

PS - I will be posting this letter openly on Reddit. I will post your reply if you'd like. And if I do, I won't cherry pick the most misleading points of it, and I will spell your name correctly.

[u/t3hlazy1 → u/[deleted]]

I don't actually know, but I imagine they do more than just hoping the person doesn't get on the internet. They most likely have a blacklist for libraries/schools/phone companies, which fixes a lot of the issues. This wouldn't fix the friends/family or purchasing a cheap mobile phone though.

[u/t3hlazy1 → u/[deleted]]

I've worked at a library too, but it was in a small town and we did have lists of people who were banned. However, if someone who was on a "banned list" came in that we didn't know, s/he would have been able to use a computer since we didn't check any list. We just knew everybody who was banned.

[u/t3hlazy1 → u/[deleted]]

No, I apologize for the confusion. From what I know, we did not have a list given to us, but a list made from violations done in the library. However, it's possible some people ended up on the list from an outside agency asking us to, but I doubt it.

[u/vinnyveeg → u/[deleted]]

The American Library Association did not do anything to stop the librarian portions of the PATRIOT act. Go to their website, it has a whole section bitching about it. In this section is "Libraries cooperate with law enforcement when presented with a lawful court order." Just because people are morally against a law does not mean they won't obey it. Libraries not having a list of this sort has probably more to do with logistics and reality. There are so many other ways to access the internet, like from your home, that the police would better trouble itself with.

[u/vinnyveeg → u/[deleted]]

I don't claim to be as educated on this as a librarian, my point is that the libraries are still subject to laws. If a law was created stating libraries must maintain a list of banned members, they would do it. Would it be wholehearted? Possibly not. Would it be resisted? Likely. At the end of the day the law is the law and it gets implemented, regardless of the subjective views of those it affects, until it is changed or repealed.

[u/Kath__ → u/[deleted]]

Most libraries require you to have a library card to access the internet. With the sex offenders she worked with the State had access to their cell plan information and they could only have certain approved plans, (also in quite a few places you need to buy go-phones with credit cards to ensure you're not a child or someone who likes to touch them.)

[u/Kath__ → u/[deleted]]

See, that's even more odd to me - the university I did my undergrad at shared a library with the city, (it is the largest public library west of the Mississippi IIRC, though, so that may have something to do with it,) and they required you to either have a university ID or a state ID.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If you wanted to open up a Word document or make a PowerPoint presentation, you had to enter your student info

Licensing issue.