A long time ago in Holland people bought flowers pretty much as they do now. By chance a farmer cultivated a tulip whose flowers were unusual, as such his flowers commanded a great premium and the farmer became rich. Other farmers saw this and bought his bulbs so they could cultivate their own. These farmers also became rich

A few intelligent farmers, rather then invest in the original bulb tried to create their own hybrids and many succeeded creating bulbs that were even better than the first. These farmers also became rich.

Within a couple of years, there were 500 or so different varieties and traders bought and sold bulbs and with all the excitement and publicity the price went up. These traders also became rich.

Some people realised that instead of leaving their money under the bed that if they bought a few bulbs and sold them a month later they could double their money. These people also became rich.

After 3 years the market was booming, strangely the original bulb was still worth more than the newer, improved varieties. Who knows why?

After 4 years everyone knew that bulbs were worth pretty much the same, you buy them to produce flowers in your garden.

TL;DR
The ones and zeros that programmers create are there to provide a service, a transaction. They are not for storage of wealth.

It has little or nothing to do with regulating Bitcoin, its about regulating businesses within a certain jurisdiction that deal with both fiat currency and bitcoin, where's the problem in that? Fiat's involved so their government has a right to make rules, that's practically the definition of fiat.

EDIT:

Looks like folks aren't doing much reading, this keeps getting mentioned and there's an article specifically exempting anyone that sends or receives bitcoin in exchange for goods or services from regulation, ie. businesses. (200.3 c 2).

Here's the thing. Honeybadger don't care. NYCDFS can try to regulate all they want, their intention is to set folks up to fail. These regulations aren't about protecting the consumer, they're about protecting the status quo of failure. What they don't realise is that only the dumb businesses will try to comply without an exit strategy. The rest will decentralize.

It has little or nothing to do with regulating Bitcoin, its about regulating businesses within a certain jurisdiction that deal with both fiat currency and bitcoin, where's the problem in that? Fiat's involved so their government has a right to make rules, that's practically the definition of fiat.

Nope...

Genius maybe, good programmer probably too but definitely not "great".
Also he secured his premine by developing on Windows only.

All the people wait for xmr add  to mintpal..But..What will happen after that ? good things ? bed things?

I would recommend people treat a pseudonymous dev as a yellow flag - not a diagnostic certainty, merely a contra-indicator. Personally, I change it to red if I discover that the repository source has a commit total in single figures as this betrays shallow thinking leading to costly and ineffectual security theatre.

I look around and note that, with the occasional exception, the inarguably successful coins are characterised by a lack of pseudonymous devs. A few weeks ago we had an object lesson in how much media interest can be whipped up by an apparent resolution of a prominent pseudonym. The more visible/successful the brand, the greater the vacuum caused by continued inscrutability, especially so in a domain perceived by the media to be tantalisingly rich in tecchy mystique, rumour and tittle-tattle.

At some point, the dev's preference for remaining pseudonymous will almost certainly be overwhelmed by pressure from the coinholders as the coin's performance begins to suffer due to increasingly negative perceptions of that opacity.

Here's a snippet from CNN's reporting of Dogecoin:

“Ben Doernberg, a board member at the Dogecoin Foundation, said that raising the money for the sponsorship was done in record time. Beyond sports ventures, Dogecoin has raised money to build clean water wells in Kenya and for a charity that trains service animals to work with children with autism and other disabilities.
"We are all about fun and goofiness," Doernberg said. "At the same time, we want to make sure that digital currency is really giving back to the world. We do feel like this is a technology that can make the world a better place, and we want to put that into practice by doing fundraisers."
Doernberg said the NASCAR sponsorship is one of the largest fundraisers they've done to date.”

reads somewhat better than:

“scamhunter23, a board member at the Dungecoin Foundation, wrote that raising the money for the sponsorship was done in record time. Beyond sports ventures, Dungecoin has raised money to build clean water wells in Kenya and for a charity that trains service animals to work with children with autism and other disabilities.
"We are all about fun and goofiness," scamhunter23 wrote. "At the same time, we want to make sure that digital currency is really giving back to the world. We do feel like this is a technology that can make the world a better place, and we want to put that into practice by doing fundraisers."
scamhunter23 wrote the NASCAR sponsorship is one of the largest fundraisers they've done to date.”

In the context of the good works above, for a coin ambassador to use a pseudonym is at once both pretentious and incongruous. But someone has to be quoted in the media - it just won't be a pseudonymous dev, that's all. So the developing recognition factors for the coin brand identity will not include the dev and in time, the incongruity of the pseudonym ceases to become an issue as the dev's role becomes circumscribed to that of Chief Engineer, toiling away in the engine room.

Of course, neither Billy nor Jackson made that mistake, nor did Evan. Look around, you'll find quite a few people prepared to stake their reputation on their coin work, it's an invaluable signal to investors, I'd have thought.

Of course, if the dev has zero expectations of the coin receiving any significant media exposure (maybe because the coin has an anticipated lifespan shorter than the average mayfly), then a pseudonym can handily serve to conceal a cryptocurrency sideline from pals, boss and workmates. One unfortunate consequence is that punters are beginning to associate "pseudonymous" with "amateur", "hobby" and "long-absent" --- and those are the positive qualities, the negative ones all trivially boil down to "scaaaam".

There's always trouble money to be made when those who own the problem aren't those who own the solution. In this instance, it's indicated by the appearance of "backstage" altcoin dev teams fluidly forming and re-forming as required. The next stage will be marked by stable, branded teams, offering standards adherence, quality assurance, reliability and long-term in-depth support --- factors important to anyone with an interest in the coin.

I find myself asking: are "trustworthy" and "reliable" appropriate labels for someone who makes advance preparations to avoid taking responsibility for their actions by masking their identity with a pseudonym?

Hm.

Cheers,

Graham

Edit: s/own the answer/own the solution/ more precise

'forging' is not exactly great either... but these things weren't created by marketing people they were created by engineers.

-bm