Andreas is a well-known member in the bitcoin world who has far more to lose from scamming than he has to gain; IOW he has a healthy reputation to protect.  The OP is a faceless, nameless, brand-spanking new account whose very first post is to ask for money with nothing to lose and only your donations to gain.

It's kind of a big difference.

I could've sworn the great depression occurred in America because they were "regulating the dollar" i.e. manipulating the supply, which caused first a fake boom, and then a massive bust called the great depression, which was not the first depression, merely the most notable.

It still does not answer the core question, as I'm presented with the following: regulation caused the great depression, therefore--and this is where the dissonance begins--they tried to solve the problem of regulation with regulation, and to solve that regulation, on and on., until we've come full circle and are experiencing yet another recession caused from artificial booms and busts.  Regulation is not helping anywhere, and the problems regulation is causing is answered with "We need more regulation!"  Why, then, do people opt for a tactic which has historically failed in every long-term scenario?  Certainly, regulation may appear to fix the problem in the meantime, like chewing gum is used to seal a crack, but there must be a reason why people choose the quick fix, choose to kick the can down the road, than to actually solve the underlying problem.

And it would be one thing if people acknowledged even this; it's another when people believe the only tried and true solution is regulation, as if there's no other way it could work.

A better comparison would be calling a woman a cunt, as a whore is a synonym for prostitute which can accurately describe an individual's profession, ergo a sentiment which can both be an insult and a descriptor.

With that said, imagine a scenario where a woman runs over your daughter, keeps driving while flipping the bird, you call an ambulance and describe the situation as "my daughter almost died due to some CUNT!"  Now, women of all kinds attack you for using that word, paying no mind to the fact that a woman just ran over an innocent girl without a second thought.  You might describe the individuals who ignore the actions of the woman driver, ignore the daughter, and instead attack you for using a word they didn't like as, themselves, soulless cunts.

We can see, then, why some people take offense to "nigger", and why some do not: it's the same reason why cunts don't like being called cunts and, to a much greater extent, why evil cannot bare to hear the truth.  Are all women cunts?  Of course not, it's a gross over-generalization to presume half the world is this way, and to call a nice woman a cunt is very bad form, to which they deserve the defense, to which people would ask that the individual who muttered the obscenity swallow their words and offer an apology--this, I find fair.  But when a woman is a cunt, only those who are personally offended by being called a cunt--a revelation of truth--will come to her defense: only evil has an incentive to mask evil.

So, with this sorted out, we can clearly see whether Bruno is being asked to apologize for calling a decent man what he isn't, or if evil is defending evil.

Care to elaborate?

I don't get why people seek regulation; it's attacking the symptom but not the cause, the cause being a naive public with over-protective "parents" (i.e. nanny state) that never allow them to experience loss so they'll learn from their mistakes and therefore would have no need for regulation for protection as they'd be equipped with the knowledge and experience required to protect themselves: in other words, regulation is the asserted solution to the problem regulation causes.

I managed to get Tweety as well.

Well, at least I'm certain that I'm not Dorian Nakamoto.

I don't want him to be a mystery forever, but I would prefer that he reveal himself of his own volition.

Dorian is Mr. Miyagi from Karate Kid

Banning YouTube and Facebook, and asking to bypass the democratic process to ban any website, are two extremely different intentions; the first does not necessarily imply the second.

But even getting past that, what sort of culture must Turkey have where open information is a threat?  If what Socrates said was true, that the greatest good is knowledge and the greatest evil ignorance, then Turkey, as many nations seek, wishes to commit the worst act imaginable by preventing knowledge and encouraging ignorance.  This is a big step toward the total state, and if the people of Turkey don't start pushing back, they'll experience the punishment for political negligence, as the N. Koreans can attest.

This video finally convinced me that Christ is the only path to true salvation.

They don't hate bitcoin, they fear the gun.

You'll someday realize that most people don't care as much as you do.

Why?

There was great legal liability for MtGox to not fuck up; therefore they did no wrong, correct?

I see what you did there

You scared the shit out of me