Please stop sending me bitcoins...

[Bitcoin Oz]

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/stop-sending-me-bitcoins-please-1052232-1.html

This is hilarious.

[WikileaksDude]

old news. But indeed funny

I call 'em like I see 'em. That's my job. But accepting even the tiniest denomination of coins for doing so would undermine my credibility as a journalist.   

So I'm going to try to return the bitcoins I received to the senders, and any coins I can't return I will donate to charity.

And no, I'm not going to say which charity. I prefer to give anonymously. See, Chuck Schumer? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to want to "disguise" the source of a payment.

[the_thing]

oh look. he got 4 bitcoins!
...
so what?
why did he have to write an article about it?

[Nicolai Larsen]

oh look. he got 4 bitcoins!
...
so what?
why did he have to write an article about it?

Because he's a writer?

[maaku]

oh look. he got 4 bitcoins!
...
so what?
why did he have to write an article about it?

Journalistic integrity?

[DannyHamilton]

oh look. he got 4 bitcoins!
...
so what?
why did he have to write an article about it?

oh look. you don't care about his article!
...
so what?
why did you have to create a post about it?

[evoorhees]

oh look. he got 4 bitcoins!
...
so what?
why did he have to write an article about it?

oh look. you don't care about his article!
...
so what?
why did you have to create a post about it?

ZING!

[the_thing]

Because he's a writer?

Do all writers write about tiny financial transactions? I doubt it.

Journalistic integrity?

He could've returned the bitcoins without writing about it. He's an attention whore.

oh look. you don't care about his article!
...
so what?
why did you have to create a post about it?

Invalid analogy is invalid. But so far the best reply to my post.

Come at me, bros!

[DannyHamilton]

Do all writers write about tiny financial transactions? I doubt it.

If they write commercially, they write about the things they believe their readers want to read about.  If they write artistically, they write about the things that interest them.  In this case, I'd suggest that he has done both.

He could've returned the bitcoins without writing about it.

And yet he's a writer, so he writes about stuff.

He's an attention whore.

Of course.  He's a paid writer.  Not possible without being an attention whore.  If you write for money, you NEED people to pay attention to you, otherwise you stop getting paid for your writing.

Invalid analogy is invalid.

As much as you might like it to, writing "invalid analogy is invalid" does not make the analogy invalid.

[the_thing]

I mean .. he got about 40 dollars. Christ, how is it worth writing about? When he spends the money at a grocery store, should he write about it too?

As much as you might like it to, writing "invalid analogy is invalid" does not make the analogy invalid.

It does not. The analogy is invalid, because a whole article in newspaper can't be compared to forum posts.
If he needs to write about mundane everyday things like getting/spending $40 dollars then he apparently doesn't have any interesting topics and should get a different job.

[Taz]

Well the paper is American Banker so he kinda has enough reason to discuss what to him is an unusual transaction.
If he took it upon himself to discuss his childs birthday party or his dislike of his neighbours then you'd have a point.

[swissmate]

What a big fucking hipster sucker.

[evoorhees]

I mean .. he got about 40 dollars. Christ, how is it worth writing about? When he spends the money at a grocery store, should he write about it too?

As much as you might like it to, writing "invalid analogy is invalid" does not make the analogy invalid.

It does not. The analogy is invalid, because a whole article in newspaper can't be compared to forum posts.
If he needs to write about mundane everyday things like getting/spending $40 dollars then he apparently doesn't have any interesting topics and should get a different job.

You're missing the point. The USD value is irrelevant and doesn't make an interesting story. It's interesting because Bitcoin enables these anonymous donations, with ease, and it creates a new dynamic wherein the journalist is forced to reject payments because of the anonymity.

In other words, it demonstrates how different BTC is, where it can be sent across the world to someone who doesn't even want it. It's so easy, it can simply slip over to someone who wasn't ready to receive it.

[Taz]

What a big fucking hipster sucker.

What, this guy?

He looks like a charming fellow, full of original style ideas.

[joemde]

Why don't a few of you email him. I did. I will include a copy&paste of the email:

Hi Marc,

I would like to thank you for you article about Bitcoin. It is indeed a promising technology and I, as a supporter, would love for Bitcoin to receive more press and acceptance as a legitimate payment method. In your follow up article "Stop sending me Bitcoins, Please!"
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/stop-sending-me-bitcoins-please-1052232-1.html

you include a suggestion that if anyone would like to show support for the article they should subscribe to American Banker. It would be absolutely awesome if you could help facilitate subscription service via Bitcoin.

Thank you for your attention,

joemde

[dissipate]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104476.0

[evoorhees]

What a big fucking hipster sucker.

What, this guy?

He looks like a charming fellow, full of original style ideas.

We've had the pleasure of meeting with Marc here in NYC a few times now (as did a few of you at our Jekyll Island Bitcoin Society Meetup last week). Marc is solid - intelligent, curious, and full of valuable insights. He has a genuine and sincere interest in Bitcoin, and he "gets it" for all the right reasons.

A journalist like him, as the executive editor at American Banker, balances out 50 crappy journalists elsewhere writing hit pieces on Bitcoin.

[Taz]

If his interest in Bitcoin translates to other journalists, we could have a case of wildfire on our hands.
Hearing about it is the first step to accepting bitcoin.

[coretechs]

A journalist like him, as the executive editor at American Banker, balances out 50 crappy journalists elsewhere writing hit pieces on Bitcoin.

This.

I don't understand why people don't see this as a good thing.  He even calls out Schumer for misconstruing anonymity at the end of the follow-up piece!

Why don't a few of you email him. I did. I will include a copy&paste of the email:

Hi Marc,

I would like to thank you for you article about Bitcoin. It is indeed a promising technology and I, as a supporter, would love for Bitcoin to receive more press and acceptance as a legitimate payment method. In your follow up article "Stop sending me Bitcoins, Please!"
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/stop-sending-me-bitcoins-please-1052232-1.html

you include a suggestion that if anyone would like to show support for the article they should subscribe to American Banker. It would be absolutely awesome if you could help facilitate subscription service via Bitcoin.

Thank you for your attention,

joemde

I love this idea.  It would be great for publicity.

[justusranvier]

I call 'em like I see 'em. That's my job. But accepting even the tiniest denomination of coins for doing so would undermine my credibility as a journalist.   

So I'm going to try to return the bitcoins I received to the senders, and any coins I can't return I will donate to charity.

And no, I'm not going to say which charity. I prefer to give anonymously. See, Chuck Schumer? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to want to "disguise" the source of a payment.

I don't understand how this article does anything to increase credibility his credibility.

If there are people doubting his journalistic integrity based on such a small sum in tips, wouldn't those people also wonder if the unspecified charity was another address in his wallet?