You missed the point. The magazine has already done as much damage to his privacy as it`s possible. Destroying this thread accomplishes nothing.
Thus, my next argument that you must be worried about his Bitcoin transactions (which might not remain anonymous for very long). Which is a valid concern but impossible given his notoriety now. There are just too many curious people already digging.
You're implying that, because of my initial argument, I do not care about his privacy. You're wrong.
Being realistic on the Internet seems to be an thankless task.
Thus, my next argument that you must be worried about his Bitcoin transactions (which might not remain anonymous for very long). Which is a valid concern but impossible given his notoriety now. There are just too many curious people already digging.
You're implying that, because of my initial argument, I do not care about his privacy. You're wrong.
Being realistic on the Internet seems to be an thankless task.