Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the fame-and-misfortune dept.

Bitcoin 276

Nerval's Lobster writes "Newsweek's Leah McGrath Goodman spent months tracking down the mysterious founder of Bitcoin, "Satoshi Nakamoto," a name that everybody seemed to believe was a pseudonym for either a single individual or a shadowy collective of programmers. If Satoshi Nakamoto, former government contractor and model-train enthusiast, is actually "Satoshi Nakamoto," Bitcoin founder, then he's sitting atop hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto-currency. Does the article's exhaustive listing of Nakamoto's personal details place his security at risk? Many in the Bitcoin community think so, and poured onto the Web to express that opinion. The Newsweek article has raised some interesting questions about the need for thorough journalism versus peoples' right to privacy. For example, should Goodman have posted an image of Nakamoto's house and car, even though information about both would probably be relatively simple to find online, anyway?"

cancel ×

276 comments

But He Isn't (4, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 5 months ago | (#46425835)

It's become petty clear that the guy in question ISN'T Satoshi Nakamoto. This is basically just a crazy lady writing a delusional account of the two months she spent stalking a random Japanese guy.

Re:But He Isn't (2)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 5 months ago | (#46425911)

Quoting wikipedia

In a March 2014 article in Newsweek, journalist Leah McGrath Goodman stated that Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto, 64, of Temple City, California, whose birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto was the Nakamoto in question. However, Dorian Nakamoto denies this, saying that Newsweek misquoted him

How does one verify the identity of the real man and, is it really important who he physically is ?

Re:But He Isn't (5, Informative)

darkain (749283) | about 5 months ago | (#46426203)

No real way to verify it, but there is a surefire way to discredit it!

https://twitter.com/mikko/stat... [twitter.com]

Re:But He Isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425927)

I've been following this pretty closely today and it honestly seems to be fairly convincing to me that he is. What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator? Is is perhaps the email correspondence regarding the model trains? If so, there has been a fair amount of other online activity that shows Dorian can express himself very well in English. Anyway please let me know, because I'm curious.

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425953)

Because it does not make any sense to attempt staying anonymous in all ways except telling everyone your name.

Re:But He Isn't (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426023)

And yet the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto's legions of followers/fanboys are denying any possibility that this is the guy. Sometimes double-bluffs work.

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426047)

And what is the evidence in favor of him being "the guy"?

Re:But He Isn't (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 5 months ago | (#46426161)

And what is the evidence in favor of him being "the guy"?

His name is the same as a notoriously anonymous programmers online handle and thats about it. On the other hand one of the real Satoshi's known accounts posted that he is not this guy. And has been verified as a the legit account by the forums admin.

http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/... [ning.com]

https://twitter.com/jdaviescoa... [twitter.com]

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426175)

I don't know about the counter-evidence but having the same name is not very good evidence. How common is that name anyway, shouldn't a good researcher have looked into that?

Re:But He Isn't (5, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 5 months ago | (#46426195)

> shouldn't a good researcher have looked into that?

What makes you think she's a good researcher? She writes for Newsweek for Christ's sake.

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426219)

Exactly, nothing about that story suggested it should be taken as more credible than a forum/slashdot speculation. If you read it she also finds evidence Satoshi was old because he cited old papers (from the 1950s). Dorian Nakamoto is also old. Coincidence?

And then there is no evidence about the context of his response of "I'm not involved in that anymore", but we are supposed to trust this journalist to have good judgement? I actually feel bad for this journalist, I do not think she understood the story she was investigating and the type of people who would read it. Hopefully she was just too used to a very low bar.

Re:But He Isn't (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46426233)

She writes for Newsweek for Christ's sake.

And there was me thinking He just wanted us to live a good life and be nice to our neighbours. Who knew?

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426187)

Oh no, someone has a generic Japanese name.
Maybe I'll find out I'm secretly a rapper, or actor.

Re:But He Isn't (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#46426131)

A double bluff with names is stupid. There are literally an unlimited number of names he could have chosen, and no matter what the one name GUARANTEED to get scrutiny is the one he gives.

Re:But He Isn't (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426257)

Could be a triple bluff: he picked some random name in the phone book so that people would think he's that guy trying to double-bluff them.

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426063)

Perhaps he didn't realize at the time that BitCoin was conceived that it would become so big and he thought that excluding the name he was socially known as was sufficient anonymity?

Re:But He Isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426113)

That seems doubtful given the purpose of the project and what was said by satoshi:

"In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."
-satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48.msg329#msg329

Also that does not address that there is essentially nothing but the name connecting the guy found here and whoever created bitcoin.

Re:But He Isn't (3, Insightful)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 5 months ago | (#46426103)

I've been following this pretty closely today and it honestly seems to be fairly convincing to me that he is. What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?

That's not how it works - you need to provide evidence that he is. What is the main reason you think he *is* the guy?

Re:But He Isn't (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#46426121)

The name matches. Your turn.

Re:But He Isn't (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46426181)

There's at least one other Satoshi Nakamoto in the world, so it's not more likely to be this one on that basis.

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426231)

His technical background and work history. Your turn again.

Re:But He Isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426287)

How many others fit that profile? Let's say zero with the same name. In that case we still have to deal with the possibility the name was chosen purposefully to lead to someone with plausible work history. That scenario is more likely than the anonymous except using real name one presented here.

Re:But He Isn't (3, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46426249)

Not only that but it's hardly an uncommon name. Uncommon in the west sure but that's about it. Hell take my real first name, there's a lot of people named thus in the west. Not so much in Japan. Take my Japanese name lots in Japan, not so much in the west. The entire thing just wants me to bang my head against the wall to make the stupid stop.

In fact, (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426285)

In fact, there is at least one Satoshi Nakamoto in Japan who claims to be bitcoin's inventor (though nobody believes him, of course).

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426125)

I think there were numerous very convincing arguments in the News Week article.

Re:But He Isn't (3, Informative)

guises (2423402) | about 5 months ago | (#46426225)

Newsweek has already provided plenty of evidence. They haven't provided proof, that's not the same thing, but there is more than sufficient evidence to believe that this is the right guy.

Re:But He Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426243)

No, there's not. [slashdot.org]

I disagree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426295)

The evidence is weak and circumstantial. The previously suggested Satoshi candidate, cryptographer and virtual currency researcher Nick Szabo, still seems more likely after what Newsweek has presented so far.

Szabo proposed a system called bitgold, which is the most closely related system to bitcoin. Then he advertised for collaborators to help implement a digital currency, and a few months later Satoshi Nakamoto released the bitcoin whitepaper. The paper cites earlier research, but conspicuously skips bitgold.

But that's just circumstantial evidence too, so don't go knocking this guy's door down.

Re:But He Isn't (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426165)

What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?

Satoshi "Bitcoin" Nakamoto was a computer scientist experienced in publishing scientific papers. He was a native English speaker with a flawless control of his writing, mixing at will American and British English to confuse his trackers. Satoshi "Old crazy dude" Nakamoto has not published anything in his life and the quotes and alleged online profiles he created for himself reveal a tenuous grasp of the English language.

Satoshi "Bitcoin" Nakamoto wrote on the first try a very complex cryptographic application in C++ that turned out to have only a handful of security bugs. We have no ideea if "Old crazy dude" can even write code, let alone of this quality.

There is basically:
  - no publication history
  - no proven experience in writing crypto code (let's handwave that by saying he worked for "the military")

What we do have is him believing he is Satoshi Bitcoin Nakamoto and declaring it to a journalist, i.e proof he is a old crazy guy.

Personal Details (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425843)

Outing anybody without their permission, especially in circumstances such as where someone has done nothing wrong is incredibly unethical.

Re:Personal Details (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 5 months ago | (#46425993)

Outing anybody without their permission, especially in circumstances such as where someone has done nothing wrong is incredibly unethical.

Hear, hear.

Re:Personal Details (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426031)

Seems arbitrary (as far as deciding what's ethical) and against the common good.

Great timing (4, Insightful)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about 5 months ago | (#46425845)

He was outed from his anonymity at just about the same time as the CEO of a virtual exchange was found dead under mysterious circumstances. Good job, media.

Re:Great timing (0)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 months ago | (#46425963)

Obviously, the two things are linked.

Clearly, she caught him when he was trying to get away, the proof being that he was so evasive in answering her questions.

Considering that the story is apparently wrong (5, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 5 months ago | (#46425847)

Considering that apparently they didn't actually discover the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto after all [arstechnica.com] , I'd have to go with "no, they shouldn't have revealed anything."

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425899)

And would the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto say anything different? It's pretty clear that whoever is behind bitcoin does not want the spotlight -- they could be on pretty much any media outlet they chose by now if they wanted. So why would anyone in their right mind take a denial as absolute proof that he isn't the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto, when that is more or less exactly what a reasonable person would expect the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto to do if identified?

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426119)

And would the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto say anything different? It's pretty clear that whoever is behind bitcoin does not want the spotlight -- they could be on pretty much any media outlet they chose by now if they wanted. So why would anyone in their right mind take a denial as absolute proof that he isn't the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto, when that is more or less exactly what a reasonable person would expect the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto to do if identified?

Precisely.

The only people who know whether the second poster in this thread who calls himself Satoshi [ning.com] is (or is not) telling the truth, are the people who work at NSA/GCHQ, and although I'm sure they're talking amongst themselves, they're sure as hell not talking to Newsweek.

Funny thing is, if this Dorian dude is as smart as he seems to be, he just might be smart enough to post his denial in a secure way. Or the Real Satoshi on ning has been compromised by a friend. Or the Real Satoshi on ning is not this Dorian dude. But if (and only if) ((Dorian controls the Real Satoshi account) && (Dorian screwed up)), the Five Eyes know, but five eyes do not make one mouth, and they, thankfully, will remain silent.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 5 months ago | (#46425917)

Considering that apparently they didn't actually discover the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto after all [arstechnica.com] , I'd have to go with "no, they shouldn't have revealed anything."

Bingo and there are liabilities here.

Freedom of speech only goes so far. We all know that shouting fire
when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble. Should someone
die in the crush to exit murder becomes one of the long list of charges.

Newsweek has responsibility and owns much of the consequences
for their actions. Should there be inconveniences I can see a tort.
Should there be damages I can see civil and criminal actions.
Should there be bodily harm... jail time for all in the decision process
and serious financial penalty for Newsweek the company.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426039)

Libertarians: They love freedom right up until someone uses it in a way they dislike, then their true autocratic nature reveals itself.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46426139)

Which libertarian are you referring to? Hopefully you don't think the guy you replied to is a libertarian.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 5 months ago | (#46426135)

Freedom of speech only goes so far. We all know that shouting fire
when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble.

In trouble for other people's actions (the idiots who would trample others). That's because the government hates freedom and ignores the first amendment, though.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 5 months ago | (#46426293)

In trouble for other people's actions (the idiots who would trample others). That's because the government hates freedom and ignores the first amendment, though.

Idiots? - When you are part of a crowd of tightly packed humans that suddenly stampede in response to a universally recognised alarm call you have two choices, join in or get trampled. The only idiots in the equation are the free speech extremists who think there must be a third choice because they are absolutely convinced their dogma trumps human nature.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426157)

> Should someone die in the crush to exit murder becomes one of the long list of charges.

Like what?

More than that wild assumption of other crimes (that dont exist) the ugliness of the state deciding whats responsible and what's not (national security) for the common man was a pragmatic precedent in the past, not a rationale for anonymity. No longer does it really make sense to tout that old fire adage as a common sense ruling or ideal in any context. It's not the US government's job (local, regional, or federal) to protect the peace. Now, they only assign blame and punish, as is their purpose. Deciding whats right and wrong on a situational basis, is problematic and not in the interest of the common good.

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (2)

Sun (104778) | about 5 months ago | (#46426229)

We all know that shouting fire when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble.

I don't think "we all" quite covers it [popehat.com] .

TL;DR:
Holmes is often misquoted (more specifically, truncated). Holmes himself recanted that position later.

Shachar

Re:Considering that the story is apparently wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426239)

Newsweek’s Leah McGrath Goodman has a lot in common with Slashdot's Nerval's Lobster (Nick Kolakowski).
 
Both work for formerly-respectable media outlets (Newsweek and Slashdot) that have been sold to someone else (the former being Dice for $20 million, the latter being Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis after The Washington Post sold it off for $1, who have had to defend their ties to an evangelical preacher who runs something called The Christian Post) for the prestige of the name and have far less credibility than they once did.
 
For this reason, both Goodman and Lobster have a significant interest in writing sensationalist, attention-grabbing stories whether there is any truth to them or not. TFA in this case is just the perfect fusion of the two: Goodman claiming to have found the inventor of Bitcoin to generate attention for her handlers, and Lobster riding her coattails to drive pageviews for Dice.

If this post gets modded down, its because Dice doesn't like the truth.

Keep up the good work, Nick.

Capcha: insider

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425853)

Just no.

This wasn't journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425859)

It's exploitation of a person's private details for couple dimes. It showed nothing except what everyone else already knew, and only reason anyone would find it interesting is because they want someone to blame for their loss of money.

Even if it's accurate (5, Insightful)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 5 months ago | (#46425861)

Which it doesn't seem to be... I think it's absolutely wrong to out someone who is actively trying to remain out of the spotlight - publishing personal information or photos without their permission. It's very different if it's a wanna-be famous actor or singer or whatever, a loud outspoken public figure type, then -- fair game -- but a recluse? Let people have some f'in privacy, ffs.

Re:Even if it's accurate (4, Interesting)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 5 months ago | (#46426027)

I think it's absolutely wrong to out someone who is actively trying to remain out of the spotlight

Let's say for argument sake that it is accurate. That is the bitcoin owner, who isn't spending any of the bitcoins.

The person does not want to talk about it. If he is serious about that, waving microphones in front of the man is NOT going to encourage him to be forthcoming with personal stories.

So what does it change? Nothing!

There is no benefit to anyone. Now if the guy wanted to open up and share stories, that is what the media is hungering for. But he isn't doing that.

The BEST thing the guy could do is say "Yes that is me. I have nothing more to say, and I don't think I ever will. Now get off my lawn." and then refuse to say anything more. In fact, judging by the story, that is EXACTLY what he did say. There is no story or controversy around it. This is just some guy who has access to something valuable.

Some of the media folk may want to ask him questions, hoping to make a buck when he shares a story, but if he chooses not to share anything they'll quickly lose interest when the next something shiny comes around.

Absolutely (1)

Berkyjay (1225604) | about 5 months ago | (#46425863)

That's what the media is supposed to do. The correct question should be is this.....why is the media going all TMZ on this guy and chasing him down. In the past when we had real journalists they would have respected someone's right to not answer their stupid questions.

Re:Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425883)

Because the media HAS to now. Trust in journalists/the news/the government/corporations/corporate oversight/social ethics have gone to hell and this is the end result. People don't respect privacy/right to not answer questions because people naturally assume they're being lied to. And much to the chagrin of the public, they usually ARE being lied to.

If people get used to be lied to; well fuck your privacy and fuck your nice, politically correct sounding answer. People NEED to know the truth and you (possibly) aren't giving it!

Re:Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425907)

In this case they found a man who didnt even have the answer... some ethics on their part would be nice (what was the question he was supposed to answer anyways? something important or even interresting? nope, pure media-hype)

Re:Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425947)

And if the man IS the founder of Bitcoin, then what? Are you going to apologize to Newsweek? Of course not, you'll simply move on with your life and thats perfectly normal. Meanwhile, Newsweek will still be on the public's shitlist for having 'violated journalistic ethics' despite being vindicated.

Newsweek is fucked either way. Either wrongly report on the founder of Bitcoin or sit on the report and get called out for not 'asking hard questions'.

Re:Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426155)

Newsweek is fucked because they claim he's the guy and yet presented zero good evidence that that's the case. They got themselves into this situation, so there's no need to apologize, even if they did turn out to be right (which they guessed based on faulty evidence).

Re:Absolutely (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#46426245)

What would be robust evidence?

Bad (3, Informative)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46425865)

It's just bad journalism all around. There's nothing newsworthy about chasing people around their front yard and ringing their doorbell at all hours.

Journalists used to have a little class.

Re:Bad (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425945)

It's just bad journalism all around. There's nothing newsworthy about chasing people around their front yard and ringing their doorbell at all hours.

Journalists used to have a little class.

pass that shit you're smoking bro

Re:Bad (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#46425967)

Journalists used to have a little class.

No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.

Re:Bad (4, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 5 months ago | (#46426079)

Journalists used to have a little class.

No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.

Come on, even Hunter S Thompson had more class than the vultures who are filling columns these days. And consider someone like Edward Murrow -- he would probably not even get a job at any major news outlet today.

Re:Bad (1)

zamboni1138 (308944) | about 5 months ago | (#46426049)

Agreed.

From the Earth to the Moon, Episode 8, "We Interrupt This Program"

(25:40)
"Nobody wants to see a mother in pain."
"They do if it's news."
"That's not news. It's invasion of privacy."

Re:Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426261)

Have any of you idiots even read the article in Newsweek? You probably didn't even read the full summary at the top of this page.

Open Source (2)

Niterios (2700835) | about 5 months ago | (#46425901)

Isn't this taking the open source thing too literally?

Abhorent (5, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#46425903)

I found the story abhorent. Them showing up on his porch and confronting him as he was coming through the door with cameras like he's some criminal was equally disgusting.

He's not famous, he's not a public figure, he's just some random guy they wrote a big story about and then confronted him like he's a movie star and they were paparazzi scum. I think newsweek and the people involved should burn in hell for what they did. When I read the story and saw the photo's and video I almost gagged at the complete lack of any kind of morals the people involved have for doing this. I will not be offering them any kind of future business because of this. Just like I don't frequent TMZ because of their paparazzi BS, I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.

Re:Abhorent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425991)

He's not famous, he's not a public figure, he's just some random guy

Really? I mean, really??? I'm not saying that this is the guy, but considering that there's like 3 Bitcoin articles here per day, oh, sure, yea, you're totally right. Just some random thing.

Re:Abhorent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426115)

Read, you fuckwit.

Re:Abhorent (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 5 months ago | (#46426111)

I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
 
Is anybody still reading it? I thought they stopped their print edition few years ago because their circulation tanked and even online they are nowhere in the top 100 news sites. Going tabloid, like CNN, may be a desperate attempt to pull out of the death spiral.

Quote / Un-quote: (1)

Zanadou (1043400) | about 5 months ago | (#46425905)

Satoshi Nakamoto: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto." [ning.com]

Re:Quote / Un-quote: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426055)

Which is exactly what he would say if he is Dorian Nakamoto.

By contrast, if he were *not* Dorian Nakamoto, he could either (a) claim that he is, or (b) stay mysteriously silent, thus leading to the media focusing their attention on the wrong guy.

Bullshit reporting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425913)

Yeah, except Satoshi Nakamoto (whoever he is) has denied being this Dorian Nakamoto guy (see the comment at the bottom of this page: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/... [ning.com] ), and Dorian Nakamoto claims that he was misquoted here: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BITCOIN_FOUNDER_DENIAL

It's all bulllshit. Newsweek is a rag. Did anyone really trust it?

I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (2)

joeflies (529536) | about 5 months ago | (#46425919)

The simple fact is that BitCoin is drawing a lot of mainstream media interest. Given that nobody really knows who's behind it, (and for those really suspicious of a conspiracy, what all this crowd sourced crypto is analyzing), it's certain to draw questions. Like the ST:TNG episode "Clues", we have a series of minor mysteries on our hands.

But nevertheless, it isn't clear to me that Newsweek outed the right guy. As odd as Nakamoto appeared in the article, I'm left with feeling that the reporter is the one that's acting weird.

Re:I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (3, Insightful)

E-Rock (84950) | about 5 months ago | (#46425941)

What is the value of knowing who the original creator of bitcoin is and where he is living?

I'd say there is no value.

Re:I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425971)

What's the value of knowing the intimate details of the lives of the Kardashians?

Re:I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (3, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 5 months ago | (#46426197)

What's the value of knowing the intimate details of the lives of the Kardashians?

absolutely no value.

I can only yurn for the days when I thought it odd people were talking about Cardassians from Deep Space 9. Now that would be an interesting show I would watch religiously. A show about say Garek before being banished to Bajor and DS9 that would be worth watching as apposed to seeing what rapper/football player is knocking up a ex porn star between trips to the mall.

Re:I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (1)

F. Lynx Pardinus (2804961) | about 5 months ago | (#46426151)

BTC supporters tell me that BTC is going to fundamentally transform the economy. I'd certainly like to know a little about who created it, why they created it, and who financed its creation. Sunlight...disinfectant...and all that.

Very brave of them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425925)

Very brave of them to out an "inofensive good guy". But what about outing the "powerful evils in their government"?

Hold journalists/publications accountable. (2)

smart_ass (322852) | about 5 months ago | (#46425931)

Too much crap in the media.
In the race to be first with the story, half of what I read in a breaking story in the first 24 hours is half speculation / utter crap presented as fact.

Generally I am for society working it out on their own ... for "journalism"... the way it has been going, I would love to see the following:

1) Mandatory and obvious front and center RETRACTIONS and CORRECTIONS when they F-up details of the story.
2) Some sort of punishment for both the journalist and the publication that present the story.
3) Funds from punishment could be used to fix the situations they caused*

*Restitution to innocent victims of bull$hit. - for example.

If a journalist does not do due diligence before releasing a story and the result is that someone's life is put at risk ... that is a very serious offence.

Yes and No (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | about 5 months ago | (#46425935)

Yes and No but they made a mistake. DO you want folks showing up at your place?

No of course not (5, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 5 months ago | (#46425939)

It's really not even a question that should have to be asked. Here is a man who wasn't seeking the limelight and this idiot reporter stole something from him he will never be able to fully recover.

Re:No of course not (2)

Tom (822) | about 5 months ago | (#46426271)

This. Even asking the question is fucking stupid.

He wanted to be left alone, there is nothing the public gains from knowing his identity except some entertainment. There are cases where identifying someone serves the public good, but in this case it really serves nobody except the rag that published it.

Hiding under his real name was actually pretty smooth. I'm sure a dozen nosy reporters passed him up before because they thought that can't be.

The more I read... (4, Interesting)

kajong0007 (3558601) | about 5 months ago | (#46425943)

The more I read about Dorian Nakamoto, the more I want him to be Satoshi. That would make it an even better story.

Unfortunately as it stands, this is just a story of a journalist with an obsession and some amount of tunnel-vision. The more you want something to be true, the more blind you are to evidence against it.

At least he got a free lunch.

Re:The more I read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46425999)

That would make it an even better story.

And yet we wonder why Fox, CNN and the rest invent the news whenever possible.

Whatever happened to protecting your sources? (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 5 months ago | (#46425949)

Ok, suppose the media tracks the real Satoshi down, and wants to interview him. It doesn't take a lot of brains to realize that his wealth is stored in a way that could be irrevocably taken from him by two goons and a five dollar wrench. Why not ask if he'll agree to a taped interview in a secure location with his face blurred and voice distorted -- the same as we have always done for individuals whose lives are in jeopardy?

By the way, I'm not up on what can/can't be done with the blockchain, but is there some way that the real Satoshi could affirm his existence by spending a fraction of one of the earliest-mined bitcoins in a predetermined way to prove it? E.g., "we've asked this guy to transfer $1 worth of Bitcoins from this address at the very start of the blockchain to an address we've created especially for the purposes of identification."

Re:Whatever happened to protecting your sources? (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 5 months ago | (#46425975)

(I mean, yes, the real Satoshi has a blog [ning.com] , but if you want to prove that you're the guy who mined the first x Bitcoins, it seems like there might be a very straightforward way using the BTC protocol itself.)

Re:Whatever happened to protecting your sources? (2)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 5 months ago | (#46426005)

is there some way that the real Satoshi could affirm his existence

Why?

What does it gain anybody?

Let's say that is the guy, he didn't lose the key, and he has access to a valuable resource. So what? I know several people who are fairly wealthy, their wealth does not define them, nor does it make them inherently powerful or anything. What is the point of having them prove their wealth to someone?

About the only thing anyone would want is to hear stories. No matter if that is the man or not, the real bitcoin owner does not want to share stories. Sticking microphones in his face and asking him questions about his life is unlikely to encourage him to share personal stories. There is nothing to gain by trying to point out that a person has a valuable object when the person has insisted for years they don't wish to discuss it.

Summary (2)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 5 months ago | (#46425977)

What I can see is :

It makes no difference to bitcoin ( the identity of satoshi )
It gives the journalist lady a pat on the back and a bonus maybe
It gives all the bitcoin wannabes some kinda fantasy figure
It does not help to the correct the flaws that bitcoin fundamentally has
In all, it doesn't make any difference to the world in general.

__________________________________
Bitcoin is the DOS of crypto cc's . The Unix is yet to come ..

Yes. No. Maybe. (3, Interesting)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 5 months ago | (#46425995)

You have to set aside first whether or not this is Satoshi Nakamoto. Assume it was the victim of a terrible crime, or assume it was the perpetrator of that terrible crime. If you start saying it's okay for one to be outed, but not the other, you're already on shaky grounds of having to somehow define which is which in what case. You can argue "we can decide that on a case-by-case scenario", but then you'll inevitably overstep the boundaries. Doing a mea culpa and saying you're moving the boundary a bit is great for the future, but doesn't negate the overstepping that has already occurred.

So, that out of the way.. I think at the heart of it are two things:

1. The author's suggestion that this information is already public; and, given that she did indeed find the name through public records and went from there, one could argue that if it's already public, it doesn't matter that she published it all conveniently in one place.

Or does it? Considering the information was indeed public, but nobody bothered with it until this article, and considering the response it has gotten (overwhelmingly: great journalism in finding the person, questionable journalism at best in publishing the details), clearly it does matter when you start aggregating all of those bits and pieces into a single document; doxxing.

Some countries even have laws against doing that, fully acknowledging that the individual bits and pieces may well be public, but that aggregating them is not allowed.

2. Whether or not these details added anything to the story besides sensationalism. I.e. the photo of the house which included house number; would the story have been worse, or less believable, etc. if that had been blurred out? While the internet sleuthing machine would undoubtedly have found the address without that bit of information eventually, it would certainly have taken substantially longer. Imagine next that there were no picture of the house, merely a description that the person lived in just an ordinary house. Now the internet sleuthing machine (and that includes other media) have a monumental task ahead of them; it could be any house in the city mentioned. Would you have taken the author's word for it, though? The evidence that they had found the person they were after would have to be a lot stronger to lend weight to words than does a picture - human nature tends to do that.

Think of interviewees who agree upon the interview as long as they are not identified and are made unrecognizable (silhouette shots at best, voice warbled). This could be anybody making up any sort of story. The reason we often trust these interviews anyway is because what facts said can be verified, and because we tend to trust the interviewer based on their reputation.
We generally don't say "well unless I can see the person's face and hear what they sound like, I'm going to dismiss this interview".

You have to think to yourself how low the trust in the author of this piece has to be, and how shaky the facts on the actual subject material ("is this person Satoshi Nakamoto?") , that they saw no other recourse than to release personal details that could be verified instead ("we don't know truly if this is Satoshi Nakamoto, but it is 'A Guy', and 'A Guy' can be found here, go ahead and look him up for proof that it is 'A Guy'").

Reputable investigative journalists usually allow people who don't want to be found to remain 'not found', no matter how much bits and pieces of public information end up pointing to them; be that victims or perpetrators of terrible crimes. Without that, they're just the next doxxing TMZ, chasing people downs streets with cameras and pummeling them with leading questions.

Note that I'm just as opposed to doxxing of the author in question. While it seems like just deserts, it's really just perpetuating the problem. Rather than attacking the author, it would be more interesting to get an in-depth interview with her on her motives, thoughts (before/during/after), etc.

All I can say (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46426007)

is that if this the Satoshi Nakamoto of BitCoin fame, the Newsweek has just doubled his wealth.
If he hasn't then Newsweek has just made him as wealthy as the other Nakamoto.

NO (5, Insightful)

jmd (14060) | about 5 months ago | (#46426033)

As Eleanor Roosevelt said: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Lets get back to discussing Bitcoin..... the idea.

It all looks very circumstantial anyway (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46426037)

It looks almost as if they looked up a phone book and found the first match with a computer background, then published the guy's address before he was positively identified as the author.

Man wants privacy. Jerk reporter outs him anyways. (3)

infogulch (1838658) | about 5 months ago | (#46426051)

"News at 11."

That's the whole story folks. The fact that he did something notable doesn't remove his right to privacy.

JD Salinger (1)

cpm99352 (939350) | about 5 months ago | (#46426075)

Hmm, very similar to JD Salinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Salinger)

For all of you arguing that college requirements for non-technical courses are BS, this is a great counter-example. If you have no idea of what _Catcher in the Rye_ is, nor who Salinger is, then you are at a disadvantage vs. the Harvard (etc) graduates.

Re:JD Salinger (1)

idioto (259918) | about 5 months ago | (#46426177)

I'm not sure what you are talking about aside from JD Salinger was a miser who was a lucky one trick pony. If you want to look to literature, try perusing the Picture of Dorian Grey. He did pick that as his new name. What happens in year 38, what age is the pseudonymous Satoshi? It's a set-up, they're all a bunch of phonies man.

Perfect english? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426093)

"Nakamoto, who is 64 years old, ....
Nakamoto, who came to the US when he was 10 does not speak perfect English ..."

Are you kidding me? You've been in the US for 54 years and you STILL don't speak "perfect" English?
This is why I hate some immigrants... They make no effort to be part of the new country they are in.

Nothing is proven (1)

Rufus Jones (3566715) | about 5 months ago | (#46426123)

There are two problems with the article. The more important one is that there is no proof in the piece-- Z-E-R-O. There isn't one thing that a competent journalist would consider evidence, much less a court. Some people say "He's smart enough." BFD. , It's like my saying "Lee McGrath Goodman is a pre-op transexual" and giving as proof "The writer has a girl's name but behaves like a dick." , The logic in the article isn't even plausible, in that it asks us to believe that the creator of Bitcoin (who is paranoid about their privacy) used his birth name to sign the original document. Or, conversely, that a genius scientist who worked on top-secret projects and cared about privacy and security, would use his name to create the currency. , The second issue is, as the comment notes, that it's a total and grotesque violation of privacy. I thought Caleb Hannan's "Dr. V's Magic Putter" (which outed a transexual who wanted to keep that fact private and resulted in her suicide) was bad. This borders on the pathological. This woman has no evidence and yet she holds this guy guilty and puts him in danger. , It's not just that people who lost money on Bitcoin might damage him-- it's the criminals who might torture him to death to get the $400 million in Bitcoin she claims he has.

Perfect Storm, timing everything at others expense (1)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | about 5 months ago | (#46426145)

They'd been investigating this guy for months. A combination of things led to this story being exposed. Newsweek were about to make a print comeback, Mt Gox went under the journalist (and her two "forensic analyst" sidekicks) had to print something. End result a media ready to run with anything true or not, lots of web hits to Newseek, poor guy being harassed. Newsweek win in the short.

Right to be left alone (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 5 months ago | (#46426153)

In the US, there's a fundamental right in the constitution, the right to be left alone. This reporter violated this man's right to be left alone, placing him and his family in a life threatening situation. I think that this reporter will have to be held financially accountable for all costs to protect and relocate these people and give them a new identity.

Re:Right to be left alone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426199)

Right to be left alone???? where is that in the constitution?

What about teaching a lesson? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426159)

Do we already know where Leah McGrath Goodman lives? Someone has a photo of his car?
Maybe a pic of him with his family?

This is so familiar. From some mafia films?

Vajk

Re:What about teaching a lesson? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46426265)

her car etc.

Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46426237)

From personal experience and just looking at the vast majority of 'news' reports, it is clear that more than 90% of all journalists are grossly incompetent. There is no knowledge of the subject they write about, there is no interest in finding out details - just follow the recipe. And on top of that their bosses push for ridiculous deadlines, not caring whether the story is actually done properly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...