Beta
×

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!

Satoshi Nakamoto Found? Not So Fast

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the cryptoidentity-crisis dept.

Bitcoin 182

Yesterday, Newsweek outed the creator of Bitcoin. Or did they? An anonymous reader tipped us to news that the account on p2pfoundation that posted the original Bitcoin paper, posted for the first time in five years simply noting "I am not Dorian Nakamoto." And the Satoshi Nakamto Newsweek claims was the creator? In an interview with the AP, he claims to have only learned of Bitcoin recently, and that his comments were taken far out of context. From the article: "He also said a key portion of the piece — where he is quoted telling the reporter on his doorstep before two police officers, 'I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it' — was misunderstood. Nakamoto said he is a native of Beppu, Japan who came to the U.S. as a child in 1959. He speaks both English and Japanese, but his English isn't flawless. ... 'I'm saying I'm no longer in engineering. That's it,' he said of the exchange. 'And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that's what I implied. ... It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I'm not involved now. That's not what I meant. I want to clarify that,' he said.

Newsweek writer Leah McGrath Goodman, who spent two months researching the story, told the AP: 'I stand completely by my exchange with Mr. Nakamoto. There was no confusion whatsoever about the context of our conversation -and his acknowledgment of his involvement in bitcoin.'"

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bitcoin: I am not money (5, Insightful)

selectspec (74651) | about 5 months ago | (#46428695)

Doesn't matter what is true, its what people believe.

Re:Bitcoin: I am not money (3, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | about 5 months ago | (#46428765)

It's all about truthiness.

Here is part of a Bitcoin (5, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 5 months ago | (#46429003)

I found it on the beach the other day - who ever owns it can have it back.

CJZMlW8T4VdyDRTaX21dxQM4LgzD cswi7BCjxvRA0aJXqJloleQkm569Kih76etLWtGROna/fOzuBoS Po1W9aEvExga TQxWpayFSmbdrjDN+l4pMGVicmet9dSbW65Hy6zlOvv51Ws WMVwyD+11/VNW/SAivUM8PJ8jNLLC4qF1AIr n7yGrMp6KizqnbK3eiOJC91Qwy6O7k1Rta2vcxPpXXKx bxy67X5POhF6V1wOLWX/Akq2huto/WgZMx5W8c6VhDXNOgmiGknghKccHPtGHzEVyuc oscXRLPVePkq LaQQmlVRe JF42SluJrUaFH1CdAHNxiIzW2wC7bJLTP0165C WjIy/j2e8NEYbFlMjw8FWJYRXOL8KmBUukIl0Ng2M69hh X5dFvWqM5R1oOfiYtT7hIrp8 hZvdPRbnmG3U6 nW24B/5hyejm8as8WMfoICfX+k72tBfECBD 6mZ7rfk1xR99E6Eh3KM xolAo0EDcegNnrDR5K72JMQIEzvmkY

Re:Bitcoin: I am not money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429165)

Doesn't matter what is true, its what people believe.

What matters is what Wikipedia says. And Wikipedia says, "Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency introduced as open source software in 2009 by developer Satoshi Nakamoto." [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Bitcoin: I am not money (4, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#46429243)

Because we all know Wikipedia can't be edited by someone with an agenda.

Re:Bitcoin: I am not money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429291)

Damn straight. There's even some dude out there trying to convince the world that "Oligonicella is a wide-ranging genus of mantises" [wikipedia.org] .

It's not just deadlines that make whooshing sounds, you know?

Re:Bitcoin: I am not money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429377)

Doesn't matter what is true...

No more needs be said...

Re:Bitcoin: I am not money (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 5 months ago | (#46429531)

I am not the Satoshi Nakamoto. I deny this. I am the Batman.

Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428721)

Let's have a third discussion on the same thing, and re-hash the same arguments! Excellent.

Also, editors, "This Day on Slashdot" has been broken for like a week.

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428845)

So has the HardOCP window, for months.

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46428977)

The real inventor was Keyser Soze!!!

(Credit: Patent Lover [slashdot.org] )

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429301)

"The real inventor was Keyser Soze!!!"
That's the name I use on one of my e-mail accounts, and I can assure you it's not me!

Re:Really? (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46429337)

This just in: Satoshi Nakamoto, the famous Japanese man, was recently discovered to have changed his name from Momomoto, and can thus swallow his own nose.

In other news, Leah McGrath Goodman is actually a cabbage.

Hail Eris! :)

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429783)

Let's have a third discussion on the same thing, and re-hash the same arguments! Excellent.

What do you think proof-of-work is all about? :)

Lack of privacy knowledge (4, Interesting)

fishybell (516991) | about 5 months ago | (#46428725)

If it is the Satoshi Nakamoto, there is a pattern: a complete lack of the understanding of how personal privacy works on the internet.

  1. He uses his own name, or at least a variation on it, when he created bitcoin.
  2. He outs himself assuming he'd still maintain privacy because he's no longer "involved."

The fact that he's fairly old adds to the evidence. If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works (or rather, doesn't work) with respect to the internet.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 5 months ago | (#46428749)

There's some variation on the "Only old people in Korea..." Slashdot meme in this.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428831)

So you are saying that it makes sense that he is the guy who created bitcoin because he A) doesn't understand how the internet works and B) doesn't understand privacy...

Bitcoin designer is technologically out of touch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429527)

So you are saying that it makes sense that he is the guy who created bitcoin because he A) doesn't understand how the internet works and B) doesn't understand privacy...

It absolutely makes sense. Bitcoin's design assumes ordinary users can successfully make periodic backups. That notion was abandoned long ago. So yes, the bitcoin designer does seem technologically out of touch.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 5 months ago | (#46428899)

The original Bitcoin paper claims that the currency described by the protocol is "anonymous" ("Participants can be anonymous") yet it's a protocol where every transaction is logged. Can't get much less anonymous than that. So yeah, while it's unlikely this is the Mr Bitcoin Nakamoto, if it were the lack of understanding of personal privacy would fit in at all levels.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429131)

You don't quite understand what "anonymous" means, do you? Every transaction is logged, but what gets logged is only a record of which wallet transferred funds to another wallet. At no point in that chain does it say "squiggleslash gave a bitcoin to Darlene the Hooker for services rendered."

That is anonymous.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429251)

No, that's pseudonymous.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (2)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46429617)

Right - the protocol only fails for anonymity when someone can log the IP addresses associated with every bitcoin transaction ever, and get the physical address associated with every IP address. So, yeah, here on Earth it's not anonymous, but it looks great on a whiteboard.

If you keep logs, you out your users when the government gets the logs - that's hardly news. And bitcoin "keeping logs" is fundamental to the protocol. It's still a neat protocol, and it's probably easier to anonymize (or steal) an IP address than a credit card, but don't think you're hidden from the NSA by the power of bitcoin.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429185)

It's pseudonymous, it's up to you to decide if you want to use that feature or not. So the answer is both, it's anonymous if you take the effort and not anonymous if you don't. That's what "Participants can be anonymous" means.

Merchants can out you (0)

perpenso (1613749) | about 5 months ago | (#46429557)

... it's anonymous if you take the effort and not anonymous if you don't ...

Not really. Merchants can out you.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 5 months ago | (#46429583)

I think both you and the sibling poster, quibblings about "pseudonymous" aside, both make the same mistake "Hypothetical Nakamoto" make, namely a failure to understand what privacy means when the Internet gets involved.

Transactions in Bitcoindom are logged, and effectively logged eternally (how easily this can scale is open to question, Bitcoin's advocates argue the blockchain can be truncated at some point, but it isn't right now and I suspect there's a lot of agreement that will have to go on to make that happen.) The logging is public - anyone can read it. From the Blockchain, you - and everyone else - can determine every single transaction that's affected a specific coin or a specific wallet. To actively isolate transactions from a wallet you'd have to do an enormous amount of work and receive help from a third party that's laundering transactions for so many people it's close to impossible to link them, and, of course, that third party would know what you're up to.

Does this mean you can tell that "squiggleslash" spent 0.1BTC on coke, hookers, and gambling last week? That depends. Without the laundering service, it's relatively easy to tell that someone who's your customer (or your employee...) did that. And as more and more information leaks from you about you and your wallet, more and more information becomes available as to what you're doing.

By comparison, whenever Google logs what you're doing, most people here are up in arms. But the funny thing is that Google doesn't publish logs of every single browser's history to the Internet. It keeps that information to itself. So for most of us, Google invading our privacy means a handful of Google employees might be able to do the research.

The Blockchain, however, is public.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429779)

Anonymity doesn't exist because there's a chance someone could identify you.

Privacy doesn't exist because the government could install surveillance equipment in every possible private location you could visit.

See the problem? Just because it's possible to identify someone with enough resources doesn't mean it's not anonymous.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429141)

"If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works (or rather, doesn't work) with respect to the internet."

Says the dumbshit who has an email address publicly displayed right next to his username

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429449)

Fishybell is 97, you insensitive whippersnapper!

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (1)

skipkent (1510) | about 5 months ago | (#46429535)

Ah well, at least beta solves that problem!

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (1)

fishybell (516991) | about 5 months ago | (#46429593)

Feel free to send an e-mail there as well. It will end up in the blackhole that is my junk address.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429679)

Punk.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429399)

If he were in his mid 20s he would have posted the whitepaper on his facebook next to photos of him vomiting copiously, and other such treasures.

Re:Lack of privacy knowledge (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 5 months ago | (#46429567)

If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works (or rather, doesn't work) with respect to the internet.

In my mid-40s, and having been active online since my teens, I understand that using a pseudonym is no guarantee of privacy.

Sue? (4, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 5 months ago | (#46428729)

I feel bad for the guy. Even though I'm Canadian, this seems like the kind of thing you should sue over (publishing all your private info on the cover story of newsweek when the entire premise of the article is false). Does he have any grounds to sue Newsweek or the reporter who stalked and exposed him?

Re:Sue? (1)

epiccollision (1373095) | about 5 months ago | (#46428873)

you probably would have a case if something was intentionally misrepresented by the author(Tailhook), or the fact checking failed upon review due to negligence(stephen glass)...if you truly believe something is true and you can present the case to a judge that the material you gathered pointed to this person being who the evidence says he is. You'd have a difficult position to sue for any damages as a result...a retraction is about all you'd be entitled to.

Re:Sue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428909)

An eye for an eye. Publicly post Leah McGrath Goodman's home address, phone number, names of her family and their address, license plate number, etc.

Re:Sue? (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#46428941)

I think basically Newsweek would claim "we did all this research and a lot of points to this guy as being the guy. Our news story doesn't say "this guy is the guy, our news story lays out the evidence and says we think this is the guy based on this evidence."

Fair? Maybe not, but I'm guessing the newspaper's free speech rights cover their ability to investigate and speculate as long as they are clear about the fact that they are indeed speculating. It's a question of ethics and credibility as to whether the evidence is of enough quantity and quality that they should publish a news story speculating.

Re:Sue? (1)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | about 5 months ago | (#46429275)

It's easier to understand why people do things when you stand back and look at people's motives and the motives 90%+ of the times are who stands to gain what.

Newsweek wanted a huge story for their brand new print edition, the journalist was investigating alleged Satoshi for months, bitcoin was the flavour of the week. Of course they were going to run with the story true or false. This story is on the front cover of the print edition. The alleged Satoshi just got used to make Newsweek big, that's what journalists do right, sacrifice people.

Doesn't Ring A Bell (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 5 months ago | (#46429487)

It's a question of ethics and credibility...

"Them I'm still looking for." -- Leah McGrath Goodman

Re:Sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429639)

I think this story is not so much about Bitcoin, or the guy, but Newsweek is trying to recover, and needed something big. Now everyone that talks about this is talking about Newsweek. Not bad for whatever PR person came up with it. :golf clap:

Re:Sue? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 5 months ago | (#46428951)

Which brings up the question is it slander/libel when the things told about you are not specifically reputation ruining, just generally wrong.

Re:Sue? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 5 months ago | (#46429009)

Not without malicious intent.

Re:Sue? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 5 months ago | (#46429113)

Which brings up the question is it slander/libel when the things told about you are not specifically reputation ruining, just generally wrong.

If it were, most journalists would be in a world of hurt. If the subject is not harmed and the things told about them are based on good faith and some research, and you are a journalist or person in position of power, any such suit would be rejected.

This is due to the fact that pretty much all news reporting that goes beyond reporting the bare facts (and even some of that) is generally wrong. News reporting is about telling an interesting story, so the narrative is often "embellished" to make it more interesting to the readers.

I've had a fair bit written about me in newspapers, and the only bits that have been fully correct were in tables of statistics (which never make the main spread). The other stuff? Nothing precisely wrong about most of it, but it always implied things that were definitely not the case. This is not usually due to the person doing the initial reporting -- it's due to the fact that between their investigative journalism and publication, there's a gantlet of editors, ad holes, general editors, etc. to run through that reshape the story to fit the target space. None of these added factors know anything about the original situation other than what they hear from the initial journalist or read in the copy. Every piece of "news" published has already run a game of telephone, even if the person who was #2 in the chain still has to sign off on what's published at the end.

Re:Sue? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 5 months ago | (#46428993)

What private info? Outside of info from his family the rest of the info is in the public record.

May destroy the career of bad journalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429067)

On the bright side, if it does turn out to be false, the Newsweek reporter will be fired, and possibly also the editor. We may be rid of a couple of crappy journalists.

Re:May destroy the career of bad journalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429135)

No, they will just move to Fox News.

Re:May destroy the career of bad journalists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429211)

No, because the Newsweek error is accident/incompetence. Faux News, on the other hand, is purely intentional propaganda.

Who cares... (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 5 months ago | (#46428737)

... who originated bitcoin? Is this all newsweek can come up with for news nowadays?

Re:Who cares... (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46428771)

Nope, their front page also has an article about an app for your phone that provides cookie recipes. Is there no depth their reporters won't provide on an important story?

Re:Who cares... (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46429057)

Considering the news stories lately of MtGox and other exchanges failing or reporting thefts, it's newsworthy. More newsworthy than any Kardashi-West BS that graces the headlines constantly.

Given that peoples' attention spans are so short, this will blow over for the guy in a couple of weeks and everybody will focus on more important things like the new Cold War and for the EU and Ukraine the Russians will literally make it cold for them.

Re:Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429085)

Not only that, but they did investigative work to "cause" news and announce "bitcoin creator found". If they want to go that route, they should do something worthwhile like researching cancer to be the first to announce "cancer cured".

Re:Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429261)

I was surprised to learn that people still read Newsweek (and that it still exists).

Love effort (-1, Troll)

TempleOS (3394245) | about 5 months ago | (#46428747)

If I put love effort into a Moses comic, God pays me with a melody. I joke it is money laundering. I'm afraid SOME FUCKEN NIGGER... God damn you are a nigger! You are the stupidest nigger ... fucken nigger lipped nigger. NIST. have_fun place What_are_you_doing_dave stunning You_fix_it my_precious incoming walking pwned Tomorrow what's_the_plan Boo thank_you_very_much You_know yuck if_and_only_if delicious rip_off overflow sess_me tiffanies what_do_you_expect boink climate phasors_on_stun ordinarily after_a_break here_now revolution wastoid what_do_you_want

But it's so simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428763)

Wouldn't it be to his advantage to not deny it, and let people focus all of their attention on the wrong guy? Perhaps knowing that we will realize this, he's only saying it so that we will doubt he is in fact him. But, also recognizing that, he knows that I will now be writing this comment on Slashdot. And in the end, we still don't know anything.

Re:But it's so simple. (3, Insightful)

Aerokii (1001189) | about 5 months ago | (#46429129)

Possibly- but the more I think about it, the more I can see why the creator would make such a post if it isn't him. Based on discussions yesterday, there's good reason to believe the creator's sitting on millions upon millions of USD worth of bitcoins. If people were to assume the gentleman "outed" in Newsweek had such funding available to him, that might put him in danger.

So, rather than put someone in danger who has nothing to do with this situation, the creator makes this post. I think it seems logical, but that's just a theory.

Honest mistake (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428769)

I completely understand how Leah McGrath Goodman could mistake Dorian Nakamoto for the creator of Bitcoin. After all, I mistook Ms. Goodman for a reporter.

TIME FOR SOME WATERBOARD PROBLEMS IN TEMPLE CITY!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428783)

Go Bush/Cheney/Christie/Replicans/Russians/Turks/Vadars of the world !!

wants to remain anonymous let him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428785)

If the creator wants to remain anonymous, let him.

Newsweek needs to fire Leah McGrath Goodman and her editor for violating an individual's privacy. This isn't journalism, this is stalking a private individual.

Re:wants to remain anonymous let him (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46429229)

Haha yeah right, this story brought them lots of page views and reminded people that Newsweek is still in business, she'll likely get a bonus! Journalism is a thing for the history books at this point. Capitalism killed it. It wasn't as profitable as running what used to be called a "gossip rag."

CIA under investigation for monitoring Senate (-1, Offtopic)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 5 months ago | (#46428803)

"The CIA's internal watchdog is investigating allegations that the agency improperly spied on Senate staffers probing secret details of a now-defunct interrogation program.

Senator Dianne Feinstein acknowledged Wednesday the existence of the probe, which highlights a rare public clash between lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee she chairs and the US espionage community it oversees
." ref http://news.yahoo.com/cia-unde... [yahoo.com]

Re:CIA under investigation for monitoring Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428843)

couldn't get your bs past the editors could you?

BitCoinz!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428817)

What about teh open market!?!?!?!! HERP!!!!

Newsweek is the new National Enquirer (4, Insightful)

Kwelstr (114389) | about 5 months ago | (#46428893)

Seriously, this was once a very respected mag that will never publish such trash and make it pass for true journalism just to get page views. Newsweek may be happy with all the attention, but the reporting was amateurish. That's what happens when you cut cost by firing all the carreer pros and get sub par people to do the vetting. I hope they go the way of Time mag sooner rather than later. The poor guy that has only a name to share with the true creator of bitcoin probably will get a lawyer and a big cash settlement. The bitcoin community sees this as a lot of fun after a few weeks of distressing news. Bitcoin as a whole is benefiting from all the publicity. All in all, bad journalism and not a bad week for bitcoin.

Re:Newsweek is the new National Enquirer (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 5 months ago | (#46429145)

It makes me think. Are media outlets that are doing stories about bitcoin also trading in them with hopes of inflating the value?

Re:Newsweek is the new National Enquirer (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 5 months ago | (#46429505)

It makes me think. Are media outlets that are doing stories about bitcoin also trading in them with hopes of inflating the value?

Of course they are. Don't you know everyone is in some sort of scheme or another. Trust no one.

poor guy just wants to be left alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428911)

thank you american press now we know that an old man made something some of us place value upon.

Stalking is stalking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428929)

If you do not perform due diligence as a journalist, you end up being a paparazzi. This is piranha like behavior. No one wanted to know where this mans lives (except for those who might wish to harm him). Shame on Newsweek and the L.A. Times.

Re:Stalking is stalking (1)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | about 5 months ago | (#46429087)

They needed a big story for the print edition, bitcoin was the flavour of the week after Mt Gox. This journalist was researching alleged Satoshi for months. Combine all the events together they were going to run with this story regardless. That's why it's such a retarded story when you read it, it's half-baked thrown together. They're saying it's him based on a big hunch - but they couldn't care less they got their 15 mins of fame (or infame). Posting his picture and house maybe that had something to do with the half-bakedness, every other media outlet went to his door, it was to make more controversy thus making the print more successful in their eyes. This Satoshi should sue big-time.

Police interview (5, Interesting)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 5 months ago | (#46428945)

He also said a key portion of the piece - where he is quoted telling the reporter on his doorstep before two police officers

I know one should not mention the pink elephant in the room, but why did the newsweek reported do the interview with the police present?

Not wanting to get shot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46428991)

Not wanting to get shot for stalking the poor guy?

Re:Not wanting to get shot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429433)

Not wanting to get shot for stalking the poor guy?

Police don't usually provide private security for news reporters.

Re:Police interview (4, Informative)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 5 months ago | (#46429155)

Because the guy called to police to make the reporter leave.

Re:Police interview (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429173)

There's no pink elephant in the room. Nakamoto called the police, police showed up, Nakamoto then granted a brief interview in the presence of the Police.

Re:Police interview (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429353)

The guy called the police because she was harassing him.

Re:Police interview (2)

blueg3 (192743) | about 5 months ago | (#46429669)

Because Nakamoto is the one who called the police and asked for them to be present?

I am not Dorian Nakamoto. (1)

Andster (1180297) | about 5 months ago | (#46428949)

But I AM SPARTACUS.

Two Months? (4, Insightful)

rabun_bike (905430) | about 5 months ago | (#46428953)

Once people inside the publication or organization get wrapped up in these stories they can no longer think subjectively. They convince themselves they have it right and sometimes they don't but it is hard to convince yourself otherwise.

Two months is not a huge amount of time to do research for a story that no one else has come close to cracking. Just because the guy's bio sounds plausible doesn't make it so. Heck a few years ago a lawyer in the US was a partial thumbprint match on a bomb that exploded in Madrid. In the end his fingerprint matched the bomb maker's partial print and the FBI had to apologize but not before they put him through the ringer. Everyone was convinced he was the guy. They just couldn't see past the finger print match.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5053... [nbcnews.com]

Another example is Dan Rather's early career retirement due to back research on then president Bush military service. Dan just couldn't let it go and it ended his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

Another FBI example was the Atlanta Olympic bomber suspect Ricard Jewel. FBI got that one wrong as well but plowed ahead anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

There are many more of these example.

Ding dong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429369)

...the FBI had to apologize but not before they put him through the ringer.

While I am sure they rung his bells for him, the word you're looking for is wringer. [amazon.com]

Re:Ding dong! (1)

rabun_bike (905430) | about 5 months ago | (#46429455)

Not the only typo in my post but thanks. I should have also said "objectively" and not "subjectively" as well as some other grammatical errors. Just the nature of unedited posts. I would love to have an editor follow me around though. That would be awesome.

Newsweek's motives (2)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | about 5 months ago | (#46428985)

Newsweek is going print, they need a front page story, Mt Gox went bust, another bitcoin exchange boss was found dead, bitcoin was already the flavour of the week. Combine these events, Newsweek going print, lots to write about bitcoin. Now, a journalist along with two forensic analysts were researching the alleged Satoshi for 3+ months, at some point they have to deliver the goods.

The perfect storm run with the bitcoin story no matter if true or false. Newseek's front page is the bitcoin story.

Journalistically the story was a success. On moral, humanitarian, investigative, common sense, ethical grounds the story is a massive fail.

What will be the repercussions? Poor guy was chased and hounded by journalists for having the same name, journalist making appearances like a hero on some shows. Forbes was calling it journalistic brilliance.

At least retard achieved one thing, the real Satoshi stood up and said it's not me.

perhaps he posted to get the press off his back? (3, Insightful)

bbeesley (2709435) | about 5 months ago | (#46429001)

If I was a genius recluse who had just been outed and was being hounded by the media, the first thing I would do is login to an account I hadn't used in years and say, "it ain't me!"

I don't understand the logic behind this (5, Insightful)

marciot (598356) | about 5 months ago | (#46429027)

First off, let me say I don't care who Satoshi is and I think everyone should leave this Dorian guy alone, but I don't understand how a denial coming from that account proves anything. If in fact Dorian was BitCoin's creator, wouldn't he try to draw attention away from himself by posting from the original account saying that he wasn't who in fact he is?

-- Marcio

Re:I don't understand the logic behind this (2)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | about 5 months ago | (#46429191)

Maybe he felt sorry for the guy after all the real Satoshi isn't a serial killer.

Re:I don't understand the logic behind this (1)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | about 5 months ago | (#46429279)

Yes, the only thing that post really proves is that Satoshi is alive and paying attention to the news. The only way that account could prove it wasn't Dorian is if someone put Dorian in jail or something (without giving him any advance warning so he can't set up a delayed script) and THEN this post was made.

Well.. that or the real Satoshi could come forward (assuming it isn't this guy).

Re:I don't understand the logic behind this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429691)

Even that wouldn't prove anything since you could still get someone to post on your behalf, and you could set that up even from behind bars.

Who is making the claim is important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429493)

Remember that Newsweek is making the claim that Dorian is the guy. They are making the claim and need the evidence. If that evidence is strong enough that the recent denial is irrelevant then there you go. Otherwise....

Moreover, how can Dorian prove that it isn't him. For that matter how can I prove that it isn't me. Perhaps you are Santoshi. Prove you aren't. Until someone else is verifiability shown to be Santoshi then it is very hard/impossible to prove otherwise.

Re:I don't understand the logic behind this (1)

azcoyote (1101073) | about 5 months ago | (#46429499)

True--and, in fact, it makes more sense for someone who really wants to remain anonymous to remain silent and let an imposter be the center of attention. He might have posted to exonerate Dorian because he felt sorry for him, but what does it really matter? It's not like he was under arrest or being investigated by the police. Perhaps he posted to clear Dorian because he didn't like someone else getting credit, even if he won't stand up and take the credit himself. Or maybe Dorian just posted in order to further the confusion and try to trick people into thinking that he isn't the guy.

If I were him (4, Funny)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46429033)

I'd say "Yeah I'm him, give me my $600 million for the Bitcoins I own and I'll tell you my story."

Which would begin...

"I was born a poor black child."

He should play it for all its worth.

Re:If I were him (1)

natophonic (103088) | about 5 months ago | (#46429265)

In that case, I'd say it's clear that he found his 'special purpose!'

Re:If I were him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429607)

The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!

Nakamoto, Satoshi! I'm somebody now! Millions of people look at this book everyday! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity - your name in print - that makes people. I'm in print! Things are going to start happening to me now.

Re:If I were him (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 5 months ago | (#46429615)

Oh, this is the best pizza in a cup ever

Re:If I were him (1)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | about 5 months ago | (#46429637)

Actually, I was thinking the opposite:

If I were NOT him, how could I parlay this into something worth my while? Grant an exclusive interview for $100k stating beforehand that I am NOT him so there are no misconceptions? Pose in Playgirl? What? He might as well try to turn lemons into lemonade...

So (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 5 months ago | (#46429269)

How does that prove anything?

Jimmy Fallon prank (1)

zerosomething (1353609) | about 5 months ago | (#46429381)

It's all a Jimmy Fallon prank on Leah McGrath Goodman. He's been setting it up for months.

Re:Jimmy Fallon prank (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about 5 months ago | (#46429539)

Jimmy Fallon is the Late Night Beta.

Donations for Satoshi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46429423)

It is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that this isn't the creator of Bitcoin. If you care about what the media has done to this guy or you're just feeling generous, you can donate to him here: https://blockchain.info/address/1Dorian4RoXcnBv9hnQ4Y2C1an6NJ4UrjX?offset=0&filter=0 They've already collected over $7500 USD for him.

Information:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ztjmg/andreas_im_fundraising_for_dorian_nakamoto/

so far, not proof that it's not him.. then. (1)

strstr (539330) | about 5 months ago | (#46429597)

The dude who posted on Satoshi Nakamto's account could be spreading misinformation. Essentially, it's a misinformation campaign to hide the identity of Satoshi Nakamto.

Think about it also; why would this guy Satoshi suddenly log in to his account after 5 years, just to get back involved in something he doesn't even care about, unless he really saw it as a threat that his identity had been exposed? Satoshi would have just been trying to hide the fact that he really was Dorian Nakamoto by doing this.

I would go back to the first statements made by Dorian Nakamoto, and say that they were accurate and he knew exactly what he was replying to, but didn't think it through enough/was panicked into his denials (he even knew to call the cops, trying to defend himself from exposure). Now he's come back trying to trick the public into thinking he's some dim witted nut, has dementia, or is senile, and didn't know what bitcoin was or what he was talking about.

Guy who worked for the DOD though? Nah, these guys are sharp as a wim, so I think he's intelligently trying to cover this up.

Additionally, we may never know if someone else comes through trying to claim they're the real SM. We need polygraphs, and we need to go back and analyse his early writing style to compare it to old samples from any would be claimant. We also need to compare IP addresses and track down who this and that are from the server logs, and track this guy SM's activity, and compare it to Dorian's. We should also try to get ahold of Dorian Nakamoto's hand writing and online text, because we can compare his language use and grammar to see if it matches up with Satoshi's. A writer for the New Yorker actually did this back in 2011 during the first attempt to track this guy down, going on a lead that the guy may have been English and located in London or somewhere about there, working for some bank..

Re:so far, not proof that it's not him.. then. (1)

strstr (539330) | about 5 months ago | (#46429703)

I think he had paranoid guilt inside the first time they approached. Do the analysis:

1. Newsweek starts up their investigation.
2. Contacts family members.... tipping him off.
3. Newsweek approaches, Dorian is paranoid as fuck, calls the cops and expects that Newsweek knows. He clearly backs up the story of Satoshi, "I have nothing to do with that anymore, I turned it over to the public to deal with long ago".
4. Dorian reads Newsweek articles, realizes they had no more proof it was him other than his statements, decides to try to change his responses and deny he said anything about it. Obviously, he's lying though, because he's trying to pretend he's a senile cook and that nobody will notice ...
5. ???
6. Profit by making shit up.. :)

No surprise (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 5 months ago | (#46429641)

Journalism in the US, especially journalism about anything even slightly "technical," is total shit.

Newsweek report is naive (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 5 months ago | (#46429673)

If they believe that was the real name of bitcoin inventor(s). Of course there are some people in the world with that name unfortunately.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>