3 ms·

Great work by those researchers. They linked Satoshi Nakamoto to Silk Road. Except it wasn't Satoshi, it was someone else. And it wasn't Silk Road, it was MtGox

by zik 13y ago

Great work by those researchers. They linked Satoshi Nakamoto to Silk Road. Except it wasn't Satoshi, it was someone else. And it wasn't Silk Road, it was MtGox. I think their methods could use some improvement.

dmak 13y ago
It's disturbing to think people can cause such a huge ripple and the media will report it up without any skepticism.
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  As usual, only a fraction of people who read the sensational headline will read the retraction. The world goes on :(
  - tejasm 13y ago
    And that has been always the case which is sadly amplified by lack of longer attention span and willingness to move beyond sensationalism.
- shubb 13y ago
  Reputation counts for something, and reputations can be damaged. A lot of people trust Adi 'The A in RSA' Shamir, because of what he has done in the past. They have to. It takes a long time to get the background to understand cryptography, or quantum physics. Although you or I might believe we can find holes in a paper (bad stats etc), you have to accept we are less able to judge the merit of a paper than someone with years of study and experience in that field. So we trust people who have done great things. Now everyone will remember Shamir both by his past works, and this mistake. Next time his paper will hit the news he will be described as 'the father of RSA, who mistakenly accused someone of inventing bitcoin and being a criminal last year'. News sites will definitely say that - it is a really fun addition to the story. I think Shamir will regret this paper more than most people who have to make a retraction.
  - stephencanon 13y ago
    Nitpick: Adi Shamir is "the 'S' in" Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman.
- ajross 13y ago
  As pointed out, the media faithfully reported the claims of a very well-respected academic. Obviously there will always be mistakes made in the rush to print, and obviously there can be real issues that need to be addressed; but I don't think you can fault "the media" on this one. It was bad research, and it has to be addressed within the scientific community. A journalist isn't ever going to be well equipped to fact-check a crypto paper.
  - wmf 13y ago
    We shouldn't expect journalists to fact-check scientific papers, but if they had waited a whole 48 hours they could have benefited from others' fact checking.
    - jpatokal 13y ago
      That fact checking should have been done Shamir's peer reviewers before he published.
      - mjn 13y ago
        The paper wasn't published in any kind of academic venue, or peer-reviewed at all. It was just a PDF they posted on the internet.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by zik 13y ago

dmak 13y ago

It's disturbing to think people can cause such a huge ripple and the media will report it up without any skepticism.

hkmurakami 13y ago
As usual, only a fraction of people who read the sensational headline will read the retraction. The world goes on :(
- tejasm 13y ago
  And that has been always the case which is sadly amplified by lack of longer attention span and willingness to move beyond sensationalism.
shubb 13y ago
Reputation counts for something, and reputations can be damaged. A lot of people trust Adi 'The A in RSA' Shamir, because of what he has done in the past. They have to. It takes a long time to get the background to understand cryptography, or quantum physics. Although you or I might believe we can find holes in a paper (bad stats etc), you have to accept we are less able to judge the merit of a paper than someone with years of study and experience in that field. So we trust people who have done great things. Now everyone will remember Shamir both by his past works, and this mistake. Next time his paper will hit the news he will be described as 'the father of RSA, who mistakenly accused someone of inventing bitcoin and being a criminal last year'. News sites will definitely say that - it is a really fun addition to the story. I think Shamir will regret this paper more than most people who have to make a retraction.
- stephencanon 13y ago
  Nitpick: Adi Shamir is "the 'S' in" Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman.
ajross 13y ago
As pointed out, the media faithfully reported the claims of a very well-respected academic. Obviously there will always be mistakes made in the rush to print, and obviously there can be real issues that need to be addressed; but I don't think you can fault "the media" on this one. It was bad research, and it has to be addressed within the scientific community. A journalist isn't ever going to be well equipped to fact-check a crypto paper.
- wmf 13y ago
  We shouldn't expect journalists to fact-check scientific papers, but if they had waited a whole 48 hours they could have benefited from others' fact checking.
  - jpatokal 13y ago
    That fact checking should have been done Shamir's peer reviewers before he published.
    - mjn 13y ago
      The paper wasn't published in any kind of academic venue, or peer-reviewed at all. It was just a PDF they posted on the internet.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]