4 ms·

Unfortunately, that proves nothing. Early on, there were so few people mining that practically everyone had a "large volume". As such, if you pick any arbitrar

by euank 13y ago

Unfortunately, that proves nothing. Early on, there were so few people mining that practically everyone had a "large volume". As such, if you pick any arbitrary bitcoin transaction at that time, it's highly likely it will have originated from a large volume source in the recent past. I think it's more likely a case of mistaken identity; there are many people in this world, and I think that the chance of someone remembering someone from 3 years ago that they saw for half an hour, tops, with sufficient accuracy for a positive ID is much lower than the chance that there are simply two middle aged asian men who look vaguely similar. It's also improbable that "satoshi" would fly across the country for this purchase. One person's word is certainly not compelling to me. Even if that account is 100% accurate, it does not link the man who paid with bitcoins to satoshi, but merely to Dorian. The HN link relies on the flawed NewsWeek article to make the further connection from Dorian to Satoshi.

flylib 13y ago
Dorian is claiming he never heard about Bitcoin until a few weeks ago so if he was using them in 2011, then he is obviously Satoshi
- euank 13y ago
  That still does not follow. It proves that he lied about not knowing what bitcoin is and it proves that he had bitcoins. Those two facts do not prove that he is Satoshi. It is not obvious. Here, I'll give you an alternative explanation: Dorian was an early bitcoin adopter or otherwise had a small number. When reporters started asking his son if he was Satoshi, he realized that that would damage his reclusive lifestyle if people thought he were Satoshi. He thought that telling the truth, that he knew about bitcoin but wasn't Satoshi, wouldn't be believed so he told a lie to preserve his reclusive lifestyle.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    Well, you're just taking that it is not logically imperative that he be Satoshi as a counter argument. I think if all is true that it is a pretty interesting coincidence given that, despite people think here, Bitcoin was not a very common thing for normal people in 2011. But anyway, this eye witness seems a bit odd for other reasons.
  - psykovsky 13y ago
    But... he IS Satoshi. Maybe not the right Satoshi, but Satoshi nonetheless.
azcoder 13y ago
>Unfortunately, that proves nothing. Linking Dorian to Bitcoin at any time proves everything, proves Dorian = Satoshi. If Dorian paid for crepe in July 2011 with Bitcoin, Dorian is lying and Dorian = Satoshi. There was a large Bitcoin Conference in New York at that time, giving good reason to be there. The retailer said she recognized Dorian as the customer. He didn't want his picture taken or name recorded. Good odds to me it was him. And "large volume" = 432,000 coins.
- declan 13y ago
  Except there's no evidence linking Dorian to that July 2011 crepe. Is there? Someone said "I dunno, he looks kinda familiar?" That's it?
  - azcoder 13y ago
    >Someone said "I dunno, he looks kinda familiar?" That's it? That's not what she said. She said it was him. They had conversation and interactions etc to form good memory.
    - declan 13y ago
      You say "good memory," but there's no evidence of it. The post said "recognized him," though there's a bit of priming (A NEWSWEEK COVER STORY!) to encourage that process along: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326 Memory is highly fallible. Eyewitness accounts are highly unreliable even after a shorter period of time than three years. The burden of proof is properly on the Dorian == Satoshi folks.
    - catshirt 13y ago
      come on. you are hanging on evidence best generalized as "someone on the internet said someone they know says they recognize him". by these standards, the Newsweek article itself seems like sufficient evidence.
- euank 13y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358532, my reply a to a sibling comment.
justinreeves 13y ago
Mistaken identity is likely, considering how eyewitness accounts are actually quite unreliable.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  I'm personally rooting for Dorian = Satoshi, but yeah, I wouldn't trust three-year-old eyewitness testimony of a mother identifying her son. Definitely a "pics or it didn't happen" situation.

by euank 13y ago

flylib 13y ago

Dorian is claiming he never heard about Bitcoin until a few weeks ago so if he was using them in 2011, then he is obviously Satoshi

euank 13y ago
That still does not follow. It proves that he lied about not knowing what bitcoin is and it proves that he had bitcoins. Those two facts do not prove that he is Satoshi. It is not obvious. Here, I'll give you an alternative explanation: Dorian was an early bitcoin adopter or otherwise had a small number. When reporters started asking his son if he was Satoshi, he realized that that would damage his reclusive lifestyle if people thought he were Satoshi. He thought that telling the truth, that he knew about bitcoin but wasn't Satoshi, wouldn't be believed so he told a lie to preserve his reclusive lifestyle.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  Well, you're just taking that it is not logically imperative that he be Satoshi as a counter argument. I think if all is true that it is a pretty interesting coincidence given that, despite people think here, Bitcoin was not a very common thing for normal people in 2011. But anyway, this eye witness seems a bit odd for other reasons.
- psykovsky 13y ago
  But... he IS Satoshi. Maybe not the right Satoshi, but Satoshi nonetheless.

azcoder 13y ago

>Unfortunately, that proves nothing. Linking Dorian to Bitcoin at any time proves everything, proves Dorian = Satoshi. If Dorian paid for crepe in July 2011 with Bitcoin, Dorian is lying and Dorian = Satoshi. There was a large Bitcoin Conference in New York at that time, giving good reason to be there. The retailer said she recognized Dorian as the customer. He didn't want his picture taken or name recorded. Good odds to me it was him. And "large volume" = 432,000 coins.

declan 13y ago
Except there's no evidence linking Dorian to that July 2011 crepe. Is there? Someone said "I dunno, he looks kinda familiar?" That's it?
- azcoder 13y ago
  >Someone said "I dunno, he looks kinda familiar?" That's it? That's not what she said. She said it was him. They had conversation and interactions etc to form good memory.
  - declan 13y ago
    You say "good memory," but there's no evidence of it. The post said "recognized him," though there's a bit of priming (A NEWSWEEK COVER STORY!) to encourage that process along: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326 Memory is highly fallible. Eyewitness accounts are highly unreliable even after a shorter period of time than three years. The burden of proof is properly on the Dorian == Satoshi folks.
  - catshirt 13y ago
    come on. you are hanging on evidence best generalized as "someone on the internet said someone they know says they recognize him". by these standards, the Newsweek article itself seems like sufficient evidence.
euank 13y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358532, my reply a to a sibling comment.

justinreeves 13y ago

Mistaken identity is likely, considering how eyewitness accounts are actually quite unreliable.

saalweachter 13y ago
I'm personally rooting for Dorian = Satoshi, but yeah, I wouldn't trust three-year-old eyewitness testimony of a mother identifying her son. Definitely a "pics or it didn't happen" situation.