5 ms·
Dear Newsweek: RTFM
- danielweber 13y agoWhat did Newsweek mean when they said he used reverse polish notation? I know what RPN is, but did he use it in his code?
- the1 13y agonewsweek uses openresty haha Server: ngx_openresty/1.2.6.1
- Jgrubb 13y agoWhy is that haha?
- coldcode 13y agoJournalism these days is not about truth or even information, but attracting random eyeballs.
- fit2rule 13y agoJournalism has never been about the truth. It has always been about getting to as many people as possible with whatever it takes. If it means abusing the subject: so be it.
- randomsearch 13y ago> It has always been about getting to as many people as possible with whatever it takes. If it means abusing the subject: so be it. What about the BBC? What about the Guardian, which until recently was run by a trust? What about non-profit organisations? What about news that makes money based on quality reporting of a niche rather than general attention-grabbing? To be hopelessly cynical is probably even worse than to be hopelessly naive.
- fit2rule 13y agoWhat about the BBC? It runs stories that it knows will capture eyeballs and ears. And? The Guardian - the same? None of these organizations survive without mass acceptances of the stories they intend to run .. whats your point? That these are altruistic organizations? I think not!
- randomsearch 13y ago> None of these organizations survive without mass acceptances of the stories they intend to run .. whats your point? That these are altruistic organizations? I think not! Yes, they do. The BBC relies on a license fee, which is not linked to viewing figures. The Guardian has been loss-making for years, and is not run primarily for profit.
- Touche 13y agoYou should do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#Declaring_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#De...
- chippy 13y agoNews. It's in the public interest trumps privacy. Sadly.
- jgalt212 13y agoAlso, one can argue that Bitcoin is so big that creator of Bitcoin is ipso facto a public figure. I know this is not a popular opinion on this site, but I personally have more confidence and trust in Bitcoin, or any other cryto currency, if I knew who was behind the creation of it.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoPossibly true. But that only applies if you can prove with an incredibly strong case who the actual creator of bitcoin is.
- hoggle 13y agoThat's the real elephant in the room, it's about minority vs majority - Captain James T. Kirk would vigorously defend Dorian Nakamoto's rights for privacy. Look at the man and how distressing all of this must be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrrtA6IoR_E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrrtA6IoR_E
- gnoway 13y agoPlease explain why this is in the public interest.
- bhouston 13y agoI am not completely sure the Newsweek article is debunked.
- Svip 13y agoIf Dorian Nakamoto is not Satoshi Nakamoto, why did he deny he was to AP? Did he suddenly discover that he could not handle being in the public light? You'd think the reason that the real Satoshi Nakamoto has kept himself hidden is exactly for that reason; that he is quite aware of the consequences, particularly now. Moreover, the Newsweek article doesn't provide any interest titbits about Bitcoin from its creator, only a statement that might indicate he was creator, given the right context, which the reporter maintains. But given Dorain Nakamoto's grasp of English, that might be a language barrier resulting in a confusion. I'd argue that the Newsweek article wasn't even proved to begin with. Why would the real Satoshi Nakamoto suddenly do an interview now that he is discovered? He could simply deny having ever heard of Bitcoin, rather than 'somehow' confirming it and then denying it later.
- danielweber 13y agoFelix Salmon has a nice write-up on this: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/03/07/the-satoshi-paradox/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/03/07/the-satoshi... I like his summary: Both answers ("he is Satoshi" and "he isn't Satoshi") are improbable, yet one of them must be true.
- mikeash 13y agoI don't buy that conclusion. The arguments for "isn't" are pretty compelling, starting with the ridiculous idea that this secretive person would use his own name as a "pseudonym" and going from there. The arguments for "is" are silly. The guy is a libertarian (no shortage of those in the tech community). The guy is described as "brilliant"... by his family (what an unbiased source). The guy is obsessed with money (that only describes 90% of humanity). He paints it as this extremely improbable coincidence that this guy is named Satoshi Nakamoto and has exactly the attributes that the creator of Bitcoin would have. But it looks to me like Satoshi Nakamoto isn't a particularly uncommon name (Wikipedia comes up with quite a few famous people named Satoshi, and quite a few named Nakamoto, and the combination doesn't seem like it ought to be rare). The attributes described aren't that uncommon. What are the odds that one of the Satoshi Nakamotos in the world happens to have these fairly general attributes, purely by coincidence? Pretty high, I would say.
- hartator 13y agoEven if we all agree the Newsweek are jerks, it's not sure they were wrong. Specially now when Satoshi awaken himself for the first time in 2 years.
- jgalt212 13y agoI agree. It's not a lay up that Newsweek is right or wrong in their conclusions. It's definitely up for debate whether their reporting methods were crafty or immoral.
- hackerboos 13y agoThere has been a lot of guesses as to who Satoshi is and this is the first time (I believe) he has come out and denied it. Which makes the accusation worse as it adds credibility.
- Dosenpfand 13y agoDo we know with a certainty that it was him who denied it? I think the real Satoshi would have at least signed the message.
- hackerboos 13y agoApparently the account is linked to the original Bitcoin paper. Timestamps can be edited though, it depends on the integrity of the site itself.
- berberous 13y agoOccam's razor says it is him. I don't think Satoshi ever signed any of his messages, so why start now? Especially when the Newsweek article is so clearly based on such extraordinarily flimsy evidence, that really, his denial should be enough.
- danielweber 13y agoIt's the first time that an introverted guy has been "accused" and then hounded by the press about it, though. (I'm not trying to give a definite answer either way here.)
- higherpurpose 13y agoI think this could also be a watershed moment for the "war" between "real journalists" and "bloggers", where the "bloggers" have reached a tipping point where they are in many cases better at finding evidence than the "real journalists", especially as you're now required to do increasingly more Internet research to find evidence for something. I remember a few years ago a lot of people were worried about what would happen with journalism if the "media corporations" died. As others have said in the past what matters is the "act of journalism", which can be done by anyone, not necessarily that you have a journalist diploma and badge. We live in a time when everything is getting "democratized", i.e. "amateurs" can now do a lot of stuff only "professionals" could do in the past, and we'll see increasingly more of it and in many other industries, too. And yes, as with all democratization processes, there will be a lot of crap, especially in the beginning, but in the end you also start getting really good stuff, out of all the crap, that rises to the top, and ends up being much better than what the traditional gate-keeping "professionals" could do, and that's how you get significant progress overall, in that industry.
- rayiner 13y agoHere's the thing: bloggers can only research up to the scope of what's on the internet. And the fact is, most interesting things are not on the internet. Frequent users of the internet fall into a mode of "if it's not on Google it must not exist." But you'd be shocked by the things that aren't on Google. There will always be a place for journalists that have "centralized credibility." There is a reason Snowden leaked to Glen Greenwald instead of just putting the data up on the internet for bloggers to crawl through.
- danielweber 13y agoMaybe in general, but many specialist bloggers know how to look up the proper records that aren't on the Internet, or are (say) personally attending court sessions that won't end up on the week for weeks. Live blogging on court cases is fascinating.
- dllthomas 13y ago"Here's the thing: bloggers can only research up to the scope of what's on the internet." I think this is clearly false in terms of potential. It's probably the case that too many bloggers do limit themselves to internet research.
- JackFr 13y agoIn terms of brand perception, I think Newsweek is far more concerned that people know they exist, rather than the quality of journalism. I thought they had gone out of business years ago.
- smackfu 13y agoThey stopped printing a real magazine in 2012. They were purchased by a new company and this issue is the first one in print again. So, I think it was a very effective tactic.
- davidgerard 13y agoThe brand name was purchased by a new company (Daily Beast), then that company didn't want it either and sold the brand name to a smaller company who thought the brand name might lend them credibility (IB Times). tl;dr this only has the name in common with the long-running weekly magazine of old.
- smackfu 13y agoFrom the cover they released, it seems like they also got the design. The logo is the same, at least.
- Alex3917 13y agoIf Satoshi wanted to post a more credible denial he could easily do so. Why not just tweet a photo of today's newspaper in front of some Japanese landmark, where Dorian Nakamoto couldn't possibly be? The fact that Satoshi posted a denial but couldn't be bothered to take the extra 5 minutes to do it in a way that proves it wasn't Dorian almost makes it seem more likely that Dorian was just posting this from his basement.
- lucb1e 13y agoVery good point, the real creator of Bitcoin could easily do that without compromising his own physical security. Also I think that if the creator of Bitcoin had really wanted to clear Dorian's name, he would have used something like BTProof so that we know the exact time at which it was posted. If Dorian was known to be not behind a computer at that time, it is at least a much stronger indication. BTProof: https://www.btproof.com/ https://www.btproof.com/ Or a similar service: http://www.proofofexistence.com/ http://www.proofofexistence.com/
- roc 13y agoBecause the newspaper, landmark, and the photo itself would all leak information that very well might point to them. If you were the real Satoshi, and you took your anonymity seriously, why would you particularly care if the press had descended on some other fellow? If the world decides the wrong man is Satoshi, the real Satoshi(s) could breathe a lot more easily. Satoshi sticking their neck out to keep the hunt alive would only exacerbate the side of the bitcoin story that they've been trying to avoid and downplay for quite some time.
- minimax 13y agoSo, I need three things to make this happen: 1. A picture of a squirrel or pigeon on your campus. One close-up, one with background that shows buildings, a sign, or something to indicate you are standing on the campus. ...
- bwag 13y agoBecause anyone could do that and send the photo to Dorian who then tweets it as Satoshi.
- roel_v 13y agoLol, it's funny how these people all get up in arms because some reporter did in two weeks using old school methods what people so proud of their doxing skills spend years on and didn't get anywhere. Also, the barrier of proof these people are setting is laughable. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'na-na-na-na-na' because you don't want to hear something.
- mikeash 13y agoI thought people were getting up in arms because the article leaped to conclusions on the basis of little evidence. I mean, it's easy to find somebody really quickly if you don't care about accuracy.
- berberous 13y agoThere is zero chance this guy is the real Satoshi. I'd be happy to bet anyone here up to 8 bitcoin on that assertion.
- camus2 13y ago> Also, the barrier of proof these people are setting is laughable. what proof? there is no hard evidence Dorian is BC Satoshi other than he said /she said. It's not journalism its gossip,there is 0 serious investigation work. But what one can expect from Newsweek? Your comment is "laughable" if you believe that stuff.
- work_account_2 13y ago> did in two weeks using old school methods Did what, find a Satoshi Nakamoto?
- sanderjd 13y ago...I'm curious: what did you find convincing in the Newsweek article?
- roel_v 13y ago... What is not convincing? If one assumes the facts as they were presented there are actually true (which is not a stretch, they aren't that unreasonable), it's 90% as credible as an actual admission. And I have yet to see why the facts aren't as they are presented, except some generic 'media are all liars, they must by lying here as well'. The backpedaling by the guy himself, about how 'he meant something else' about what he said when he was unprepared, included. What normal person stops emailing after one mentions Bitcoin? What normal person calls the police when somebody asks about it? I'll tell you what any normal person who is not actually 'the' Satoshi would do when a bunch of reporters show up on his door: he'd sell interviews to anyone who would want one, plainly saying 'it's not me'. What is also funny, btw, is how people call the guy 'Dorian' to make sure he seems very different from 'Satoshi'. 'It's not him, see, he's called 'Dorian'!'. Yeah, uh, except that 50 years ago he actually was called 'Satoshi'. Why are you all so emotionally invested in the guy remaining a 'mystery'?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lucb1e 13y ago> The article has, of course, now been debunked How so? I don't see why, or moreover, why it would be "of course" (as if it goes without question).