7 ms·

... 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

by 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'?

mikeash 13y ago
There is exactly one relevant fact in the article. It is this quote: > "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection." That is, essentially, an admission. Except that it assumes a few things, namely: 1. That the quote is accurate. 2. That the quote is in context. 3. That the guy they were talking to isn't just a kook who decided it would be fun to pretend, after being heavily prompted. Personally, I find it much more likely that there's something wrong with those assumptions than that the anonymity-obsessed creator of Bitcoin used his own name as a "pseudonym". None of the rest of the article does anything to link this person with Bitcoin. All it does is point out a bunch of minor coincidences over vague interests shared by both this guy and the creator of Bitcoin... and by about ten million other people on the planet.
GCA10 13y ago
mikeash raises the right questions. In Dorian Nakamoto's lengthy interview with the AP, he says that his quote arose in a totally different context. He was explaining that he doesn't do classified work for the military any more. Different subject. Not Bitcoin. I've been the guy with the notepad, tape recorder, etc. for a lot of years, and I'm well aware of cases where the reporter thinks he/she is asking one question, and the source believes that he/she is hearing a different one. If the Newsweek team had recorded the brief interview with Dorian, we'd have a way of sorting this out. But -- for reasons I can't understand -- it doesn't seem as if they bothered recording it.
sanderjd 13y ago
A few points: You seem much more emotionally invested than me. I would absolutely be freaked out if a camera crew showed up and started asking me questions like that, and cashing in on interviews would be the furthest thing from my mind (maybe I'm not a normal person either, though, I dunno). Maybe people are calling him 'Dorian' because that is reported to be his first name (which is what we usually refer to people by).

by roel_v 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

There is exactly one relevant fact in the article. It is this quote: > "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection." That is, essentially, an admission. Except that it assumes a few things, namely: 1. That the quote is accurate. 2. That the quote is in context. 3. That the guy they were talking to isn't just a kook who decided it would be fun to pretend, after being heavily prompted. Personally, I find it much more likely that there's something wrong with those assumptions than that the anonymity-obsessed creator of Bitcoin used his own name as a "pseudonym". None of the rest of the article does anything to link this person with Bitcoin. All it does is point out a bunch of minor coincidences over vague interests shared by both this guy and the creator of Bitcoin... and by about ten million other people on the planet.

GCA10 13y ago

mikeash raises the right questions. In Dorian Nakamoto's lengthy interview with the AP, he says that his quote arose in a totally different context. He was explaining that he doesn't do classified work for the military any more. Different subject. Not Bitcoin. I've been the guy with the notepad, tape recorder, etc. for a lot of years, and I'm well aware of cases where the reporter thinks he/she is asking one question, and the source believes that he/she is hearing a different one. If the Newsweek team had recorded the brief interview with Dorian, we'd have a way of sorting this out. But -- for reasons I can't understand -- it doesn't seem as if they bothered recording it.

sanderjd 13y ago

A few points: You seem much more emotionally invested than me. I would absolutely be freaked out if a camera crew showed up and started asking me questions like that, and cashing in on interviews would be the furthest thing from my mind (maybe I'm not a normal person either, though, I dunno). Maybe people are calling him 'Dorian' because that is reported to be his first name (which is what we usually refer to people by).