4 ms·

Here's a direct quote from the Newsweek article: "Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someo

Here's a direct quote from the Newsweek article: "Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." I'd say that at least indicates the journalist admits the possibility.

FatalLogic 13y ago
>"Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." I'm so glad you mentioned that quote. Her approach is full of logical non sequiturs like this. They make me want to apply my palm to my face repeatedly. If someone wants to remain anonymous, then the key action they have to take is not using their real name. After that, it doesn't matter much what pseudonym they choose. 'Satoshi Nakamoto' could have choosen a wholly unique name such as 'Gnafoni Prrrrstlo', which could also be described as extremely distinctive. But it does not matter, because it is a pseudonym. The exact choice of pseudonym will not seriously impact his efforts to remain anonymous. The reporter suffers from severe logic fail there. Arguably, the name is not even distinctive. It's only distinctive in the context that he could have called himself 'John Smith'
- leoc 13y ago
  This isn't completely clear to me, since arguably there is some secrecy value in hiding the fact that your pseudonym is a pseudonym. Even taking it as read, though, it's not sufficient to justify > Her approach, which she describes as 'forensic', was to select a group of possible suspects, and then eliminate them one by one. When she only had one suspect left, then that person was clearly the Satoshi Nakamoto who created Bitcoin. The author didn't (claim to) assume that the probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was a pseudonym was zero, and that therefore the only non-pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto left standing had to be the Bitcoin inventor. Rather she assumed (or claimed to assume) that the probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was not a pseudonym was substantially above zero, and that therefore the only non-pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto left standing was worth detailed investigation, beginning with an in-person doorstopping. From that she, supposedly, got a direct oral admission from Dorian Sakamoto; she then followed up with further investigation which turned up several pieces of supposedly good circumstantial evidence supporting the claim (including the supposed similarities of English style and coding style) as well as one obvious piece of circumstantial evidence against it (where's the money?). Based on all this she wrote up the story which identified Dorian as the Bitcoin inventor, but also gave prominence to the where's-the-money problem. Now there are all sorts of potential problems there. McGrath Goodman beginning with the assumption that there is a zero or near-zero probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is a pseudonym isn't among them though.
  - FatalLogic 13y ago
    You're correct, I think, but this seems to pertain to the flawed selection phase of her process of elimination, where she apparently included people with names similar to Satoshi Nakamoto in her list of suspects, and then used a very weak argument to eliminate everyone else. This argument: >"Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." This statement of hers is significant mainly because it suggests a slipshod approach to proof, when far stricter standards should apply. To me, she seems determined to quickly dismiss the universally-accepted theory that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is a pseudonym, therefore she creates an extremely weak argument about distinctiveness, so she can handwave it away. Additional note, to correct one point you made. She never mentions coding style, and does not appear to be aware it. That lack is also significant, because code represents a huge proportion of the available data for anyone who wishes to profile Satoshi Nakamoto.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  And, of course, if he choose John Smith he'd have to explain in every interaction that he's not the John Smith working on some library, or that other software, or running this blog, or acting in that movie. I can't imagine somebody choosing a pseudonym that is not distinctive. It would hurt half of the goal.
wisty 13y ago
> "Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." Satoshi is the main character from Pokemon. Maybe he likes Pokemon. Maybe he hates Pokemon, and wanted to google-bomb the main character. Who knows?

FatalLogic 13y ago

>"Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." I'm so glad you mentioned that quote. Her approach is full of logical non sequiturs like this. They make me want to apply my palm to my face repeatedly. If someone wants to remain anonymous, then the key action they have to take is not using their real name. After that, it doesn't matter much what pseudonym they choose. 'Satoshi Nakamoto' could have choosen a wholly unique name such as 'Gnafoni Prrrrstlo', which could also be described as extremely distinctive. But it does not matter, because it is a pseudonym. The exact choice of pseudonym will not seriously impact his efforts to remain anonymous. The reporter suffers from severe logic fail there. Arguably, the name is not even distinctive. It's only distinctive in the context that he could have called himself 'John Smith'

leoc 13y ago
This isn't completely clear to me, since arguably there is some secrecy value in hiding the fact that your pseudonym is a pseudonym. Even taking it as read, though, it's not sufficient to justify > Her approach, which she describes as 'forensic', was to select a group of possible suspects, and then eliminate them one by one. When she only had one suspect left, then that person was clearly the Satoshi Nakamoto who created Bitcoin. The author didn't (claim to) assume that the probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was a pseudonym was zero, and that therefore the only non-pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto left standing had to be the Bitcoin inventor. Rather she assumed (or claimed to assume) that the probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was not a pseudonym was substantially above zero, and that therefore the only non-pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto left standing was worth detailed investigation, beginning with an in-person doorstopping. From that she, supposedly, got a direct oral admission from Dorian Sakamoto; she then followed up with further investigation which turned up several pieces of supposedly good circumstantial evidence supporting the claim (including the supposed similarities of English style and coding style) as well as one obvious piece of circumstantial evidence against it (where's the money?). Based on all this she wrote up the story which identified Dorian as the Bitcoin inventor, but also gave prominence to the where's-the-money problem. Now there are all sorts of potential problems there. McGrath Goodman beginning with the assumption that there is a zero or near-zero probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is a pseudonym isn't among them though.
- FatalLogic 13y ago
  You're correct, I think, but this seems to pertain to the flawed selection phase of her process of elimination, where she apparently included people with names similar to Satoshi Nakamoto in her list of suspects, and then used a very weak argument to eliminate everyone else. This argument: >"Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." This statement of hers is significant mainly because it suggests a slipshod approach to proof, when far stricter standards should apply. To me, she seems determined to quickly dismiss the universally-accepted theory that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is a pseudonym, therefore she creates an extremely weak argument about distinctiveness, so she can handwave it away. Additional note, to correct one point you made. She never mentions coding style, and does not appear to be aware it. That lack is also significant, because code represents a huge proportion of the available data for anyone who wishes to profile Satoshi Nakamoto.
marcosdumay 13y ago
And, of course, if he choose John Smith he'd have to explain in every interaction that he's not the John Smith working on some library, or that other software, or running this blog, or acting in that movie. I can't imagine somebody choosing a pseudonym that is not distinctive. It would hurt half of the goal.

wisty 13y ago

> "Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name." Satoshi is the main character from Pokemon. Maybe he likes Pokemon. Maybe he hates Pokemon, and wanted to google-bomb the main character. Who knows?