9 ms·
Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer
- danso 13y agoThis is not looking good for Newsweek. For Dorian to give such a flat unconditional denial means: 1. He is Satoshi Nakamoto but is calling Newsweek's bluff. 2. He is not Satoshi Nakamoto and is calling Newsweek's bluff. In scenario 1, he's apparently confident that Newsweek has no other real proof and won't be finding any proof in the future...which is a lot of confidence in himself that he's wrapped up all the loose ends. Either way, Newsweek better have a trump card...they've been hinting that they had more information that backed their claims, so now's the time to show the cards.
- declan 13y ago> Either way, Newsweek better have a trump card You're right. To emerge looking good, they'll need one. All evidence so far is that they don't. Their story hangs on a misunderstood quote. How long until editors start resigning at Newsweek? And the lawsuit gets filed?
- gwern 13y ago> which is a lot of confidence in himself that he's wrapped up all the loose ends. I'd agree with him. SN's so far done a very good job of avoiding leaks and disappearing: there's a few potential errors he may've made, but nothing serious. And people have completely failed to find anything connected to Dorian which makes him a better candidate for SN, which is in stark contrast to Ross Ulbricht - after his name was released and you started Google-hunting him, within hours you could find tons of evidence he was DPR (most brazenly, his LinkedIn page). If nobody's found anything about Dorian by now, then either he's really not Satoshi or he's done a perfect job cleaning up.
- sergiotapia 13y ago>Shortly thereafter the reporter confronted me at my home. I called the police. That reporter is such a scumbag. What repercussions did she face?
- willvarfar 13y agorepercussions? None that I know of. But this letter looks to be setting the stage for some legal action against Newsweek. She re-launched Newsweek in print, though, so presumably she got lots of hoped-for money.
- ZoF 13y agoWhat does "re-launching" mean in this context?
- nols 13y agoNewsweek went digital only for a while, the Satoshi "outing" was the headline article for the first print publication.
- ZoF 13y agoThanks, exactly what I was looking for.
- declan 13y agoNewsweek may share the same name as the nearly century-old newsweekly, but it's no longer the same, ah, beast. The WashPostCo owned Newsweek forever, then sold it to Sidney Harman (whose name you might recognize if you're into high-end audio) in 2010. Then it became Newsweek Daily Beast Co owed by IAC and went all-digital. Then privately held IBT Media bought it from IAC last year and relaunched it in print this month. IBT is best known for publishing http://www.ibtimes.com/ http://www.ibtimes.com/, which ironically last December accused someone else of inventing Bitcoin. Sigh. It would be unusual for the reporter charted with writing the launch cover story on Bitcoin to receive significant equity, but it is fair to say that the current editors may have a significant incentive to defend their launch cover. I have not see them hire an independent outside ombudsman to investigate the launch cover's accuracy, for instance, which other news organizations have done in similar situations. [Disclaimer: I spent a few years working at Newsweek competitor Time Inc. and Newsweek once offered me a job.]
- 13y ago
- jere 13y agoI've said before the Newsweek story makes no sense. In order to believe it, you need to think this guy hatched a brilliant plan to protect his identity (after 5 years of successfully doing so) by acting like a clueless old man and calling Bitcoin "bitcom." And simultaneously you have to believe, during the execution of his brilliant plan, he goofed and unambiguously confessed to his involvement in Bitcoin. >"I have no knowledge of nor have I ever worked in cryptography, peer to peer systems, or alternative currencies."
- 345723 13y agoWe are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. I would put absolutely NOTHING past the original architect. Honestly, I would expect nothing else.
- spinchange 13y agoWould you expect him to not even be able to afford internet service or suffer financially while recovering from cancer and a stroke despite having an estimated 400MM worth of BTC?
- wmf 13y agoThen you get into the "he deleted that BTC because it was just an experiment and he wasn't in it for the money" theories. There's no end to it.
- MBCook 13y ago> We are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. If they wanted to be anonymous, wouldn't they use a pseudonym?To create a decentralized identity protecting project as an anonymous individual using your real name (because you don't want to be found) seems... poorly thought out. I doubt it's him.
- fluidcruft 13y agoHindsight is 20/20. By this I mean: the name was linked when the white paper was written. Do you think Satoshi anticipated that everyone would ignore the white paper and that he would have to spend two years building it by himself? My point is: he didn't choose his alias aided by the benefit of knowing what bitcoin would become. So it's suspect to deduce that his actions had been perfectly targeted to the facts of the present.
- andrewhillman 13y agoThis proves that interviews really need to be done via email or audio recording. This would seemingly prevent a lot of basic reporting issues. Interviewee: "I did not say this." Interviewer: "Here's the email / audio as proof." Problem solved.
- jere 13y agoYea but then she'd actually need to get him to agreed to an interview....
- stcredzero 13y agoAudio would be better. Email is easy to forge for anyone with even modest resources.
- tanon500 13y agoCan you explain how? DKIM signatures would be pretty difficult to forge...
- stcredzero 13y agoDKIM is widely adopted, or you happen to know that the emails in question had them?
- streptomycin 13y agoNot really solved, since you can still have people misspeaking or misunderstanding questions, and there's no way to prove that without mind reading. And isn't that what happened in this case? Nobody's saying she made up the quote. IIRC everyone (reporter, Dorian, police officers) agree it was said. It's just that Dorian claims he misunderstood her question, which is why he gave an answer that appeared to admit to creating bitcoin. A recording wouldn't be conclusive.
- doctoboggan 13y agoYes but there is so much more information in audio like tone of voice, timing and cadence. (Most) humans are good at deciphering this information and plying out the true meaning.
- mladenkovacevic 13y agoWhat about that guy who, after the original Newsweek story was posted, made a post about meeting Nakamoto after he bought an item from his girlfriend's bakery? Apparently he recognized him from the Newsweek photos of Dorian Nakamoto. Was that just a bit of overactive imagination? EDIT: The post I'm talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326
- jsnk 13y agoMost likely a mistake or an advertising ploy.
- DannyBee 13y agoThe rate of mistaken id is ridiculous. For example, over 75% of DNA based exonerations were convicted based on mistaken ID's (and this is limited to those exonerations where DNA would be conclusive). Post-identification feedback (IE learning facts later) can often even alter the original memory someone has of an identification: http://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100715 http://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100715
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- thisiswrong 13y agoI have read that thread, and there is no direct proof that the wife of the op actually saw Dorian. Just someone on HN talking about someone else story of an early encounter with a shy asian-looking bitcoin guy. The only proof put forward was that the address that was 'probably' used was funded by a very early address linked to Gox. Gox isn't Satoshi (for what we know so far!), so NO.
- bestdayever 13y agoEye witness testimony is one of the worst pieces of evidence. Add that to the idea that you're required to retain that information since 2011 and it becomes pretty laughable.
- stcredzero 13y agoDespite having a background in engineering, Nakamoto notes that he couldn’t find a programmer’s job for over a decade. I get the sense that lots of 20-somethings in SV/Bay Area just don't think middle aged Asian men are capable of programming. (Middle aged Asian man.)
- eli 13y agoIMHO, ageism is a pretty big problem for developers and not just in the Bay Area.
- stcredzero 13y agoIMHO, It's a much bigger problem in the Bay Area than most other places in the country.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoThe thing that most people ignored about the Newsweek article was that the author deliberately took the pivotal quote "I am no longer involved in that..." out of context by not specifying what it was referring to. Remember that Dorian S. Nakamoto was a contractor who worked on many government projects. It's likely he was asked on that and answered, then had his words deliberately misconstrued to imply that "that" referred to Bitcoin. Then we had the P2P Foundation Satoshi deny that he was Dorian, breaking a 5-year silence to do so. Of course, it is unknown if it is the exact Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin, or someone hijacked the account, or some member of the hypothetical pseudonymous Satoshi collective, but the email did match up with the one in the original Bitcoin paper. At this point, Satoshi being Dorian is pretty much debunked, really.
- webkike 13y agoThis man is not Satoshi Nakamoto, and the way I see it, even if he were Satoshi, he is not Satoshi. Not even the real Satoshi Nakamoto is Satoshi Nakomoto.
- ceallen 13y ago"I haven't been able to find steady work for ten years, and this article written a week ago is why."
- dasil003 13y agoThank god they published or he may never have found out why.
- Hypx 13y agoThis is the amazing part! The denial from Dorian contains an obvious lie in it and represents an enormous hole in his argument. I think this is extremely suspicious and makes me think that this guy really is the creator of bitcoin. But for some reason unknown, possibly tax-related, that he cannot let anyone else know about. Reminds me a lot of when Roger Clemens or Lance Armstrong vehemently denying they used steroids, when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
- zaidf 13y agoHow long before he denies this under oath? At that point he's risking criminal charges if he is found to be lying.
- eli 13y agoWhy do you think he would have to say anything under oath?
- sergiotapia 13y ago"I plead the fif" - Dave Chapelle
- zaidf 13y agoHe doesn't have to but he may choose to if he decides to sue Newsweek, for example.
- declan 13y agoI didn't make the above comment, but a sworn declaration would be good ammunition on the part of the plaintiff. Also given the difficulty of prevailing, it could help force an early settlement.
- takeda 13y agoI'm surprised people even consider it is him. Why a person who put so much effort to remain anonymous, was found through a phone book, because he used his real name in all correspondence?
- pdknsk 13y agoI've been wondering, will the word Dorian, real Satoshi or not, find its way into Bitcoin language? Like Satoshi being the smallest amount of Bitcoin.
- gkoberger 13y agoWe'll call a transaction with 0 confirmations a "Dorian".
- VMG 13y agoGood idea, but nearly all 0-confirmation transactions are confirmed later. Let's call invalid transactions "Dorian"
- gojomo 13y agoIt's sometimes been proposed to define: 1 dorian = 100 satoshi However, whether Dorian is the real Satoshi or not, it'd be disrespectful. (If he's the real Satoshi, who wanted his meatspace name out of it, he's earned deference to that desire, and the true honor is to not involve his name. If he's not the real Satoshi, he deserves the same distance from the project as any other unrelated private individual.)
- Zarathust 13y agoWhat if the "inventor" of Bitcoin isn't even really named Satoshi Nakamoto? All of this manhunt would have been in vain for so long.
- gweinberg 13y ago"What if?" Pretty much everybody assumed the name was a pseudonym until this story broke.
- shittyanalogy 13y agoCan we drop it and leave these people alone?
- blhack 13y agoHere is what doesn't make sense about Dorian Nakamoto being the Satoshi behind bitcoin: Here's a guy who code switches during conversations and emails to maintain either the secret identity of an old Japanese man living in CA and playing with model trains, or to maintain the secret identity of a sophisticated programmer who created a proof-of-work system called bitcoin. But then this advanced guy maintaining a secret identity signs every message he posts to the internet with his real name? Leah McGrath-Goodman found this secretive guy who people have been searching for for the laser few years by looking his name up in a phone book? That doesn't really track.
- VMG 13y agoThis whole thing reminded me of the lesswrong.com post on Amanda Knox [1] Even the initial assumption that the creator of Bitcoin used his real name, contained in the headline, was extremely unlikely, and all other evidence was completely circumstantial. In my mind, it was nearly obvious that Dorian is not Satoshi after a few hours and was shocked to see that many believed the news story. I'm still not sure if this was irrational on my part due to my own bias of preferring that Satoshi remain anonymous, or the irrationality of internet discussions is worse than I thought. 1: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour_on_the_internet/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour...
- drcode 13y agoTo be fair, Leigh claims that Satoshi unambiguously admitted to her his involvement with bitcoin, and she was supposed to be a reputable journalist. This gave some justification for initially accepting the story at face value.
- Borogove 13y agoUntrue. Leigh claims that Satoshi "tacitly" admitted his involvement, in the most ambiguous part of an extremely ambiguous writeup.
- 13y ago
- abvdasker 13y agoI tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it. Because this guy is not a public persona they would probably otherwise be guilty of libel. -- EDIT: As gamblor956 pointed out they would be "liable" rather than "guilty". It does sound like he may have a case though, especially if Newsweek is wrong.
- declan 13y agoUm, remember Newsweek's under different management. See my other post nearby. And it's not "guilty of" libel; it's more like "liable for defamation."
- michaelt 13y agoBoth 'libel' and 'liable' are real legal words. Libel refers to written/printed/online defamatory statements [1] - as opposed to slander, which is spoken defamation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Libel
- kaishiro 13y agoI believe declan is referring to the fact that libel, being a civil tort, exposes one to be liable for defamation, not guilty of it (being that it's not criminal).
- declan 13y agoYep. My point is that criminal libel no longer exists in the United States, so you can't be "guilty of libel." You can held liable for libel, but that's an awkward phrasing, so "liable for defamation" is broader and better.
- gamblor956 13y agoNewsweek is not guilty of libel or defamation because those are torts for which criminal "guilt" is meaningless. Newsweek would not be liable for libel or defamation because being labeled the creator of Bitcoin is generally not something that would harm one's reputation. Libel or defamation claims are generally applicable where one person claims another person did some heinous act, like rape, or a felony, and told other people about it. Some statements, like accusing another person of rape are considered so "heinous" that to win, all the plaintiff has to do is prove the statement was made, in which case the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, who must now prove the accuracy of the statement. Depending on the nature of what was actually said, the defendant's burden may range from simply proving that their statement was reasonable based on the facts to proving that what they said is verifiably true. (And note: not a criminal case, so: proof on either side simply means more likely than not.)
- kohanz 13y agoStatement from Newsweek: Newsweek has not received any statement or letter from either Mr. Nakamoto or his legal counsel. If and when we do, we will respond as necessary. http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-statement-dorian-nakamoto-232092 http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-statement-dorian-nakamoto-2...
- slouch 13y agoSuddenly, accurate statements are important in this story.
- nfoz 13y agoWell he ought to apply to work at a bitcoin startup, because his name-branding alone would probably be worth $$
- mik3y 13y agoSo is this the moment where all the bitcoin fanatics pool together a bunch of BTC for Dorian as.. a sort of apology? The guy should at least get a new train set outta the whole mess..
- dsil 13y agoOne was started 10 days ago, almost at $30,000 USD: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ztjmg/andreas_im_fundraising_for_dorian_nakamoto/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ztjmg/andreas_im_f...
- mistercow 13y agoI'm not sure I understand how he figures that this scenario would keep him from finding work. Who wouldn't want to hire the creator of friggin' bitcoin?
- jedunnigan 13y agoA very informative piece by Mike Hearn breaking down the inconsistencies in the Newsweek piece: http://www.mikehearn.com/Hosted-Files/Nakamoto-Could-Newsweek-Have-Known/index.html http://www.mikehearn.com/Hosted-Files/Nakamoto-Could-Newswee...