8 ms·

The Newsweek Credibility Matrix

158 points by peter123 13y ago

camillomiller 13y ago
To answer the last question: Because pageviews and impunity. Most of the reader base will remember a generic bitcoin scoop by Newsweek and forget everything that followed.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
The biggest thing that stood out to me here is not the difference in fluency in written English between examples from Dorian and the inventor of bitcoin, it's the obvious age cues in the use of language from Satoshi. Everything he writes reads as someone who is very much younger than a 60-something retiree. Little things like "Sweet, ...", "You know, ...", "You're right, sorry about that.", and so on are all clearly idiomatic of someone who developed their writing skills online. People in their 60s just do. not. talk. that way. To me this makes the idea of Dorian being Satoshi even more unbelievable.
- Gigablah 13y ago
  You mean unbelievable?
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    Yes, thanks.
- Nanzikambe 13y ago
  Totally agree on the fluency, the real Satoshi's mother tongue is probably English. Regarding age however, that's absolutely meaningless in this context, I know several people 50 or older that in text are indistinguishable from any younger generation. How you convey yourself in communication has more to do with your peer group and self image than your age. That sort of self-expression is particularly common in several generations techies, geeks, psychonauts, surfers, hippies and travellers.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    Perhaps. Though clearly Dorian Nakomoto does not identify with a peer-group of young hackers. That's obvious from his lifestyle among other things. Whereas equally clearly the creator of bitcoin very much does.
- bjourne 13y ago
  Perhaps he's suffering from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder? History is full of brilliant geniuses with tough mental illnesses. With some speculation, you can most certainly create a scenario where it is at least possible the guy is the real Satoshi.
- jccooper 13y ago
  That sealed it for me, too. Satoshi and Dorian Nakamoto write like completely different people--so different that it's an unbelievably good false flag operation otherwise. Futhermore, Satoshi's style is appropriate to the demographic you expect of the creator of Bitcoin, and Dorian writes in a way consistent with what we know of him. Wrong guy. If you want to find the real Satoshi, I'd start with the union of open source contributors, with an interest in early digital money, and a CS/math/ish grad student somewhere in the +1 to -10 years around 2007. Probably 30 to 40 years old now. I think the academic angle (based on the use of a paper to announce the system) is pretty clear.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Beltiras 13y ago
You only have to consider the money situation. Why anonymize yourself so carefully and then blow your cover AND not use the money?
Hypx 13y ago
I still think Dorian is very likely the Satoshi Nakamoto we're looking for. My basis for this is the fact that Dorian is very desperately trying to hide something, and it is evident in his denials, which contain claims that are very hard to believe. Three of the them stand out to me: His claim that he did not hear of bitcoin until February of this year, his claim that he thought the reporter was talking about "bitcom" and not bitcoin, and that the accusation of him being the creator of bitcoin has damaged his job seeking prospects. All three are nonsense claims and very hard to believe. There's no way an out of work computer engineer could not have heard of bitcoin until so recently unless he was living in a cave. The hype of bitcoin was quite large and pretty much anyone computer literate would have heard of it, especially a guy who's name is Satoshi Nakamoto. As to his claim of thinking he was talking about "bitcom" not bitcoin, well according to the Newsweek article, Dorian was first informed of bitcoin through email, which means he likely could not have confused that word with anything else. Furthermore, he claimed he was told by his own son about it before he talked to the AP reporter where the confusion arose. Which means he has at least two clear-cut occasions where he would have been corrected beforehand. Finally, his claim of the "accusation" hurting his job prospects are quite silly, since he's been out of work for more than a decade. The argument makes very little sense, nor does it seem plausible being accused of creating bitcoin at all would hurt your job prospects. All in all, it's clear that Dorian is not being honest, and certainly you cannot trust his words at all. Finally, if you believe he is the creator of bitcoin, then you must also realize he is a very intelligent man and should very easily write coherent English that could pass for a younger person, and then mask it in person when accused. On the other hand, he probably can't, no matter how smart he is, completely defeat logical analysis when is directly fingered. Plus, it's pretty rare to be this vehement in your denials unless there actually is some truth to the accusation (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). So I still see Dorian as being very likely being the guy, and this article doesn't do a particularly convincing job dissuade me otherwise.
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  I don't know, my dad is retired, used to work as an engineer and loves model trains. He doesn't know what bitcoin is. It really isn't that unusual for technical people to get out of touch with recent developments. A 64 year old Japanese immigrant with health problems almost certainly has very different sources of information to you and I. Also, the vehement denials are extremely consistent with Dorian Nakamoto being a grumpy old man who doesn't understand what is going on but doesn't like it and wants to be left alone. It just seems like he just wanted to get rid of the reporter and she heard what she wanted to hear. You'd expect there to be at least one Satoshi Nakamoto with an engineering background. Dorian Nakamoto's career doesn't seem remarkable or unusual (or closely related to bitcoin). I would expect every single person on Hacker News to fit the profile for the founder of bitcoin as well or better than Dorian Nakamoto. The fact that he has the same name as Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't indicate anything, because you would expect Satoshi Nakamoto to be a pseudonym.
swang 13y ago
Where the logic of him being "it" falls apart IMO is this: His name is Satoshi Nakamoto, so he is vain enough to put his name on arguably one of the greatest technical papers of this century yet when directly confronted with being found out, completely and utterly denies being the guy who created it. Not even dropping any vagueries about whether or not he truly is the creator of bitcoin. Again to iterate, the creator of bitcoin is vain enough to put his real name on the paper, but when all the cards are on the table he goes the path of vehemently denying it, refusing any recognition, and continuing to sit on his bajillions in bitcoin while he risks possible financial ruin and health problems. There are people who create great things and just want to be left alone. But if their health was at risk, and they could anonymously ask for donations, why would they not do it? "He is too proud," Screw that you put your name on the technical paper. But of course, this isn't the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Because that person truly wants to be left alone. You want people to know some time in the future that it was you who created bitcoin? Leave a note in your will.
- VMG 13y ago
  > Leave a note in your will. and sign it cryptographically
rdl 13y ago
I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at all debunking Newsweek's claims. Unless they derive personal pleasure from it, just write the author off forever as a journalist, and Newsweek and its editors as a publication, and drive on.
- neilk 13y ago
  The question the article is trying to answer is not whether Newsweek was wrong - everybody knows they are wrong, now. The question the article is interested in, is whether they should have known that they were wrong, before publishing. I think that was already a pretty obvious YES before this matrix was compiled, but there's some value in systematizing it.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jgalt212 13y ago
    At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, I don't think everyone knows Newsweek is wrong. In fact, I think think there's some significant non-zero probability that Newsweek was right. The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. I'm not saying Newsweek is right, but they are not provably wrong.
    - simonw 13y ago
      Why do the denials make you think Newsweek were right? If you were incorrectly named as something by a major publication and people refused to believe you, wouldn't you keep denying it?
      - Hypx 13y ago
        If you were legitimately unfairly accused, your denials should at least be remotely credible and not make yourself out to be a hugely dishonest person. Dorian's denial fails quite badly on both counts.
ap22213 13y ago
Internet: 1, Newsweek: -1 The internet has won again, no surprise there. Newsweek is a magazine that you find in the grocery checkout aisle, along with other notables such as Time, People, Cosmo, and National Enquirer. I don't think it has been considered a serious source of news since the 80s.
- ds9 13y ago
  I looked at mage like that in the 80s and even then they were never reliable sources for anything. They were influential just because they reached mass audiences, and had a quality of "newsiness" or what's now called "info-tainment", but were always worthless for knowing what was going on. In particular, the so called "news" magazines - and later the web and television media associated with the same big companies and others like them - had a remarkable talent for writing a whole article, sometimes a long one, with an authoritative tone in the prose, -and always with a "spin" that you might or might not notice - yet somehow never including any verifiable facts or figures, nor identifiable sources. The reader would get a vague impression of the topic and some claims about it, but never any glimmer of knowledge (edit:)(except maybe "big media companies want me to believe 'x', hmmm, why is that?").
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hawkharris 13y ago
This is an interesting format for a news article. I like how the author clearly presents the key issues and both sides in an easy-to-read table.
- jgalt212 13y ago
  I agree. Post the initial Newsweek article, it's the first balanced piece I've seen from the tech community. By comparison everyone else seems to be running around with their hair on fire.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  I agree that this is better than most of the post-Newsweek followups I've seen; but it still has things I take issue with like suggesting that the real Satoshi wouldn't have money problems because he's worth $500M-$1B in bitcoin. I'd love for someone to explain to me how someone would go about converting the early Satoshi stash of bitcoins into even just millions of real dollars over a timespan of less than a decade or two, because as far as bitcoin has come on a number of acceptance fronts, it just doesn't have that sort of real-world liquidity or transferability to USD (or something else that does have that sort of liquidity).
geuis 13y ago
I've attempted to post this 2x over a week ago but it got no traction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7361661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7361661 Someone signed into the actual Satoshi's account where the original Bitcoin announcement was made and left a comment on March 7 that Dorian is not Satoshi. Presumably this is actually Satoshi. I've been surprised no one else has picked up on this.
- binxbolling 13y ago
  Many people have picked up on it, which is why I've read it in multiple places. It's noteworthy, but less so than you seem to imply: a denial is exactly what we would expect if Dorian was Satoshi, and if Dorian was not Satoshi. So it's all the other evidence, in my opinion, that damns Newsweek, and not the post from Satoshi.
- morley 13y ago
  Unless I'm reading wrong, this is mentioned in the third paragraph of the linked article.
- api 13y ago
  Traction seems almost random on HN.
  - moheeb 13y ago
    Kind of like a tire on ice, huh?
- aestra 13y ago
  What? It has been on the HN front page - the day it happened. It was also mentioned in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358150
- Hypx 13y ago
  Couldn't that be Dorian himself who wrote that? It's not impossible at all if you think about it.
doctoboggan 13y ago
Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Bitcoin took genius levels of C++ or cryptography knowledge. I am not saying Bitcoin isn't a genius invention (it is), I am saying that it wasn't necessarily hard to code up once the inventor conceived the idea. Also, it is not an advancement of cryptography, just an incredibly cool application of already existing cryptography. Please don't take this as me saying it was easy to come up with Bitcoin, I am just saying the genius wasn't in Satoshi's coding skills, or advancements of cryptography, it was in his using of these tools to solve a problem many thought was impossible to solve (distributed consensus).
- nashequilibrium 13y ago
  This right here is the problem with HackerNews, everyone is making CRUD apps but then they want to comment on what is genius & what is not. What is even funnier is that most people here can't even complete their side projects or main projects/MVPs etc, but want to trivialize bitcoin.
  - noname123 13y ago
    Ditto. I'm one of the plebes who can't finish the CRUD MVP but I consider myself at least a superior plebe because I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.
    - argc 13y ago
      You're too smart for your own good. Prepare for extermination.
  - doctoboggan 13y ago
    I assume you are accusing me of trivializing Bitcoin? I expected that, which is why I went out of my way to point out that I was _not_ trivializing Bitcoin. Please explain to me the reasons why you think I am wrong rather than condescending with no substance.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    You know, when someone says "hey, I may be wrong, please correct me if so" and you respond by going triple-time on the snark and smug condescension, that's kind of a dick move even if he is wrong.
smallegan 13y ago
Newsweek is a tabloid that will just run stories like this for attention. Everyone is paying attention to them therefore they win.
rasputin2 13y ago
>In fact, the [Bitcoin] protocol is so bulletproof that it led legendary YCombinator founder Paul Graham to believe it was created by a government. Well if PAUL GRAHAM says so then it must be really sophisticated. >like most everyone he does not know it to the advanced degree required to write the Bitcoin v0.1 protocol. like… a bachelors?
RexRollman 13y ago
I personally find Newsweek to be wrong in what they did, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in their conclusion. In the end, I think we should be respecting this person's desire for anonymity instead of trying to expose him.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
Everybody's spending lots of energy decrying Newsweek for being wrong. Why isn't anyone calling them out for, you know, being nasty muckraking paparazzi who'd try to drag a private individual (who's done nothing wrong and values his privacy) involuntarily into the limelight to make a quick buck? Or do we all have so much outrage fatigue at this point that this shit doesn't even register?

158 points by peter123 13y ago

To answer the last question: Because pageviews and impunity. Most of the reader base will remember a generic bitcoin scoop by Newsweek and forget everything that followed.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

The biggest thing that stood out to me here is not the difference in fluency in written English between examples from Dorian and the inventor of bitcoin, it's the obvious age cues in the use of language from Satoshi. Everything he writes reads as someone who is very much younger than a 60-something retiree. Little things like "Sweet, ...", "You know, ...", "You're right, sorry about that.", and so on are all clearly idiomatic of someone who developed their writing skills online. People in their 60s just do. not. talk. that way. To me this makes the idea of Dorian being Satoshi even more unbelievable.

Gigablah 13y ago
You mean unbelievable?
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Yes, thanks.
Nanzikambe 13y ago
Totally agree on the fluency, the real Satoshi's mother tongue is probably English. Regarding age however, that's absolutely meaningless in this context, I know several people 50 or older that in text are indistinguishable from any younger generation. How you convey yourself in communication has more to do with your peer group and self image than your age. That sort of self-expression is particularly common in several generations techies, geeks, psychonauts, surfers, hippies and travellers.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Perhaps. Though clearly Dorian Nakomoto does not identify with a peer-group of young hackers. That's obvious from his lifestyle among other things. Whereas equally clearly the creator of bitcoin very much does.
bjourne 13y ago
Perhaps he's suffering from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder? History is full of brilliant geniuses with tough mental illnesses. With some speculation, you can most certainly create a scenario where it is at least possible the guy is the real Satoshi.
jccooper 13y ago
That sealed it for me, too. Satoshi and Dorian Nakamoto write like completely different people--so different that it's an unbelievably good false flag operation otherwise. Futhermore, Satoshi's style is appropriate to the demographic you expect of the creator of Bitcoin, and Dorian writes in a way consistent with what we know of him. Wrong guy. If you want to find the real Satoshi, I'd start with the union of open source contributors, with an interest in early digital money, and a CS/math/ish grad student somewhere in the +1 to -10 years around 2007. Probably 30 to 40 years old now. I think the academic angle (based on the use of a paper to announce the system) is pretty clear.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Beltiras 13y ago

You only have to consider the money situation. Why anonymize yourself so carefully and then blow your cover AND not use the money?

Hypx 13y ago

I still think Dorian is very likely the Satoshi Nakamoto we're looking for. My basis for this is the fact that Dorian is very desperately trying to hide something, and it is evident in his denials, which contain claims that are very hard to believe. Three of the them stand out to me: His claim that he did not hear of bitcoin until February of this year, his claim that he thought the reporter was talking about "bitcom" and not bitcoin, and that the accusation of him being the creator of bitcoin has damaged his job seeking prospects. All three are nonsense claims and very hard to believe. There's no way an out of work computer engineer could not have heard of bitcoin until so recently unless he was living in a cave. The hype of bitcoin was quite large and pretty much anyone computer literate would have heard of it, especially a guy who's name is Satoshi Nakamoto. As to his claim of thinking he was talking about "bitcom" not bitcoin, well according to the Newsweek article, Dorian was first informed of bitcoin through email, which means he likely could not have confused that word with anything else. Furthermore, he claimed he was told by his own son about it before he talked to the AP reporter where the confusion arose. Which means he has at least two clear-cut occasions where he would have been corrected beforehand. Finally, his claim of the "accusation" hurting his job prospects are quite silly, since he's been out of work for more than a decade. The argument makes very little sense, nor does it seem plausible being accused of creating bitcoin at all would hurt your job prospects. All in all, it's clear that Dorian is not being honest, and certainly you cannot trust his words at all. Finally, if you believe he is the creator of bitcoin, then you must also realize he is a very intelligent man and should very easily write coherent English that could pass for a younger person, and then mask it in person when accused. On the other hand, he probably can't, no matter how smart he is, completely defeat logical analysis when is directly fingered. Plus, it's pretty rare to be this vehement in your denials unless there actually is some truth to the accusation (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). So I still see Dorian as being very likely being the guy, and this article doesn't do a particularly convincing job dissuade me otherwise.

onetwofiveten 13y ago
I don't know, my dad is retired, used to work as an engineer and loves model trains. He doesn't know what bitcoin is. It really isn't that unusual for technical people to get out of touch with recent developments. A 64 year old Japanese immigrant with health problems almost certainly has very different sources of information to you and I. Also, the vehement denials are extremely consistent with Dorian Nakamoto being a grumpy old man who doesn't understand what is going on but doesn't like it and wants to be left alone. It just seems like he just wanted to get rid of the reporter and she heard what she wanted to hear. You'd expect there to be at least one Satoshi Nakamoto with an engineering background. Dorian Nakamoto's career doesn't seem remarkable or unusual (or closely related to bitcoin). I would expect every single person on Hacker News to fit the profile for the founder of bitcoin as well or better than Dorian Nakamoto. The fact that he has the same name as Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't indicate anything, because you would expect Satoshi Nakamoto to be a pseudonym.

swang 13y ago

Where the logic of him being "it" falls apart IMO is this: His name is Satoshi Nakamoto, so he is vain enough to put his name on arguably one of the greatest technical papers of this century yet when directly confronted with being found out, completely and utterly denies being the guy who created it. Not even dropping any vagueries about whether or not he truly is the creator of bitcoin. Again to iterate, the creator of bitcoin is vain enough to put his real name on the paper, but when all the cards are on the table he goes the path of vehemently denying it, refusing any recognition, and continuing to sit on his bajillions in bitcoin while he risks possible financial ruin and health problems. There are people who create great things and just want to be left alone. But if their health was at risk, and they could anonymously ask for donations, why would they not do it? "He is too proud," Screw that you put your name on the technical paper. But of course, this isn't the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Because that person truly wants to be left alone. You want people to know some time in the future that it was you who created bitcoin? Leave a note in your will.

VMG 13y ago
> Leave a note in your will. and sign it cryptographically

rdl 13y ago

I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at all debunking Newsweek's claims. Unless they derive personal pleasure from it, just write the author off forever as a journalist, and Newsweek and its editors as a publication, and drive on.

neilk 13y ago
The question the article is trying to answer is not whether Newsweek was wrong - everybody knows they are wrong, now. The question the article is interested in, is whether they should have known that they were wrong, before publishing. I think that was already a pretty obvious YES before this matrix was compiled, but there's some value in systematizing it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jgalt212 13y ago
  At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, I don't think everyone knows Newsweek is wrong. In fact, I think think there's some significant non-zero probability that Newsweek was right. The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. I'm not saying Newsweek is right, but they are not provably wrong.
  - simonw 13y ago
    Why do the denials make you think Newsweek were right? If you were incorrectly named as something by a major publication and people refused to believe you, wouldn't you keep denying it?
    - Hypx 13y ago
      If you were legitimately unfairly accused, your denials should at least be remotely credible and not make yourself out to be a hugely dishonest person. Dorian's denial fails quite badly on both counts.

ap22213 13y ago

Internet: 1, Newsweek: -1 The internet has won again, no surprise there. Newsweek is a magazine that you find in the grocery checkout aisle, along with other notables such as Time, People, Cosmo, and National Enquirer. I don't think it has been considered a serious source of news since the 80s.

ds9 13y ago
I looked at mage like that in the 80s and even then they were never reliable sources for anything. They were influential just because they reached mass audiences, and had a quality of "newsiness" or what's now called "info-tainment", but were always worthless for knowing what was going on. In particular, the so called "news" magazines - and later the web and television media associated with the same big companies and others like them - had a remarkable talent for writing a whole article, sometimes a long one, with an authoritative tone in the prose, -and always with a "spin" that you might or might not notice - yet somehow never including any verifiable facts or figures, nor identifiable sources. The reader would get a vague impression of the topic and some claims about it, but never any glimmer of knowledge (edit:)(except maybe "big media companies want me to believe 'x', hmmm, why is that?").

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hawkharris 13y ago

This is an interesting format for a news article. I like how the author clearly presents the key issues and both sides in an easy-to-read table.

jgalt212 13y ago
I agree. Post the initial Newsweek article, it's the first balanced piece I've seen from the tech community. By comparison everyone else seems to be running around with their hair on fire.
georgemcbay 13y ago
I agree that this is better than most of the post-Newsweek followups I've seen; but it still has things I take issue with like suggesting that the real Satoshi wouldn't have money problems because he's worth $500M-$1B in bitcoin. I'd love for someone to explain to me how someone would go about converting the early Satoshi stash of bitcoins into even just millions of real dollars over a timespan of less than a decade or two, because as far as bitcoin has come on a number of acceptance fronts, it just doesn't have that sort of real-world liquidity or transferability to USD (or something else that does have that sort of liquidity).

geuis 13y ago

I've attempted to post this 2x over a week ago but it got no traction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7361661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7361661 Someone signed into the actual Satoshi's account where the original Bitcoin announcement was made and left a comment on March 7 that Dorian is not Satoshi. Presumably this is actually Satoshi. I've been surprised no one else has picked up on this.

binxbolling 13y ago
Many people have picked up on it, which is why I've read it in multiple places. It's noteworthy, but less so than you seem to imply: a denial is exactly what we would expect if Dorian was Satoshi, and if Dorian was not Satoshi. So it's all the other evidence, in my opinion, that damns Newsweek, and not the post from Satoshi.
morley 13y ago
Unless I'm reading wrong, this is mentioned in the third paragraph of the linked article.
api 13y ago
Traction seems almost random on HN.
- moheeb 13y ago
  Kind of like a tire on ice, huh?
aestra 13y ago
What? It has been on the HN front page - the day it happened. It was also mentioned in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7358150
Hypx 13y ago
Couldn't that be Dorian himself who wrote that? It's not impossible at all if you think about it.

doctoboggan 13y ago

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Bitcoin took genius levels of C++ or cryptography knowledge. I am not saying Bitcoin isn't a genius invention (it is), I am saying that it wasn't necessarily hard to code up once the inventor conceived the idea. Also, it is not an advancement of cryptography, just an incredibly cool application of already existing cryptography. Please don't take this as me saying it was easy to come up with Bitcoin, I am just saying the genius wasn't in Satoshi's coding skills, or advancements of cryptography, it was in his using of these tools to solve a problem many thought was impossible to solve (distributed consensus).

nashequilibrium 13y ago
This right here is the problem with HackerNews, everyone is making CRUD apps but then they want to comment on what is genius & what is not. What is even funnier is that most people here can't even complete their side projects or main projects/MVPs etc, but want to trivialize bitcoin.
- noname123 13y ago
  Ditto. I'm one of the plebes who can't finish the CRUD MVP but I consider myself at least a superior plebe because I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.
  - argc 13y ago
    You're too smart for your own good. Prepare for extermination.
- doctoboggan 13y ago
  I assume you are accusing me of trivializing Bitcoin? I expected that, which is why I went out of my way to point out that I was _not_ trivializing Bitcoin. Please explain to me the reasons why you think I am wrong rather than condescending with no substance.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  You know, when someone says "hey, I may be wrong, please correct me if so" and you respond by going triple-time on the snark and smug condescension, that's kind of a dick move even if he is wrong.

smallegan 13y ago

Newsweek is a tabloid that will just run stories like this for attention. Everyone is paying attention to them therefore they win.

rasputin2 13y ago

>In fact, the [Bitcoin] protocol is so bulletproof that it led legendary YCombinator founder Paul Graham to believe it was created by a government. Well if PAUL GRAHAM says so then it must be really sophisticated. >like most everyone he does not know it to the advanced degree required to write the Bitcoin v0.1 protocol. like… a bachelors?

RexRollman 13y ago

I personally find Newsweek to be wrong in what they did, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in their conclusion. In the end, I think we should be respecting this person's desire for anonymity instead of trying to expose him.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

Everybody's spending lots of energy decrying Newsweek for being wrong. Why isn't anyone calling them out for, you know, being nasty muckraking paparazzi who'd try to drag a private individual (who's done nothing wrong and values his privacy) involuntarily into the limelight to make a quick buck? Or do we all have so much outrage fatigue at this point that this shit doesn't even register?