4 ms·
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
by 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 agoAt 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 agoWhy 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 agoIf 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.
- Bluestrike2 13y agoIn what way?
- Hypx 13y agoI've pointed out elsewhere that Dorian is making very dubious claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7420870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7420870 If he had simply made a simple denial he would be more believable. There is no need for blatant deception in your own denial.
- pg_is_a_butt 13y agoasians are sneaky. #PEARLHARBOR
- digikata 13y agoThe standard for Newsweek shouldn't be that they publish something that might be true, and might be speculation, and maybe someone comes along to prove them false. If the publication wants to be credible, the standard is that the stories they publish should be provably true - especially if the accusation is going to inject chaos into somebody's life.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoAs a general principle I will agree with probability statement, however I would like to note that given the evidence we have it might be smaller than one in eight billion. That is, provided satoshi is not dead, randomly chosen living human would have a higher chance of being satoshi.
- jgalt212 13y agoSo you don't think the circumstantial evidence presented (both by Newsweek and Dorian's interesting reaction to the article) make it's greater than 1 in 8B that Dorian is Satoshi? That's not a terribly tenable position.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoThis is more or less simple Bayesian logic. There is an explanation of every claim Newsweek made (explaining away). At the same time we have a lot more evidence of Dorian not being Satoshi. I just think that probability we would have observed all that evidence and Dorian being Satoshi is exceptionally small.
- michaelt 13y agoThe harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think Newsweek was on to something here. What would you expect if Newsweek was wrong, if not a denial?
- georgemcbay 13y agoI (still) think Newsweek was probably right. I found his interview about "bitcoms" and "I've never communicated with bitcoin" to be at odds with who this guy is/was even if he wasn't the "bitcoin" Satoshi; just a bit over-the-top in selling an ignorance that I don't believe is likely in someone with his background. Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery.
- Pinckney 13y ago>Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery. What do you think he can (successfully) sue over?