Hacker News Reader

Comment by argumentum | Hacker News Reader

Quite an odd article for such an important (if true) expose. The only reason I think its possibly true is Gavin's vague tweet.

50% of the article deals with material about bitcoin that is redundant to anyone whose been following it for more than a day (like most here).

45% deals with "Dorian S. Nakamoto"'s family, personal background and that he's a libertarian oddball, with a penchant for math (but no other significant accomplishment within it or CS) who (other than possible being the Satoshi) has led a fairly normal, middle class southern california lifestyle.

The remaining 5% or so details a brief encounter with the man, in which he neither confirms or denies it.

I'm skeptical.

View on HN

To be honest I agree with you that there quite a few red flags about this article. However, short of Newsweek outright making everything up, isn't the lack of a denial in this instance tantamount to an admission? I mean, if it were me, and I valued my privacy that much, I would a) have used an actual pseudonym, b) responded to questions about Bitcoin with "bit-what-now"?

  isn't the lack of a denial in this instance tantamount to 
  an admission? I mean, if it were me, [...] responded to 
  questions about Bitcoin with "bit-what-now"?

If all his friends and family know he shares his name with the creator of bitcoin, he might have already heard all the jokes and think "not this shit again" as well as not being able to credibly deny knowing about it.

There's a british general who goes by Mike Jackson when his real name is Michael Jackson [1]. If someone asked him to moonwalk I'd expect the resigned frustration of someone who has heard that lame joke a thousand times before - rather than him denying having heard of the pop singer of the same name.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson

As someone with the name Paul Brown in the Cincinnati area (where the Paul Brown stadium is) I deal with this almost daily. I'm sick of meeting someone and about 75% of the time they go "oh, do you own the stadium?". I'm seriously starting to think about moving far away so I don't have to hear it anymore. I don't even like football!

I also went to high school with a guy named John Conner and everyone use to thank him for some day saving the human race from the machines.

People also probably give you immense grief over the ridiculous tax deal the stadium has with Hamilton County. :p

I wish, most people don't seem to care. I for one would rather see my tax dollars go to something useful like education.

I don't think Satoshi Nakamoto is as well-known as Michael Jackson. Nobody knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is where I live. If they did, I'd be surprised.

I was surprised the cop mentioned in the article knew.

Hearing jokes about it and having a reporter turn up from a well-known national news publication seeking an interview are two entirely different things. Really, these are the sort of arguments I'd expect from a surly 13-year old.

If he was some coincicentally named private individual, the obvious thing to do would be to deny being the celebrity Nakamoto, and possibly to advise the reporter to discuss the matter with his lawyer.

> If he was some coincicentally named private individual, the obvious thing to do ..

Why is that so "obvious"? That may be the obvious choice for you, and maybe it's even the "correct" choice.

But fame is incredibly enticing ego food.

In which case he has no reason not to say 'why yes I am that international man of mystery!' and milk it for all the gains its worth, eg TV interviews and speaking invitations and so on. Lots of other people have done this sort of thing, and there's nothing illegal about it, just a social cost if you're caught out. It doesn't make sense to argue that he's shunning the media and seduced by fame at the same time.

If he did that, he'd quickly be found out as a fraud. Being demure is the only way to be a "plausible" Satoshi.

I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I don't know, obviously, but I do know that people do things for many strange and contradictory reasons.

Here's a real world example: Hundreds of people have claimed that their father, brother, friend, odd uncle, strange neighbor etc were the Zodiac killer.

Many such claims came along with a lot more "evidence" than has yet been presented about "Dorian S. Nakamoto". Clearly, most of those claims (or all) are false.

Or even something like this: http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/11/sweden-notorious-s...

"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."

Seems like a confirmation?

or false confirmation. He might not have invented bitcoin but know all about it (because of his name). He would know that acting all shadowy and evasive would make him seem more like the real Satoshi.

tl;dr - Give me proof, not vague "seems like he confirmed it."

What about good old Occam's Razor? Seems pretty obvious to me that if the details in this article are true (and they likely are) this is indeed "the" Satoshi.

What are the "details"?

There were really no details in the article besides the man's name and rest of his personal information and interests and that he was technically inclined. Is he even a programmer?

Rest was just conjecture on the writer's part.

Occam's Razor tells us to go to the simplest of arguments. Given that the details of the article are circumstantial, it's pretty simple that the journalist is wrong and this Satoshi is acting vague for personal gain.

However, I give you Hanlon's Razor on this. It's more likely that this Satoshi flubbed his words when speaking about bitcoin rather than intentionally mislead the journalist.

> Satoshi is acting vague for personal gain.

Exactly this.

Everyone here assumes that there are only negative consequences of being identified (or misidentified) as Satoshi. That may even be true, but Icarus didn't know the Sun (fame in this case) would burn him.

Satoshi's response wasn't vague though. It was detailed.

* I'm not working on this * Anymore (i.e., I was before) * It's been turned over to other people (i.e. there were other parties involved in this work) * They are in charge of it now (i.e. there was a project to be in charge of, and Satoshi had been the one in charge) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he did used to have a connection).

That's not a vague set of facts about something which this libertarian, privacy-minded genius just happened to be mistaken with. It's a detailed accounting, one which is "the exception that proves the rule". By listing what is not true he is definitely implying what is true.

If it was "detailed", you wouldn't need to (put everything that you think in parentheses).

Let me re-paranthesize your quote:

* I'm not working on this * Anymore (he never worked on it) * It's been turned over to other people (this is a public project with dozens of people involved, publicly) * They are in charge of it now (yes, they (as in the publicly acknowledged open source project) are in charge of it now) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he never had a connection).

> he is definitely implying what is true

What evidence do you have that any of his "implications" are worthy of truthfulness? (or that he's a "genius")?

What other "genius" level work has he produced? Or something even close to what would normally be considered "genius".

Even the obscure professor (Yitang Zhang) who came up with the first resolution of the twin prime conjecture was an "obscure" university professor.

I'm not saying that credentials are the only valid proof of capability. The Wright brothers had no degree. But they had decades of documentation of their efforts before they succeeded.

* I'm not working on this Anymore (i.e., I used to run a small mining rig, but it doesn't payoff anymore).

* It's been turned over to other people(i.e., I sold my graphics cards)

* They are in charge of it now (i.e., The people that own the graphics cards may still be mining. I dont know)

* I no longer have any connection (i.e., It was some guys from Craigslist. I dont remember their number).

See how detailed that is?

Gavin doesn't know who Satoshi is. He just regrets speaking to that reporter. His tweet doesn't lend any credibility to the story.

I agree, the reporter made it seem as if Gavin "knew".

And you should. But nothing about BitCoin ever seems confirmed in anyway so… I'd take that the main benefit is dTal's reaction, remembering all the conspiracies: “I feel a bit silly.” That’s the good stuff.

same here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com