Satoshi Nakamoto denies being Dorian Nakamoto
bitcointalk.org
bitcointalk.org
Dorian Nakamoto is Satoshi: This is an attempt by him to throw people off his scent, which would be foolish and desperate since chances are the millions of eyes focused on him will find more concrete proof than the Newsweek article, rendering the posting moot. Almost guaranteeing the drama will continue, if not whip it into a larger frenzy.
Dorian Nakamoto isn't Satoshi: An attempt to absolve someone of harassment. Noble, but not wise, since now he will have to continue to disprove serious accusations of his identity, or else innocent people will be harmed again. And the corollary, if he does not publish a refutation people will assume it's tacit agreement. People will continue looking for him.
It's late and I know I didn't think of everything, but I can't see this being a winning move by Satoshi in any scenario.
My personal theory? Dorian was a member of a crypto group that eventually gave birth to Bitcoin, but he was never part of the implementation. Maybe he thought of the original math/idea, so they named their pseudonym after him in his honor? Probably not true, but fun!
It's a desperate attempt to mislead.
[1] Here is Dorian making an in-person bitcoin purchase in July 2011: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326
If Dorian was a member of the group that eventually birthed Bitcoin, isn't it realistic that he'd be an early adopter, even if the pseudonym wasn't quite his?
http://sks.pkqs.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&sear...
(ignore the signature from today, anyone could have done that in the brouhaha following today's disclosures)
Based on that, it looks pretty clear to me that Dorian Nakamoto decided to "latch on" to the Satoshi Nakamoto founder's myth, either as a way to boost his reputation/ego or as some practical joke (or both!).
That or Satoshi the Founder is trolling us all.
1. Originally noted a few moments ago by mpfrank on bitcointalk.
EDIT: Duh, it's fake. Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back. I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair. Sorry folks, maybe if it were timestamped in the blockchain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor (for the uninitiated)
/* I should note that "John Titor" is a fictional persona of a time travelling man. People made fake posts on multiple forums, some including elaborate diagrams of a "time machine" etc... */
If you scroll down to the "in popular culture" section it mentions that in 2006 none other than the very "Martin Pohlman" to whom your parent poster linked attempted to patent the time machine that John Titor claims to own...
So maybe this Martin Pohlman had something to do with(created?) the fake John Titor persona... Really renders the whole thing pretty un-comical.
Your parent poster could definitely have been a whole lot clearer though.
http://sks.pkqs.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&sear...
A number of blackhats did this around Lulzsec time. They would adopt a second-level identity -- and drop very, very small hints to make people think they're some person X. Person X being a person the blackhat in question just chose randomly by, oh I dono, cruising around the web where people talk about IT security... choosing an interesting person, learning about them by googling around, and eventually starting to play that person (or rather, play that person playing to be anonymous). This was one of the suggested strategies in the helpdocs wiki, advertised on the irc channel where lulzsec members usually would be. But since Dorian is kind of an old guy, the real Satoshi would have had to know him in real life (hence my saying that it'd be a dangerous game for Satoshi to be playing).
But really, I think it's just a very funny coincidence. As others have pointed out, Satoshi Nakamoto is not that of an uncommon Japanese name. Too bad Dorian got dragged into all of this. He seems like a sweet old man, with a great sense of humour ("I want a free lunch", wonderful) and an awesome hobby (model trains are fun). I'll buy you a lunch Dorian!
This is a strange and unhealthy response. What was so hard/uncomfortable about saying "I did not realize" or "I was wrong"? It is okay to be wrong or not know something.
"Duh, it's fake. Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back. I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair. Sorry folks, maybe if it were timestamped in the blockchain."
He played it off and says the real answer is obvious. Then he provides an excuse for not recognizing this obvious truth. Finally to make matters super strange he informs us (w/o evidence) that he was the one that pointed this "attack" out to us during the Snowden affair.
"[Ooooooh,] Duh[!], it's fake[!] [forehead smack of realization and insight]."
You seem to be reading more of a dismissive "Duh, I knew that, why are you telling me what I already know?" into this, whereas I'm reading a much more realization-striken tone.
"Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back."
Thinking out loud through the realization and insight as it occurred.
"I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair."
Explaining the circumstances of and implicitly acknowledging and admitting to a mistake or fault, continuing revelation. An introspective done, not a defensive one, not offered up as an "excuse".
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sour...
A. This account was hacked and it doesn't matter. This scenario might be uncovered if ning.com discovers a breach.
B. This is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, and s/he is trying to clear Dorian's name.
C. This is Dorian Nakamoto and he is trying to clear his name.
We can never distinguish between B and C, so I don't see the value of posting such a comment, and I'm pretty sure that the inventor of Bitcoin would understand this as well.
"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."
This guy was involved in classified Government work at several companies, and the question could have been either about that, or vague enough that he could have misinterpreted it as being about that, especially if he had never heard of Bitcoin and had no idea what it was.
The quotes are a little questionable too. How many people really believe that an average street cop in a small town in California would say "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life." It's entirely possible they've been massaged a bit to be shorter and more clear. It's not like there's a recording of the conversations, at least not that we have access to.
2) The LA County Sheriff definitely knows what Bitcoins are. LA is a major drug scene.
Also, a minor nitpick: Temple City is part of a community that's directly adjacent to Los Angeles—people have heard of Bitcoin there.
Based on my interaction with reporters, it's not a stretch at all for the reporter to misunderstand a part of a conversation, and stick by their misinterpretation. This will happen even on things that could be fact-checked later. I think this strange quirk has something to do with not being influenced by their sources, but I can only guess why they engage in that recipe for inaccuracy.
In any case, I have no animosity towards the creator of Bitcoin, and I don't think that the original creator has any need for legal worries. But in the heat of the moment, it seems as if many people are mixing up these two separate ideas.
Of course, this isn't necessarily proof that Dorian isn't Satoshi. (I personally don't think that he is, but I guess we'll see.) Regardless, it sure will be nice when the media stops hounding this guy. Especially if he really isn't Satoshi. This could have the potential of completely ruining somebody's life, particularly one who seems rather private like Dorian.
http://gawker.com/bitcoin-inventor-denies-newsweek-story-aft...
This is Gawker, so take it with a truckload of salt. It's mostly just a rehash of several sources.
https://twitter.com/GreatDismal/status/441766075005276160 https://twitter.com/GreatDismal/status/441767131605000192
I would have expected the real Satoshi to sign a message from his known address making it certain it's him.
The username checks out, has an OTC rating, and has been on bitcointalk since 2011. Completely trustworthy, lets see what they say.
a. lost/destroyed the key
b. purposefully keeping it uncertain
Does anyone care the stress might kill him? I guess not.
How about we leave him alone.
Even worse, what if it really is not him?
Anyone who has been through that kind of illness deserves to be left the heck alone if they want to be.
Look at it this way, consider some other examples. Finding out whether or not someone is a pedophile is extremely important, therefore throwing around baseless allegations is warranted regardless of the impact it has on someone's life. Stopping terrorist activity is important and lives potentially hang in the balance, therefore torturing someone on the basis of limited evidence or limiting people's freedoms or discriminating against people because of their race is justified. It's all variations on the "won't somebody please think of the children!" argument. The seriousness of the issue does not and should not change the importance of protecting an individual's privacy, their rights, and their assumption of innocence.
If you thought that your neighbor had the secret to curing cancer that doesn't give you the right to break into his house and beat the shit out of him until he told you what it was. The privacy of Dorian Nakamoto is a slightly less serious issue but it's still important.
Huh. I swear I've heard such comments before..
"This internet thing isn't going to go anywhere"
-- Most companies, early 1990's
"No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame."
-- CmdrTaco, the original iPod release
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
-- Prentice Hall editor, 1957
"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
-- Linus Torvalds
Yes, most important advances are initially dismissed. But almost all things that are initially dismissed are not important advances. You cannot infer importance from initial dismissal. Dismissal does not in itself make anything more likely to be important.
Which is why I take such "Feh! Bitcoin is a fad!" statements as the uninformed nonsense that they are.
No, it really doesn't. It just proves that in some particular cases, some particular people were bad at determining that.
If I'm Satoshi Nakamoto and I'm not Dorian, I might post as Satoshi to try to get people to leave Dorian alone. But that's a pretty feeble attempt. If he cared enough to get people to leave Dorian alone, you'd think he'd come up with something that provided a bit more proof. Otherwise, why bother breaking silence?
It's highly ironic that the media paints cryptocurrency as tools for a coldhearted clique that only cares for their own material wealth, yet they're the ones cruelly exposing someone who has done them no wrong and (in the case of the Newsweek journalist) refusing to apologize. What happened to kindness and respect?
The criminals don't think "Bitcoin, the neat crypto-currency, let's hack his network and steal his private keys if we can!". Criminals think "wow, this guy has something that can be exchanged for $400mm, let's hold a clothes iron to his (or his mother's!) feet until he gives it to us!".
Also a few desperate out of work in heavy debt old IT workers might do something stupid.
But I would be mostly worried about the mob. Italian and Russian mafia is reputed to create a large part of their wealth today by online scams and phishing, so they will have people that are fully aware of Bitcoin. And have no qualms visiting people or their relatives to chop off a few fingers.
After all I don't think the Silk Road and its compatriots was run by innocent people...
Most moderately or even extremely wealthy people are obscure. One of the wealthiest people I've worked for had a saying: "it's good to be wealthy but not famous." He dressed like a slob, drove a generic Japanese car, lived in a moderate house but in Los Altos (i.e., given the money he went for a safer location as opposed to a gigantic house), and so forth... He never once talked about finance issues despite being involved in angel investments, exits, etc... Most importantly, you'd never see his name in a press release much less in a newspaper story (except once I think, where he was referred to as an engineer as opposed to his actual title).
However, Dorian Nakomoto's situation is far worse in that he's perceived as wealthy, but actually isn't: so he can't afford security, lawyers, a gated house (remember, he went through foreclosure -- he can barely afford a house at all!), and so on forth... He's sixty five years old, his mother is 90. He can't run, he's post-stroke so he likely won't be able defend himself even with a firearm. He also has much more at stake than others: he can't simply hand the home invaders or extortionists the money if, e.g., one of his relatives is kidnapped. Is this so hard to understand? Do you personally hate bitcoin so much that you're willing to be an apologist for endangerment of someone who isn't even involved in bitcoin?
Satoshi has created a new currency, a cryptocurrency. The currency has become more popular and valuable than Satoshi could have imagined. Satoshi now holds almost $1 Billion of his new currency. Due to the currencies psuedo-anonimity, low liquidity and it's value in illicit trade it is far too dangerous for Satoshi to cash in and reveal himself...
The key is, though, and maybe this is what you're referring to, that these folks don't store wealth on their home PCs. So their threat model is a little different.
I'm sure HN readers who follow Bitcoin more closely than I do could think of a better system, but presumably the real Satoshi could hire lawyers to set up a company or trust to hold his bitcoins, sell them over time, and store the proceeds in a more traditional manner. Not especially difficult. And, assuming taxes are paid, it may even be possible to remain anonymous.
- None of Satoshis coins can be linked to illicit trade because he mined them himself.
- Low liquidity isn't really a problem, the Bitcoin community is so fanatical that any coins held by Satoshi would likely sell at a premium... even without the fanclub, he'd certainly make enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he couldn't liquidate all his holdings.
- The same fanclub seems quite fierce in defending Dorian/Satoshi.
- The tax situation has been official clarified in the UK. Now its recognised as a Capital Gain, US citizens can presumably come here to sell Bitcoin and avoid double taxation under tax treaty? (Possibly, I'm not an accountant or a lawyer)
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zs4z2/p2pfoundati...
This reminds me of the knights and knaves puzzle for some reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves
The man is a legend for a reason and will remain that way, regardless of anyone who claims or is proven to be, or not be him.
Is there any way Satoshi could prove this statement? Apart from revealing his identity?
There's really no way to prove (a posteriori) without doubt that someone is or isn't Satoshi, unless there was an encypted message left by him (a priori) saying "My DNA is (...)", to which he provides the key.
When shown the original bitcoin proposal that Newsweek linked to in its story, Nakamoto said he didn't write it, and said the email address in the document wasn't his.
"Peer-to-peer can be anything," he said. "That's just a matter of address. What the hell? It doesn't make sense to me."
Asked if he was technically able to come up with the idea for bitcoin, Nakamoto responded: "Capability? Yes, but any programmer could do that."
For someone who only recently heard about BitCoin this seems like an odd response. It almost seems like if you made a factually incorrect technical statement about BitCoin in his presence -- he might correct you.
I've said it before in the other threads but it bears repeating. What Newsweek did was shameful and it looks to me that this guy is a very unlikely candidate. He still has money problems in real life, as well as severe health problems. Framing him as SN is irresponsible.
[1] http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-man-said-create-bitcoin-d...
If you get contacted (or arrested or detained) by a law enforcement agency, you could ask to have a lawyer present before answering any questions. Your lawyer can help you assert your fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination.
I don't mean to deny that the Federal government might already know who the creator of Bitcoin is. They may, and they may have quite strong evidence. However, having "no choice in the matter" of whether to reveal one's identity under interrogation is less clear. At least in the context of a law enforcement investigation, the fifth amendment privilege is quite strong when properly asserted, and the government's power to compel answers from a suspect is correspondingly weak.
Seriously, how about we leave the guy who had a stroke and cancer but just happens to have a similar name alone. It's obviously not him and this is sloppy journalism.
"Yes, but any programmer could do that." ---- Either this Dorian is ignorant or it is his natural response. This quote is weird.
He's probably already taking steps to change his identity and location.
Dorian (as recognized by the retailer) bought a crepe from one of the first retailers to accept bitcoins, the 1st transaction of the crepe retailer's bitcoin address at 1KfQKmME7bQm5AesPiizWk6h3JPUekwoBC for 2.2 bitcoins on July 17 2011, can check the Crepe twitter feed: twitter.com/Ocrepes - "The award for being the first customer who bought crepes for @bitcoins goes to ... anonymous (the winner refused to reveal identity)"
Tracing those addresses/transactions back leads to large volume addresses. [EDIT: 432,000 coins]
Early on, there were so few people mining that practically everyone had a "large volume". As such, if you pick any arbitrary bitcoin transaction at that time, it's highly likely it will have originated from a large volume source in the recent past.
I think it's more likely a case of mistaken identity; there are many people in this world, and I think that the chance of someone remembering someone from 3 years ago that they saw for half an hour, tops, with sufficient accuracy for a positive ID is much lower than the chance that there are simply two middle aged asian men who look vaguely similar. It's also improbable that "satoshi" would fly across the country for this purchase. One person's word is certainly not compelling to me.
Even if that account is 100% accurate, it does not link the man who paid with bitcoins to satoshi, but merely to Dorian. The HN link relies on the flawed NewsWeek article to make the further connection from Dorian to Satoshi.
Definitely a "pics or it didn't happen" situation.
Here, I'll give you an alternative explanation: Dorian was an early bitcoin adopter or otherwise had a small number. When reporters started asking his son if he was Satoshi, he realized that that would damage his reclusive lifestyle if people thought he were Satoshi. He thought that telling the truth, that he knew about bitcoin but wasn't Satoshi, wouldn't be believed so he told a lie to preserve his reclusive lifestyle.
But anyway, this eye witness seems a bit odd for other reasons.
Linking Dorian to Bitcoin at any time proves everything, proves Dorian = Satoshi. If Dorian paid for crepe in July 2011 with Bitcoin, Dorian is lying and Dorian = Satoshi. There was a large Bitcoin Conference in New York at that time, giving good reason to be there. The retailer said she recognized Dorian as the customer. He didn't want his picture taken or name recorded. Good odds to me it was him.
And "large volume" = 432,000 coins.
That's not what she said. She said it was him. They had conversation and interactions etc to form good memory.
Memory is highly fallible. Eyewitness accounts are highly unreliable even after a shorter period of time than three years. The burden of proof is properly on the Dorian == Satoshi folks.
by these standards, the Newsweek article itself seems like sufficient evidence.
It's easier to remember the first time you do/experience something. The situation is novel and unique, which creates stronger mental connections that allow for subsequent recall.
If Dorian was the 15th guy to buy something with Bitcoins from the retailer, that would definitely be suspicious. But the first guy to buy something from you with Bitcoin? That's a memorable event. That doesn't mean it happened, but it does mean there's a good chance it actually happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony
In one of her experiments, Loftus demonstrates that false verbal Information can integrate with original memory. Participants were presented with either truthful information or misleading information, and overall it showed that even the false information verbally presented became part of the memory after the participant was asked to recall details. This happens because of one of two reasons. First, it can alter the memory, incorporating the misinformation in with the actual, true memory. Second, the original memory and new information may both reside in memory in turn creating two conflicting ideas that compete in recall.[13]
How likely is it that this ISN'T the Satoshi Nakamoto, just another dude with the same name who happened to be an early adopter of the same technology at time when it was very obscure?
Of course this all depends on her story being true or not. But I don't think it depends on how well she would distinguish this Nakamoto from another Nakamoto. If she's telling the truth, high likelihood it's actually him.
[0]obviously it's possible it'll turn out she is Japanese/very familiar with Japanese people and therefore probably can tell apart two Japanese men with very little to go on, but I'm working on the assumption that is unlikely for a woman running a crepe shop in new york
What does he do? He cooks meth.