Dear Newsweek: RTFM
thoughtcrook.wordpress.com
thoughtcrook.wordpress.com
I remember a few years ago a lot of people were worried about what would happen with journalism if the "media corporations" died. As others have said in the past what matters is the "act of journalism", which can be done by anyone, not necessarily that you have a journalist diploma and badge.
We live in a time when everything is getting "democratized", i.e. "amateurs" can now do a lot of stuff only "professionals" could do in the past, and we'll see increasingly more of it and in many other industries, too.
And yes, as with all democratization processes, there will be a lot of crap, especially in the beginning, but in the end you also start getting really good stuff, out of all the crap, that rises to the top, and ends up being much better than what the traditional gate-keeping "professionals" could do, and that's how you get significant progress overall, in that industry.
I think this is clearly false in terms of potential. It's probably the case that too many bloggers do limit themselves to internet research.
You'd think the reason that the real Satoshi Nakamoto has kept himself hidden is exactly for that reason; that he is quite aware of the consequences, particularly now. Moreover, the Newsweek article doesn't provide any interest titbits about Bitcoin from its creator, only a statement that might indicate he was creator, given the right context, which the reporter maintains. But given Dorain Nakamoto's grasp of English, that might be a language barrier resulting in a confusion.
I'd argue that the Newsweek article wasn't even proved to begin with. Why would the real Satoshi Nakamoto suddenly do an interview now that he is discovered? He could simply deny having ever heard of Bitcoin, rather than 'somehow' confirming it and then denying it later.
I like his summary: Both answers ("he is Satoshi" and "he isn't Satoshi") are improbable, yet one of them must be true.
The arguments for "is" are silly. The guy is a libertarian (no shortage of those in the tech community). The guy is described as "brilliant"... by his family (what an unbiased source). The guy is obsessed with money (that only describes 90% of humanity).
He paints it as this extremely improbable coincidence that this guy is named Satoshi Nakamoto and has exactly the attributes that the creator of Bitcoin would have. But it looks to me like Satoshi Nakamoto isn't a particularly uncommon name (Wikipedia comes up with quite a few famous people named Satoshi, and quite a few named Nakamoto, and the combination doesn't seem like it ought to be rare). The attributes described aren't that uncommon. What are the odds that one of the Satoshi Nakamotos in the world happens to have these fairly general attributes, purely by coincidence? Pretty high, I would say.
That catch-22 (he either admits it or you take his denial as admission) would give you a false positive rate of damn near 100%.
Surely that has to be essentially written off as noise if we're going to use a probabilistic approach.
That said... while people are talking about the amazon reviews as counter-evidence, due the clear ESL attributes, that bike mirror review throws an interesting curve.
Either Dorian has a habit of dictating through someone with far more fluent (and precise) English [1] or he's far better with English than he generally lets on. [2] Which is an interesting wrinkle, but hardly enough to tip any scales.
[1] "(i.e., clear though convexed)"
[2] Which is something of a stereotype of older, professional Japanese.
See if he can float?
Did he ask to be in the public light when the Newsweek reporter showed up on his doorstep?
If you were the real Satoshi, and you took your anonymity seriously, why would you particularly care if the press had descended on some other fellow? If the world decides the wrong man is Satoshi, the real Satoshi(s) could breathe a lot more easily.
Satoshi sticking their neck out to keep the hunt alive would only exacerbate the side of the bitcoin story that they've been trying to avoid and downplay for quite some time.
Also I think that if the creator of Bitcoin had really wanted to clear Dorian's name, he would have used something like BTProof so that we know the exact time at which it was posted. If Dorian was known to be not behind a computer at that time, it is at least a much stronger indication.
BTProof: https://www.btproof.com/
Or a similar service: http://www.proofofexistence.com/
1. A picture of a squirrel or pigeon on your campus. One close-up, one with background that shows buildings, a sign, or something to indicate you are standing on the campus.
...
So, I think it was a very effective tactic.
tl;dr this only has the name in common with the long-running weekly magazine of old.
Which makes the accusation worse as it adds credibility.
(I'm not trying to give a definite answer either way here.)
I think the real Satoshi would have at least signed the message.
How so? I don't see why, or moreover, why it would be "of course" (as if it goes without question).
What about the BBC? What about the Guardian, which until recently was run by a trust? What about non-profit organisations? What about news that makes money based on quality reporting of a niche rather than general attention-grabbing?
To be hopelessly cynical is probably even worse than to be hopelessly naive.
None of these organizations survive without mass acceptances of the stories they intend to run .. whats your point? That these are altruistic organizations? I think not!
Yes, they do. The BBC relies on a license fee, which is not linked to viewing figures.
The Guardian has been loss-making for years, and is not run primarily for profit.
I know this is not a popular opinion on this site, but I personally have more confidence and trust in Bitcoin, or any other cryto currency, if I knew who was behind the creation of it.
Look at the man and how distressing all of this must be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrrtA6IoR_E
Also, the barrier of proof these people are setting is laughable. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'na-na-na-na-na' because you don't want to hear something.
what proof? there is no hard evidence Dorian is BC Satoshi other than he said /she said. It's not journalism its gossip,there is 0 serious investigation work. But what one can expect from Newsweek?
Your comment is "laughable" if you believe that stuff.
Did what, find a Satoshi Nakamoto?
What is not convincing? If one assumes the facts as they were presented there are actually true (which is not a stretch, they aren't that unreasonable), it's 90% as credible as an actual admission. And I have yet to see why the facts aren't as they are presented, except some generic 'media are all liars, they must by lying here as well'. The backpedaling by the guy himself, about how 'he meant something else' about what he said when he was unprepared, included. What normal person stops emailing after one mentions Bitcoin? What normal person calls the police when somebody asks about it? I'll tell you what any normal person who is not actually 'the' Satoshi would do when a bunch of reporters show up on his door: he'd sell interviews to anyone who would want one, plainly saying 'it's not me'.
What is also funny, btw, is how people call the guy 'Dorian' to make sure he seems very different from 'Satoshi'. 'It's not him, see, he's called 'Dorian'!'. Yeah, uh, except that 50 years ago he actually was called 'Satoshi'. Why are you all so emotionally invested in the guy remaining a 'mystery'?
Different subject. Not Bitcoin.
I've been the guy with the notepad, tape recorder, etc. for a lot of years, and I'm well aware of cases where the reporter thinks he/she is asking one question, and the source believes that he/she is hearing a different one.
If the Newsweek team had recorded the brief interview with Dorian, we'd have a way of sorting this out. But -- for reasons I can't understand -- it doesn't seem as if they bothered recording it.
> "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."
That is, essentially, an admission.
Except that it assumes a few things, namely:
1. That the quote is accurate.
2. That the quote is in context.
3. That the guy they were talking to isn't just a kook who decided it would be fun to pretend, after being heavily prompted.
Personally, I find it much more likely that there's something wrong with those assumptions than that the anonymity-obsessed creator of Bitcoin used his own name as a "pseudonym".
None of the rest of the article does anything to link this person with Bitcoin. All it does is point out a bunch of minor coincidences over vague interests shared by both this guy and the creator of Bitcoin... and by about ten million other people on the planet.
Server: ngx_openresty/1.2.6.1