Did you invent Bitcoin? Take our simple quiz to find out.
slate.com
slate.com
Her approach, which she describes as 'forensic', was to select a group of possible suspects, and then eliminate them one by one. When she only had one suspect left, then that person was clearly the Satoshi Nakamoto who created Bitcoin.
No, I am not being sarcastic. She's proudly explained her methodology in several TV interviews.
The possibility that her initial group of suspects may never have included Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto seems to have evaded her...
"Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name."
I'd say that at least indicates the journalist admits the possibility.
I'm so glad you mentioned that quote. Her approach is full of logical non sequiturs like this. They make me want to apply my palm to my face repeatedly.
If someone wants to remain anonymous, then the key action they have to take is not using their real name. After that, it doesn't matter much what pseudonym they choose.
'Satoshi Nakamoto' could have choosen a wholly unique name such as 'Gnafoni Prrrrstlo', which could also be described as extremely distinctive.
But it does not matter, because it is a pseudonym. The exact choice of pseudonym will not seriously impact his efforts to remain anonymous. The reporter suffers from severe logic fail there.
Arguably, the name is not even distinctive. It's only distinctive in the context that he could have called himself 'John Smith'
> Her approach, which she describes as 'forensic', was to select a group of possible suspects, and then eliminate them one by one. When she only had one suspect left, then that person was clearly the Satoshi Nakamoto who created Bitcoin.
The author didn't (claim to) assume that the probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was a pseudonym was zero, and that therefore the only non-pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto left standing had to be the Bitcoin inventor. Rather she assumed (or claimed to assume) that the probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was not a pseudonym was substantially above zero, and that therefore the only non-pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto left standing was worth detailed investigation, beginning with an in-person doorstopping. From that she, supposedly, got a direct oral admission from Dorian Sakamoto; she then followed up with further investigation which turned up several pieces of supposedly good circumstantial evidence supporting the claim (including the supposed similarities of English style and coding style) as well as one obvious piece of circumstantial evidence against it (where's the money?). Based on all this she wrote up the story which identified Dorian as the Bitcoin inventor, but also gave prominence to the where's-the-money problem. Now there are all sorts of potential problems there. McGrath Goodman beginning with the assumption that there is a zero or near-zero probability that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is a pseudonym isn't among them though.
>"Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name."
This statement of hers is significant mainly because it suggests a slipshod approach to proof, when far stricter standards should apply. To me, she seems determined to quickly dismiss the universally-accepted theory that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is a pseudonym, therefore she creates an extremely weak argument about distinctiveness, so she can handwave it away.
Additional note, to correct one point you made. She never mentions coding style, and does not appear to be aware it. That lack is also significant, because code represents a huge proportion of the available data for anyone who wishes to profile Satoshi Nakamoto.
I can't imagine somebody choosing a pseudonym that is not distinctive. It would hurt half of the goal.
Satoshi is the main character from Pokemon. Maybe he likes Pokemon. Maybe he hates Pokemon, and wanted to google-bomb the main character. Who knows?
2. Dorian Nakamoto is someone.
3. Therefore, Dorian Nakamoto invented Bitcoin.
I fail to see the fault in that flawless logic?
2. Therefore no one has invented Bitcoin or someone has invented Bitcoin.
3. Because each part of the proposition is equally likely we have to infer that we don't know whether Bitcoin was invented.
Further reading, Betrand Russell's on denoting http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/denoti...
1) Yes. Then he could have revealed himself at any time over the last 5 years. But Newsweek wants us to believe he just happens to accidentally reveal himself to a reporter after 5 years in hiding and then take it back a few hours later? Seriously?
2) No. Then why did he admit to being involved in Bitcoin to the first reporter that confronted him, even though he was able to successfully conceal his identity for 5 years with millions of people wanting to know who he was?
There's some alternatives in the middle like he's just so confused he doesn't know what to say or this is a not-very-amusing prank. None of this remotely reflects the behavior of the person who invented Bitcoin.
All I see here is a quote taken out of context and someone who had the misfortune of being born with someone else's pseudonym.
These people are out there: http://www.gwern.net/Blackmail
We don't know for sure whether he actually did it. I really doubt everything single thing that lady wrote in that article.
Everyone who buys into this story thinks that the quote is the smoking gun and I just can't see how it even makes sense.
The full quote makes that seem much less likely:
"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."
If that's accurate, it's much harder to see how Dorian Nakamoto thought they were talking about his old military contracts. Which does of course leave open the question of how accurate the quote really is...
How so? That's how projects work. It seems like a pretty reasonable response for someone who is trying to avoid breaking a confidentiality agreement.
Now ask yourself: Which specific projects had they been talking about, other than Bitcoin? If you can find one, I think your point becomes valid. If you can't, I have to side with the grandparent, at least on this aspect of the story.
Of course, alternative explanations are possible. It's possible that there is one specific military contract project that is haunting Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto so much that that sentence came out even though the reporter had never brought it up. That does feel a bit like grasping at straws to me, though.
But that's just it. It's close to self-evident that any military contract work you did years ago would have been turned over to others (or simply terminated) since your contract ended, and especially that you would no longer be in charge; why would you want to specifically assert that just after saying that your contracts were long over? Conversely, elaborating on how your work has been turned over to others and you are no longer in charge is what you'd expect TheRealSatoshiNakamoto to say if he was confirming his role in Bitcoin but refusing to talk further about it.
(But again, all of this is assuming that the quotation is accurate. If the journalist misremembered or altered it in a way that better fit her hopes or expectations—or just made it up—then obviously it's not safe to draw conclusions from it.)
Her entire story relies heavily on the confused 'admission' from Dorian Nakamoto during a few minutes interaction. She effectively ignores evidence that does not support her claim, such as the inexplicably huge difference in public writing styles of D Nakamoto and S Nakamoto.
What this new revelation does show, if you read the full reports of it, is that the reporter prompted the critical quote from the police officer, which opens her story, by first feeding him the suggestion that Dorian Nakamoto was the creator of Bitcoin.
(Full disclosure: There's no way I invented bitcoin.)
That's exactly what Dorian S. Nakamoto said. Gotcha
I have to give Slate credit, this made me giggle. The entire thing seems like a giant farce to me.
Yes, yes I do
Yes
yes
do
I