Bitcoin Inventor Satoshi Nakamoto Outed By Newsweek

DoctorBit writes "According to today's Newsweek article, Satoshi Nakamoto is ... Satoshi Nakamoto — a 64-year-old Japanese-American former defense contractor living with his mother in a modest Temple City, California suburban home. According to the article, 'He is someone with a penchant for collecting model trains and a career shrouded in secrecy, having done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military.' and 'Nakamoto's family describe him as extremely intelligent, moody and obsessively private, a man of few words who screens his phone calls, anonymizes his emails and, for most of his life, has been preoccupied with the two things for which Bitcoin has now become known: money and secrecy.' The article quotes him as responding when asked about bitcoin, 'I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it, ... It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection.' I imagine that he will now have to move and hire round-the-clock security for his own protection."

Comments

Why?

[Chalnoth]

Why would he have to move/hire protection? I guess I can see that he might be paranoid enough to think it's necessary, but why would it be actually necessary?

Re:Why?

[johnsie]

People do crazy things when money and power is involved. He's right to want to protect himself.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's now public that he's sitting on nearly half a billion dollars somewhere.

Re:Why?

[interkin3tic]

Because once Newsweek finds you, they'll pester you to death to subscribe, for interviews, to talk about them, to let people know that they didn't die completely when they went online only, and can you spare some change for a sandwich.

Re:Why?

[sunking2]

There are lots of rich people in the world. Most don't hire personal security. I've yet to see an entourage of folks accompany Warren Buffet into Dairy Queen when he wants a blizzard.

Re:Why?

[gmuslera]

Oblig xkcd. He is the weakest link in the unbreakable encryption of his bitcoin wallet.

Re:Why?

[MisterSquid]

This is why if you ever do anything in your life that people might want to know about, never EVER answer a request for an interview with anything that could even be used to find a bit of truth. "Off the record" means "this will get into the headline" and everything you say can and will be used against you to get pageviews. The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin.

Your advice is a good one for subjects of a possible exposé or smear campaign, however, out of hand dismissing journalists as people without integrity is not in the best interests of an informed public and (probably) in many cases unwarranted.

When I was a university professor, the Chronicle of Higher Education asked for an interview about what it's like to be single and a new faculty (ha!). I agreed to an interview and, on several occasions, said that I wanted to say a few things "off the record" about the behavior of colleagues and the spouses of colleagues (ahem). Some of what I said off the record was juicy and I told my interviewer those things to contextualize my "on the record" remarks.

The article was published, my female colleague who was written up got a couple of marriage proposals, and everything attributed to me was on the up and up.

I know not all journalists adhere to a code of ethics, but I believe that many do. Clamming up when a story needs to get out may protect you, but one needn't be suspicious form the get go.

Re:Why?

[Chris Mattern]

I know not all journalists adhere to a code of ethics, but I believe that many do.

Problem is, it can be tough to know which kind you've got until it's too late.

Re:Why?

[schnell]

"Off the record" means "this will get into the headline"

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. In journalism, certain words have certain meanings and any journalist working for a reputable publication will adhere to those strictly.

"Off the record" means "I am telling you, Mr./Ms. Reporter, because I think you should know, but you can't print it or link it to me." The information may still show up in the article because there is no prohibition on "second sourcing," however - it means that if I say "off the record, X got fired for embezzling" and the reporter asks someone else that question and they say yes with it not being off the record, then it's fair game. Experienced interviewees use "off the record" as a tool to either influence the reporter's contextual view of the situation or to lead them to ask questions of other people in that direction. Inexperienced interviewees don't know how to use it, or are not good about making very clear what is on/off the record, and frequently end up getting burned.

Similarly, "on background" means "You can report this piece of information, but you can't say it was me who told you." Whenever you read a story that says "Senior administration officials said..." it is because the person who told that to the reporter said it "on background." It's usually used when people want to get information out but they would get in trouble if people knew who it was that said it.

These are the kinds of rules that a reporter from The Washington Post, CNN or other "mainstream media" outlets will follow scrupulously. If you're talking to someone from Huffington Post, Gawker or sensationalist rags like that - not so much. That's why it's very important to know whom you're talking to and judge the information you disclose accordingly.

Dealing with the media is pretty straightforward if you know the rules, but most "regular" people (i.e. not celebrities, politicians, etc.) don't know or understand the rules and they can be burned by them. The bottom line is that if you are savvy and experienced with the media, you can use tools like "off the record" and "on background" to your benefit. If you are not experienced, the best idea is to avoid them and not say anything that you do not want to see in print, connected to your name.

The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order

Oh, and by the way, as a former reporter, I can tell you that if I asked you for an interview and you tried to get a restraining order, that would 1.) never be granted by a judge, and 2.) would make me dig into your story far more deeply because I'm pretty sure you have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide but just don't want to do the interview for privacy reasons (or you suspect the agenda of the reporter), simply decline the interview politely or ask to do it by e-mail where you will have the ability to consider your answers and have everything in writing in case your are misquoted. If you do actually have something to hide, either just decline the interview request or - preferably - have your lawyer answer it.

Re:Why?

[Ralph Wiggam]

From the blockchain records, someone mined almost a million coins in the very very early days. There were a few small outgoing transactions, and then haven't been touched since Satoshi disappeared in 2011. It doesn't make much sense for those bitcoins to belong to anyone else.

Re:Why?

[JoeMerchant]

I don't know about GP's experience, but any time I have explained anything to a reporter, it has come out printed as something completely twisted from it's original meaning. Case in point: told reporter "our technology has flown on Space Shuttle missions", printed in story: "Company Vice President says "their technology is going to the Moon!"" with the implication that the company stock is going to "rocket up" in value.

Re:Why?

[DaveV1.0]

The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin

This comment states one of the best response to a request for an interview is to murder the requester and it is now at +5 interesting? What the actual fuck, people? The person who posted this comment is apparently a paranoid psychopath and you are effectively praising him.

Re:Why?

[Copid]

I could definitely see some of the people who lose a ton of money if/when the Bitcoin fad ends deciding to blame the guy who started it all rather than themselves for jumping in.

Re:Why?

[nurb432]

Even better: Why was his privacy violated by Newsweek in the first place?

Horrible Journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, they put this guys life in danger. Shame on them.

Conspiracy nuts are going to love this one!

[johnsie]

a career shrouded in secrecy, having done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military

Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000

[Idou]

Other billionaires require some kind of impossibly complicated strategy to steal their billions. . .

Hope he takes the necessary precautions, though. . . Crypto-currencies are awesome. He deserves to spend the rest of his days in peace (For a crypto-genius, he could have picked a better pseudonym, though . . .).

Re:Model Trains?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I wanna know more about his trains-- does he have a cool layout?

It's pretty spartan, hey got caught up in the trains themselves. Each set of cars is arranged in a very specific sequence that he really gets worked up about, and I've noticed that it takes him longer and longer every time to decide on and add a new car to the end of the train....

Poor Guy

[Metabolife]

He just wanted to be left alone, leave him alone.

I reject your reality and substitute my own....

[FilmedInNoir]

This is Satoshi Nakamoto:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9rqm...

and his friend. They create crypto-currencies and attend raves.

Why is this Article Beign Taken Seriously?

[Stormy Dragon]

There's no actual concrete evidence of any of the author's claims, just tons of speculation. Yet it's being treated like it's undeniably true.

Obvious Hoax

[Martin S.]

Newsweek : This man is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Sheriff : "What?" The police officer balks.
Sheriff : "This is the guy who created Bitcoin?

Are we really supposed to believe that a Police Officer would know such geek trivia?

Seems to be a little overly dramatic.

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[gorzek]

I assume you're asking how the "mining" works, and that's actually pretty easy to explain.

Each bitcoin block is generated with a SHA256 hash of the block's header. Presumably, the header information is not guessable, otherwise it would be pointless.

The SHA256 hash becomes the "target." In order to successfully mine the block, you must produce a hash with a value lower than the target. The lower the target, the harder it is to mine the block. Since SHA256 hashes (as far as I know) do not leak any information about the plaintext, the hashes are attempted essentially at random. Successfully mining a block is essentially like winning the lottery because there is no known way to make educated guesses about what text might produce a hash below the target's value.

Once an acceptable hash has been generated by a miner, it is submitted to the network with a proof of work that permits the rest of the network to essentially check the solution. At that point, the block is considered completed, the transactions are processed, and the successful miner is awarded the transaction fees plus 20 new BTC.

I don't think the rainbow table comparison is apt because you're not attempting to produce hash collisions, only find hashes below a set value. Finding a collision is exponentially more difficult, by design.

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Typical anti-Bitcoin bullshit.

Wikipedia: A pyramid scheme is an unsustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.

1) Where is the "promise" of payment or services that never gets fulfilled? Find a block and you get paid (in Bitcoin, sorry... a claim that Bitcoin isn't "real" doesn't hold water here).
2) Where is the "enrollment" of other people in the scheme. I mine, I've never recruited anyone into a "scheme".
3) Bitcoins have value. As a group people have assigned value to them. The fact I can go to an exchange and get money based on a bitcoin proves that. Just because the product is digital doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you think it's a scam I can respect that, but write something that says why you think it is a scam. Don't come out and yell buzzwords like '"pyramid scheme" and "ponzi scheme" without justifying how it fits in to the accepted definition of the term.

He's just a patsy

[Patent Lover]

The real inventor was Keyser Soze.

I heard from a totally unreliable source . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . that it was actually the K**h brothers who contracted with the Russian Mafia to invent Bitcoin, and they set Nakomoto up as the fall guy. I'm sure it is totally bogus, in spite of the salaciousness and viral rumor-mongering appeal. Has anyone got any completely unsubstantiated confirmation of this?

Re:Outed?

[DoctorBit]

OP here - the submitted headline used the verb "doxed" rather than "outed". On a separate note, r/bitcoin has been raising some interesting doubts about the correctness of the article: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoi...

I wasn't aware this was unethical...

[sirwired]

I was not aware it was inherently considered unethical journalism to uncover those who wish to remain anonymous. Peeling back anonymity can help shed light on the reasons somebody does what they did. Background, motiviations, current involvement, etc. are certainly newsworthy things to examine.

And why is his life in danger?

Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ?

[davek]

Close, but not quite.

I assume you're asking how the "mining" works, and that's actually pretty easy to explain.

Each bitcoin block is generated with a SHA256 hash of the block's header. Presumably, the header information is not guessable, otherwise it would be pointless.

The SHA256 hash becomes the "target." In order to successfully mine the block, you must produce a hash with a value lower than the target. The lower the target, the harder it is to mine the block.

The "target" is in fact the difficulty. Essentially a difficulty of 1 means an applicable proof-of-work block solution would be less than 2^256 >> 1 (I could be wrong on the max size, I'd have to look it up). A block "solution" is a sha-256 hash of (merkle root (which is generated by doing a merkle tree starting with the transaction IDs of all the transactions since the last block) + some other header stuff + a nonce). The header stuff is completely public and known. The "work" miners to is generate trillions upon trillions of those nonces (which is just a word for a random piece of data), calculate the sha-256, and see if the resulting sha is less than the target.

Successfully mining a block is essentially like winning the lottery because there is no known way to make educated guesses about what text might produce a hash below the target's value.

Once an acceptable hash has been generated by a miner, it is submitted to the network with a proof of work that permits the rest of the network to essentially check the solution. At that point, the block is considered completed, the transactions are processed, and the successful miner is awarded the transaction fees plus 20 new BTC.

It's fees + 25 BTC. But that will change eventually, as we approach the max of 22 million BTC in circulation.

I don't think the rainbow table comparison is apt because you're not attempting to produce hash collisions, only find hashes below a set value. Finding a collision is exponentially more difficult, by design.

A "rainbow table" in this case would have to have a number of entries greater than the size of particles in the known universe, I think. We're talking about stupidly large numbers here.