Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bitcoin Inventor Satoshi Nakamoto Outed By Newsweek

Posted by timothy on from the always-the-quiet-ones dept.

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."

14 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Chalnoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Why? by johnsie · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Why? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    4. Re:Why? by MisterSquid · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      blog
    5. Re:Why? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Why? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Why? by Copid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  2. Horrible Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. I reject your reality and substitute my own.... by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  4. Why is this Article Beign Taken Seriously? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Obvious Hoax by Martin+S. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ? by gorzek · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Check out my world simulator thingy.
  7. Re:"It's been turned over to other people" ? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.