Slashdot Mirror
Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?
Nerval's Lobster writes "Newsweek's Leah McGrath Goodman spent months tracking down the mysterious founder of Bitcoin, "Satoshi Nakamoto," a name that everybody seemed to believe was a pseudonym for either a single individual or a shadowy collective of programmers. If Satoshi Nakamoto, former government contractor and model-train enthusiast, is actually "Satoshi Nakamoto," Bitcoin founder, then he's sitting atop hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto-currency. Does the article's exhaustive listing of Nakamoto's personal details place his security at risk? Many in the Bitcoin community think so, and poured onto the Web to express that opinion. The Newsweek article has raised some interesting questions about the need for thorough journalism versus peoples' right to privacy. For example, should Goodman have posted an image of Nakamoto's house and car, even though information about both would probably be relatively simple to find online, anyway?"
I found the story abhorent. Them showing up on his porch and confronting him as he was coming through the door with cameras like he's some criminal was equally disgusting.
He's not famous, he's not a public figure, he's just some random guy they wrote a big story about and then confronted him like he's a movie star and they were paparazzi scum. I think newsweek and the people involved should burn in hell for what they did. When I read the story and saw the photo's and video I almost gagged at the complete lack of any kind of morals the people involved have for doing this. I will not be offering them any kind of future business because of this. Just like I don't frequent TMZ because of their paparazzi BS, I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
The more I read about Dorian Nakamoto, the more I want him to be Satoshi. That would make it an even better story.
Unfortunately as it stands, this is just a story of a journalist with an obsession and some amount of tunnel-vision. The more you want something to be true, the more blind you are to evidence against it.
At least he got a free lunch.
I think it's absolutely wrong to out someone who is actively trying to remain out of the spotlight
Let's say for argument sake that it is accurate. That is the bitcoin owner, who isn't spending any of the bitcoins.
The person does not want to talk about it. If he is serious about that, waving microphones in front of the man is NOT going to encourage him to be forthcoming with personal stories.
So what does it change? Nothing!
There is no benefit to anyone. Now if the guy wanted to open up and share stories, that is what the media is hungering for. But he isn't doing that.
The BEST thing the guy could do is say "Yes that is me. I have nothing more to say, and I don't think I ever will. Now get off my lawn." and then refuse to say anything more. In fact, judging by the story, that is EXACTLY what he did say. There is no story or controversy around it. This is just some guy who has access to something valuable.
Some of the media folk may want to ask him questions, hoping to make a buck when he shares a story, but if he chooses not to share anything they'll quickly lose interest when the next something shiny comes around.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Coincidences happen. There's a guy sharing my first and last name (my last name is very uncommon; it's spelled in an unusual way), went to the same university and faculty, and wrote his master's thesis on a subject close to my line of study. He's about my age, too. People often mistake us on LinkedIn, and I get asked sometimes about certain papers he wrote (he remained in academia). Sometimes it takes some effort to convince people that I am not the other guy.
I'm just glad he's not a criminal... or founder of a cryptocurrency.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
So an "official" SN account has denied this being the "real" SN.
The question I ask is: Why didn't that "official" account post a denial for each of the other times someone has been suggested to be "the guy"? Why does this Satoshi Nakamoto get a denial, and not the others?
Methinks he does protest too much.