Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Satoshi Nakamoto Found? Not So Fast

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the cryptoidentity-crisis dept.

Yesterday, Newsweek outed the creator of Bitcoin. Or did they? An anonymous reader tipped us to news that the account on p2pfoundation that posted the original Bitcoin paper, posted for the first time in five years simply noting "I am not Dorian Nakamoto." And the Satoshi Nakamto Newsweek claims was the creator? In an interview with the AP, he claims to have only learned of Bitcoin recently, and that his comments were taken far out of context. From the article: "He also said a key portion of the piece — where he is quoted telling the reporter on his doorstep before two police officers, 'I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it' — was misunderstood. Nakamoto said he is a native of Beppu, Japan who came to the U.S. as a child in 1959. He speaks both English and Japanese, but his English isn't flawless. ... 'I'm saying I'm no longer in engineering. That's it,' he said of the exchange. 'And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that's what I implied. ... It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I'm not involved now. That's not what I meant. I want to clarify that,' he said.

Newsweek writer Leah McGrath Goodman, who spent two months researching the story, told the AP: 'I stand completely by my exchange with Mr. Nakamoto. There was no confusion whatsoever about the context of our conversation -and his acknowledgment of his involvement in bitcoin.'"

43 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Bitcoin: I am not money by selectspec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't matter what is true, its what people believe.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  2. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's have a third discussion on the same thing, and re-hash the same arguments! Excellent.

    Also, editors, "This Day on Slashdot" has been broken for like a week.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So has the HardOCP window, for months.

    2. Re:Really? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      The real inventor was Keyser Soze!!!

      (Credit: Patent Lover )

    3. Re:Really? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      This just in: Satoshi Nakamoto, the famous Japanese man, was recently discovered to have changed his name from Momomoto, and can thus swallow his own nose.

      In other news, Leah McGrath Goodman is actually a cabbage.

      Hail Eris! :)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  3. Lack of privacy knowledge by fishybell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it is the Satoshi Nakamoto, there is a pattern: a complete lack of the understanding of how personal privacy works on the internet.

    1. He uses his own name, or at least a variation on it, when he created bitcoin.
    2. He outs himself assuming he'd still maintain privacy because he's no longer "involved."

    The fact that he's fairly old adds to the evidence. If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works (or rather, doesn't work) with respect to the internet.

    --
    ><));>
    1. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      There's some variation on the "Only old people in Korea..." Slashdot meme in this.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The original Bitcoin paper claims that the currency described by the protocol is "anonymous" ("Participants can be anonymous") yet it's a protocol where every transaction is logged. Can't get much less anonymous than that. So yeah, while it's unlikely this is the Mr Bitcoin Nakamoto, if it were the lack of understanding of personal privacy would fit in at all levels.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't quite understand what "anonymous" means, do you? Every transaction is logged, but what gets logged is only a record of which wallet transferred funds to another wallet. At no point in that chain does it say "squiggleslash gave a bitcoin to Darlene the Hooker for services rendered."

      That is anonymous.

    4. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works (or rather, doesn't work) with respect to the internet."

      Says the dumbshit who has an email address publicly displayed right next to his username

    5. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pseudonymous, it's up to you to decide if you want to use that feature or not. So the answer is both, it's anonymous if you take the effort and not anonymous if you don't. That's what "Participants can be anonymous" means.

    6. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that's pseudonymous.

    7. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If he were in his mid 20s he would have posted the whitepaper on his facebook next to photos of him vomiting copiously, and other such treasures.

    8. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think both you and the sibling poster, quibblings about "pseudonymous" aside, both make the same mistake "Hypothetical Nakamoto" make, namely a failure to understand what privacy means when the Internet gets involved.

      Transactions in Bitcoindom are logged, and effectively logged eternally (how easily this can scale is open to question, Bitcoin's advocates argue the blockchain can be truncated at some point, but it isn't right now and I suspect there's a lot of agreement that will have to go on to make that happen.) The logging is public - anyone can read it. From the Blockchain, you - and everyone else - can determine every single transaction that's affected a specific coin or a specific wallet. To actively isolate transactions from a wallet you'd have to do an enormous amount of work and receive help from a third party that's laundering transactions for so many people it's close to impossible to link them, and, of course, that third party would know what you're up to.

      Does this mean you can tell that "squiggleslash" spent 0.1BTC on coke, hookers, and gambling last week? That depends. Without the laundering service, it's relatively easy to tell that someone who's your customer (or your employee...) did that. And as more and more information leaks from you about you and your wallet, more and more information becomes available as to what you're doing.

      By comparison, whenever Google logs what you're doing, most people here are up in arms. But the funny thing is that Google doesn't publish logs of every single browser's history to the Internet. It keeps that information to itself. So for most of us, Google invading our privacy means a handful of Google employees might be able to do the research.

      The Blockchain, however, is public.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by lgw · · Score: 2

      Right - the protocol only fails for anonymity when someone can log the IP addresses associated with every bitcoin transaction ever, and get the physical address associated with every IP address. So, yeah, here on Earth it's not anonymous, but it looks great on a whiteboard.

      If you keep logs, you out your users when the government gets the logs - that's hardly news. And bitcoin "keeping logs" is fundamental to the protocol. It's still a neat protocol, and it's probably easier to anonymize (or steal) an IP address than a credit card, but don't think you're hidden from the NSA by the power of bitcoin.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he were in his mid 20s he'd never have used his real name or outted himself because he'd understand how privacy works

      That's the part of this Newsweek story that makes no sense. The Bitcoin Satoshi took his privacy pretty seriously. People have been over and over his public and private communications over a couple years- and gleaned virtually no private information. Nobody could even agree on what country he lived in. And it's not a case where he created the account/identity when he didn't care about privacy and then did the bitcoin thing. That identity shows up on the internet specifically to reveal the bitcoin protocol. It doesn't fit at all that he would use his full first and last birth name as his username. People do weird stuff, and this Dorian guy seems like a fairly odd bird (but aren't all engineers?). It's not impossible, but it just doesn't fit the rest of the story.

    11. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      By that absurd definition, anonymous posts aren't anonymous because they are posted, anonymous letters aren't anonymous because they're printed, etc. You fundamentally fail at understanding what "anonymous" means if you think being logged makes it not anonymous. What makes anonymous things anonymous is not the fact that they're not recorded, because indeed they all are, and have been for the thousands of years of anonymous writing/deeds/etc. What unites all the things we've described as "anonymous" for millennia is that what isn't recorded alongside the various things that are is the author's name.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Understanding of basic vocabulary seems to have gone out the window today.

      anonymous: without a name attached to the work/deed/etc. cf. greek/latin "an-" (without) prefix and "onym" (name)

      pseudonymous: with a false name attached. cf. greek/latin "pseudo-" (false)

      What's being described here is not pseudonymous, unless a note is being attached to each transaction saying "This transaction was made by Mark Twain" (assuming the actual person conducting the transaction isn't actually named Mark Twain).

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    13. Re:Lack of privacy knowledge by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      That is absurd. Just because everything is logged does not in any way make it less anonymous.

      Posting as an AC. Now that we've got that behind us, prove to me you know who I am and what my actual Slashdot account is. DICE probably can if they look at the IP logs but can you?

      The only way I would have a lack of understanding is if I signed this post with my name.

      -thegarbz

  4. Sue? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I feel bad for the guy. Even though I'm Canadian, this seems like the kind of thing you should sue over (publishing all your private info on the cover story of newsweek when the entire premise of the article is false). Does he have any grounds to sue Newsweek or the reporter who stalked and exposed him?

    1. Re:Sue? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think basically Newsweek would claim "we did all this research and a lot of points to this guy as being the guy. Our news story doesn't say "this guy is the guy, our news story lays out the evidence and says we think this is the guy based on this evidence."

      Fair? Maybe not, but I'm guessing the newspaper's free speech rights cover their ability to investigate and speculate as long as they are clear about the fact that they are indeed speculating. It's a question of ethics and credibility as to whether the evidence is of enough quantity and quality that they should publish a news story speculating.

    2. Re:Sue? by schnell · · Score: 2

      Which brings up the question is it slander/libel when the things told about you are not specifically reputation ruining, just generally wrong.

      In the US, at least, there are different rules for people based on whether they are "public figures" or not. Libel (for the record, slander applies to something you say; libel applies to something you print) laws generally say that if you are Joe/Jane Average, you can successfully sue someone for saying something wrong about you. If that wrong thing caused you harm, you can win monetary or other damages. If you are someone who is already "in the public eye" then in order to successfully sue for libel you must also prove that the publication knowingly printed false information about you.

      This is why, for example, Richard Jewell was able to successfully sue the Atlanta Journal-Constitution when they incorrectly accused him of being the Olympic Bomber: they were wrong, he was a private shmoe, so the barrier of proof was just being wrong. It is also why Tom Cruise couldn't win against that German gossip rag that said he was gay: it was incorrect(?) but he couldn't prove that it was printed while the newspaper knew (or reasonably should have known) it was false. It's set up this way because there would be a major chilling effect on public discourse if, for example, a newspaper could be sued for reporting today on allegations of corruption by an official that seem credible but are ultimately proven false tomorrow.

      Should he decide to sue, Nakamoto could probably make a good case that he is a private citizen rather than a public figure. Assuming, of course, that all this turns out not to be true in the first place, which is still very open to debate.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  5. Who cares... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... who originated bitcoin? Is this all newsweek can come up with for news nowadays?

    1. Re:Who cares... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope, their front page also has an article about an app for your phone that provides cookie recipes. Is there no depth their reporters won't provide on an important story?

    2. Re:Who cares... by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the news stories lately of MtGox and other exchanges failing or reporting thefts, it's newsworthy. More newsworthy than any Kardashi-West BS that graces the headlines constantly.

      Given that peoples' attention spans are so short, this will blow over for the guy in a couple of weeks and everybody will focus on more important things like the new Cold War and for the EU and Ukraine the Russians will literally make it cold for them.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  6. Re:Bitcoin: I am not money by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's all about truthiness.

  7. Newsweek is the new National Enquirer by Kwelstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, this was once a very respected mag that will never publish such trash and make it pass for true journalism just to get page views. Newsweek may be happy with all the attention, but the reporting was amateurish. That's what happens when you cut cost by firing all the carreer pros and get sub par people to do the vetting. I hope they go the way of Time mag sooner rather than later. The poor guy that has only a name to share with the true creator of bitcoin probably will get a lawyer and a big cash settlement. The bitcoin community sees this as a lot of fun after a few weeks of distressing news. Bitcoin as a whole is benefiting from all the publicity. All in all, bad journalism and not a bad week for bitcoin.

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    1. Re:Newsweek is the new National Enquirer by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      It makes me think. Are media outlets that are doing stories about bitcoin also trading in them with hopes of inflating the value?

  8. Police interview by CurryCamel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He also said a key portion of the piece - where he is quoted telling the reporter on his doorstep before two police officers

    I know one should not mention the pink elephant in the room, but why did the newsweek reported do the interview with the police present?

    1. Re:Police interview by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because the guy called to police to make the reporter leave.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Police interview by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Because Nakamoto is the one who called the police and asked for them to be present?

  9. Two Months? by rabun_bike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once people inside the publication or organization get wrapped up in these stories they can no longer think subjectively. They convince themselves they have it right and sometimes they don't but it is hard to convince yourself otherwise.

    Two months is not a huge amount of time to do research for a story that no one else has come close to cracking. Just because the guy's bio sounds plausible doesn't make it so. Heck a few years ago a lawyer in the US was a partial thumbprint match on a bomb that exploded in Madrid. In the end his fingerprint matched the bomb maker's partial print and the FBI had to apologize but not before they put him through the ringer. Everyone was convinced he was the guy. They just couldn't see past the finger print match.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5053...

    Another example is Dan Rather's early career retirement due to back research on then president Bush military service. Dan just couldn't let it go and it ended his career.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

    Another FBI example was the Atlanta Olympic bomber suspect Ricard Jewel. FBI got that one wrong as well but plowed ahead anyway.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

    There are many more of these example.

  10. Newsweek's motives by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 2

    Newsweek is going print, they need a front page story, Mt Gox went bust, another bitcoin exchange boss was found dead, bitcoin was already the flavour of the week. Combine these events, Newsweek going print, lots to write about bitcoin. Now, a journalist along with two forensic analysts were researching the alleged Satoshi for 3+ months, at some point they have to deliver the goods.

    The perfect storm run with the bitcoin story no matter if true or false. Newseek's front page is the bitcoin story.

    Journalistically the story was a success. On moral, humanitarian, investigative, common sense, ethical grounds the story is a massive fail.

    What will be the repercussions? Poor guy was chased and hounded by journalists for having the same name, journalist making appearances like a hero on some shows. Forbes was calling it journalistic brilliance.

    At least retard achieved one thing, the real Satoshi stood up and said it's not me.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  11. perhaps he posted to get the press off his back? by bbeesley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I was a genius recluse who had just been outed and was being hounded by the media, the first thing I would do is login to an account I hadn't used in years and say, "it ain't me!"

  12. Here is part of a Bitcoin by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I found it on the beach the other day - who ever owns it can have it back.

    CJZMlW8T4VdyDRTaX21dxQM4LgzD cswi7BCjxvRA0aJXqJloleQkm569Kih76etLWtGROna/fOzuBoS Po1W9aEvExga TQxWpayFSmbdrjDN+l4pMGVicmet9dSbW65Hy6zlOvv51Ws WMVwyD+11/VNW/SAivUM8PJ8jNLLC4qF1AIr n7yGrMp6KizqnbK3eiOJC91Qwy6O7k1Rta2vcxPpXXKx bxy67X5POhF6V1wOLWX/Akq2huto/WgZMx5W8c6VhDXNOgmiGknghKccHPtGHzEVyuc oscXRLPVePkq LaQQmlVRe JF42SluJrUaFH1CdAHNxiIzW2wC7bJLTP0165C WjIy/j2e8NEYbFlMjw8FWJYRXOL8KmBUukIl0Ng2M69hh X5dFvWqM5R1oOfiYtT7hIrp8 hZvdPRbnmG3U6 nW24B/5hyejm8as8WMfoICfX+k72tBfECBD 6mZ7rfk1xR99E6Eh3KM xolAo0EDcegNnrDR5K72JMQIEzvmkY

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Here is part of a Bitcoin by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, that's my online banking password!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. I don't understand the logic behind this by marciot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, let me say I don't care who Satoshi is and I think everyone should leave this Dorian guy alone, but I don't understand how a denial coming from that account proves anything. If in fact Dorian was BitCoin's creator, wouldn't he try to draw attention away from himself by posting from the original account saying that he wasn't who in fact he is?

    -- Marcio

    1. Re:I don't understand the logic behind this by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 2

      Maybe he felt sorry for the guy after all the real Satoshi isn't a serial killer.

      --
      Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  14. If I were him by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd say "Yeah I'm him, give me my $600 million for the Bitcoins I own and I'll tell you my story."

    Which would begin...

    "I was born a poor black child."

    He should play it for all its worth.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  15. Re:But it's so simple. by Aerokii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Possibly- but the more I think about it, the more I can see why the creator would make such a post if it isn't him. Based on discussions yesterday, there's good reason to believe the creator's sitting on millions upon millions of USD worth of bitcoins. If people were to assume the gentleman "outed" in Newsweek had such funding available to him, that might put him in danger.

    So, rather than put someone in danger who has nothing to do with this situation, the creator makes this post. I think it seems logical, but that's just a theory.

  16. Re:Bitcoin: I am not money by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because we all know Wikipedia can't be edited by someone with an agenda.

  17. But who is... by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    John Galt?

    OK this late on Friday I am really not even trying anymore...

  18. Re:Bitcoin: I am not money by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dorian Nakamoto?

    I suppose he has a picture of a dollar in his attic, and every time a Bitcoin is mined, it fades a little...

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --