Dorian Nakamoto Officially Denies That He Created Bitcoin

sumoinsanity writes "A succinct and comprehensive rebuttal has been distributed from this Mr Nakamoto about being the founder of Bitcoin. His statement reads in part: 'The first time I heard the term "bitcoin" was from my son in mid-February 2014. After being contacted by a reporter, my son called me and used the word, which I had never before heard. Shortly thereafter, the reporter confronted me at my home. I called the police. I never consented to speak with the reporter. In an ensuing discussion with the reporter from the Associated Press, I called the technology "bitcom." I was still unfamiliar with the term.' Newsweek copped a lot of criticism regarding their original expose on the purported uncovering of a BitCoin founder following their two month investigation. They defended with, 'Ms. Goodman's research was conducted under the same high editorial and ethical standards that have guided Newsweek for more than 80 years. Newsweek stands strongly behind Ms. Goodman and her article.'"

Comments

Evidence?

[AltGrendel]

As I recall, Ms. Goodman had no real research beyond the facts that the name was similar and he happened to do some security work under contract.

Re:Evidence?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Even aside from the shoddy standards of evidence (Newsweek, shoddy reporting? Knock me over with a feather...), how well can something possibly go when a 'news' organization decides that what their readers really need is a human interest angle on this 'bit-coin' thing that the geeks are talking about. And not just any squishy 'human interest' bullshit; but squishy 'human interest' bullshit about somebody who (even if he were the creator) now has essentially no known or suspected activity (unlike, say, the large stable of colorful characters operating exchanges and controversial ASIC operations and so on).

It's like a newspaper deciding that, in order to help readers understand the operations of the American government, they are going to entirely ignore all contemporary politicians and political happenings in order to write: "The Mysterious Writer Behind 'Common Sense' Unmasked!".

The fact that they appear to be harassing a sick, troubled, old man for cheap pageviews is just ghoulish; but the very premise they started from is shitty journalism: "Well, we don't know anything about cryptography, and our readers wouldn't know a prime number from a subprime number, so we'll ignore that, and the (moderately high stakes, at times) contemporary wheeling and dealing in the exchange and mining arenas is all complex and stuff, so let's just unmask the mysterious mystery man, and maybe do some tepid armchair psychology about what made him act... Everybody loves that shit, and it requires no special skills, knowledge, or attention span, so it should move eyeballs."

High Standards?

[CanHasDIY]

They defended with, 'Ms. Goodman's research was conducted under the same high editorial and ethical standards that have guided Newsweek for more than 80 years. Newsweek stands strongly behind Ms. Goodman and her article.'"

So, then, what you're saying here is that every Newsweek article written in the past 80 years is suspect? Having read Newsweek more than never, I can't say I disagree.