Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin News

Dorian Nakamoto Officially Denies That He Created Bitcoin 102

Posted by samzenpus from the wasn't-me dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dorian Nakamoto Officially Denies That He Created Bitcoin More

Dorian Nakamoto Officially Denies That He Created Bitcoin

Comments Filter:

  • Let's create NakamotoCoin, pump it, dump it and kill it!

  • Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <`su.0tixe' `ta' `todhsals-ga'> on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:00PM (#46508357) Homepage
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:23PM (#46508613) Journal
      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 [wikipedia.org]' 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."
    • Prefaced by this gem:

      Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name.

      But not the question why someone who wished to remain anonymous would chose his own name.

      • Prefaced by this gem:

        Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name.

        But not the question why someone who wished to remain anonymous would chose his own name.

        Exactly! Not even a moron would use their own name to conceal their identity.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by TheCarp ( 96830 )

          Isn't this based on a rather simple assumption that his desire to be the anonymous inventor started before he published the paper on it. What if, he or she had written the paper and begun work under their own name, and later regretted it and decided it would be best to not actually be in the spot light?

          I mean no idiot would use their real name as a cover, however, if his real name is already out there, pretending it is a cover and not disabusing people who say its a cover from their claims, might serve to c

          • But those assumptions are a subset what if of a what if. My point is that her initial premise is flawed altogether when she dismisses Satoshi as a pseudonym because it's too "distinctive". But there does exist your possibility that despite the author describing both Satoshi's as "obsessively private" that he did use his real name AND that she had gotten the correct Satoshi, having only looked through the naturalized US citizen database AND that he makes no attempt to hide himself, faking his death or other
            • Actually, who knows, perhaps the job interviewer may also be the second person on this planet who hasn't heard about bitcoin. There, I corrected it for ya: "There's this guy that people claimed invented Bitcoin who wants a job here" "What's "bitcom"? Please, send him in"

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by portnoy ( 16520 )

            Isn't this based on a rather simple assumption that his desire to be the anonymous inventor started before he published the paper on it. What if, he or she had written the paper and begun work under their own name, and later regretted it and decided it would be best to not actually be in the spot light?

            A fair point, but the name he goes by isn't Satoshi; it's Dorian. So, if he were starting work and not thinking about anonymity, presumably the work would have been published under Dorian Nakamoto. Instead, then, we have to postulate this weird set of events where he began work, but decided to use a name other than the one he uses everyday (presumably to hide himself a little bit), but which still can be traced back to him laughably easily.

        • I think Rusty Shackleford could get away with it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          That's just what he wants you to think.

        • And yet, the Newsweek "journalist" thought "Oh my god, this guy's name matches the pseudonym, it must be him!"

          How dense do you have to be!?! I'd like to give her one of those "how to occupy a blonde" birthday cards that tell you to flip it over and over...

    • Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Funny)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:35PM (#46508733)

      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.

      So? That does not conflict with Newsweek's claim that "Ms. Goodman's research was conducted under the same high editorial and ethical standards that have guided Newsweek for more than 80 years." Well, except for the "high" part.

      • Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Funny)

        by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:40PM (#46508785) Homepage

        Not that kind of high.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Newsweek wins an internet! They are the first (as far as I know) to damn themselves with faint praise.

      • There are two ways to maintain those stated "high editorial and ethical standards".

        First, as someone else mentioned, requires the use of certain smoked, injected, or ingested materials of an often illegal yet popular variety.

        The second, it's relative to what you compare it to, such as the National Enquirer, which has been around longer than 80 years.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Teancum ( 67324 )

          The second, it's relative to what you compare it to, such as the National Enquirer, which has been around longer than 80 years.

          That is tarnishing the good name of the National Enquirer for any such comparison to be made.

          The proper comparison is to Pravda or The Pyongyang Times and the excellent journalistic integrity of those publications.

    • 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.

      She stalked this guy, and turn his life upside down or certainly brought him a lot of attention he didn't ask for. Hell Ms. Goodman and Mr. Nakamoto are now joined at the hip be it on /. or Wikipedia.org

      Ms. Goodman is at the height of her incompetence, and Newsweek ain't exactly impressing me either.

    • and the quote from him that admitted he (since retracted) was involved in the past - woudl you believe a politician who did such and abrupt about face.
  • If I was the maker of Bitcoin, I'd want privacy too.

    I am sure interested parties (Read: NSA/CIA/FBI/DEA/etc.) would love to question (Read: Guantanamo Bay) the makers of this almost anonymous currency.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ebcdic ( 39948 )

      If you were the maker of Bitcoin, you could afford it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What makes you think that one of them didn't create it?

    • So when did you finally decide to admit you were the founder of bitcoin?
      Was that before or after you stopped beating your wife?

    • Lol, why? Everything is in the paper and there's nothing vaguely illegal about it. I know the movies are fun, but nobody would love to question him but the media and various fanboys.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      I think the less paranoid worry would be that, if I recall correctly, the original creator invested a large number of bitcoins in the SilkRoad, which given the activities of that site whoever it was could stand charges.

      • I recall correctly, the original creator invested a large number of bitcoins in the SilkRoad

        Umm...no. The ~1 million bitcoins that are believed to have been mined by the Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto have not been involved in any transactions since Satoshi disappeared in early 2011.

    • If I was the maker of Bitcoin, I'd want privacy too. I am sure interested parties (Read: NSA/CIA/FBI/DEA/etc.) would love to question (Read: Guantanamo Bay) the makers of this almost anonymous currency.

      In all seriousness, what questions would you want to ask? If somebody thinks that he's still sitting on a huge pile of bitcoins, they'd probably want those transferred to a new owner; but there aren't a lot of other secrets to be had, aside from tedious and largely pointless questions about 'So, what inspired you to create a cryptocurrency?' How it works is a matter of public knowledge, and if there are any undocumented lemmae your best bet is probably to ask your own in-house team of world class cryptograp

    • Well, either that or give him a medal for creating the first totally traceable currency just anonymous enough to get people to actually use it. The bitcoin transaction log, is after all an investigative financial analyst's wet dream, available without having to deal with nearly so many of those pesky warrants or untraceable cash transactions.

  • High Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:07PM (#46508445) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Minwee ( 522556 )

      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.

      Actually that just means that every Newsweek article written since the launch of the magazine under the current owners and with the current writers is suspect.

      That adds up to... one issue, with a handful of articles of questionable veracity [bbc.com].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )
      Meh, they used to be ok in the 90s. I had a subscription for a time. Then they did the "Conventional Wisdom" nonsense. That was a sign to me to drop them.

  • Only the real messiah would deny that he... (Score:4, Funny)

    by bazmail ( 764941 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:11PM (#46508487)
    is the real messiah. All Hail Nakamoto!!!!!!!!!

  • 'In an ensuing discussion with the reporter from the Associated Press, I called the technology "bitcom."'

    If he had called it "bitcon" he'd have nailed it.

  • And nor is my wife.

  • I didn't do it,

    Nobody saw me do it,

    you can't prove I did it,

    it was like that when I got here...

  • The real story... (Score:3)

    by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:49PM (#46508881)
    Newsweek should find out who invented bitcom!
  • I posted my rebuttal to and analysis of this on Bruce Schneier's blog. Link below. https://www.schneier.com/blog/... [schneier.com]

  • I hope he sues and he gets compensation for his destroyed employment chances. The shoody level of journalism here is just unbelievable. The dick reporter basically looked up the name in a phone book found the first match that had an engineering background and started hounding the guy then did the big "reveal" which ruined the guys life.

    I hope he sues and I hope he wins.

  • Quran desecration incident (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jmstuckman ( 561420 ) on Monday March 17, 2014 @02:17PM (#46509199) Journal

    In 2005, Newsweek published a false report that American soldiers had desecrated copies of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison. The report was proven false, and Newsweek retracted it, but it was too late -- the report had already sparked riots which injured over 100 people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... [wikipedia.org]

    Was the Bitcoin report written with the "same high editorial standards" that Newsweek had followed in the past? It looks like it.

  • Next time I'll make you think it's someone in Russia and you'll go after him, never realizing it's my dad.

  • When did his name change from Satoshi to Dorian? Did I miss something? The last article said they found him because his name literally was Satoshi.

    • You missed something. His full name is Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dahan ( 130247 )

      When did his name change from Satoshi to Dorian? Did I miss something? The last article said they found him because his name literally was Satoshi.

      1973. From the original Newsweek article, "At the age of 23, after graduating from California State Polytechnic University, he changed his name to "Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto," according to records filed with the U.S. District Court of Los Angeles in 1973."

  • He sure messed up here. Why yes, I DID create Bitcoin and for $10K I'll come onto Good Morning America and answer questions...then I'll have some real coin to play with.

  • I'm waiting for Kim Dotcom to release his own currency, 'MegaCoin' sounds pretty cool.

  • You're a sexist. At least, that seems to be the running theme lately.

  • But I am responsible for Bitchickens and Bitgoats.

  • Come on, you know it makes more sense. Bwahahaha!

  • Dmitry Kiselyov , the Bill O' Reilly of Russian television ..
  • I'm Spartacus!

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close