
Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer - kohanz
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/17/dorian-satoshi-nakamoto-denies-having-created-bitcoin-says-hes-not-been-coding-for-over-a-decade/
======
blhack
Here is what doesn't make sense about Dorian Nakamoto being the Satoshi behind
bitcoin:

Here's a guy who code switches during conversations and emails to maintain
either the secret identity of an old Japanese man living in CA and playing
with model trains, or to maintain the secret identity of a sophisticated
programmer who created a proof-of-work system called bitcoin.

But then this advanced guy maintaining a secret identity signs every message
he posts to the internet with _his real name_?

Leah McGrath-Goodman found this secretive guy who people have been searching
for for the laser few years by looking his name up in a phone book?

That doesn't really track.

~~~
VMG
This whole thing reminded me of the lesswrong.com post on Amanda Knox [1]

Even the initial assumption that the creator of Bitcoin used his real name,
contained in the headline, was _extremely_ unlikely, and all other evidence
was completely circumstantial. In my mind, it was nearly obvious that Dorian
is not Satoshi after a few hours and was shocked to see that many believed the
news story.

I'm still not sure if this was irrational on my part due to my own bias of
preferring that Satoshi remain anonymous, or the irrationality of internet
discussions is worse than I thought.

1:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour_on_the_internet/)

~~~
nhaehnle
_the initial assumption that the creator of Bitcoin used his real name,
contained in the headline, was extremely unlikely_

I'm curious: Why do people actually believe that this is so unlikely? By the
time that I first read about Bitcoin, it seemed to be already accepted
canonical knowledge that Satoshi Nakamoto must be a pseudonym, and I guess I
just accepted that. But now that this discussion has come up, I don't think I
remember any positive argument to that other than "he does not like to talk
about his private life" (not a particularly strong argument given the amount
of discussion of private life in typical open source projects) and "the
inventor of Bitcoin must be some pre-established genius, and there is no such
genius named Satoshi Nakamoto" (also rather questionable, and quite contrary
to the startup culture usually seen here).

Are those pieces of evidence enough to make the use of his real name
"extremely unlikely"?

~~~
VMG
It's unlikely that it is his real name because (1) the name does not appear
outside of Bitcoin in any mailing list or forum and (2) bitcoin.org was
purchased with anonymity in mind

------
vezzy-fnord
The thing that most people ignored about the Newsweek article was that the
author deliberately took the pivotal quote "I am no longer involved in
that..." out of context by not specifying what it was referring to.

Remember that Dorian S. Nakamoto was a contractor who worked on many
government projects. It's likely he was asked on that and answered, then had
his words deliberately misconstrued to imply that "that" referred to Bitcoin.

Then we had the P2P Foundation Satoshi deny that he was Dorian, breaking a
5-year silence to do so. Of course, it is unknown if it is the exact Satoshi
Nakamoto of Bitcoin, or someone hijacked the account, or some member of the
hypothetical pseudonymous Satoshi collective, but the email did match up with
the one in the original Bitcoin paper.

At this point, Satoshi being Dorian is pretty much debunked, really.

------
jere
I've said before the Newsweek story makes no sense. In order to believe it,
you need to think this guy hatched a brilliant plan to protect his identity
(after 5 years of successfully doing so) by acting like a clueless old man and
calling Bitcoin "bitcom."

And simultaneously you have to believe, during the execution of his brilliant
plan, he goofed and unambiguously confessed to his involvement in Bitcoin.

>"I have no knowledge of nor have I ever worked in cryptography, peer to peer
systems, or alternative currencies."

~~~
345723
We are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. I would put
absolutely NOTHING past the original architect. Honestly, I would expect
nothing else.

~~~
jere
>Honestly, I would expect nothing else.

You would expect the original architect to confess to being involved and then
deny it hours later. Is there something about the original whitepaper that
makes you think this person is _mentally ill_?

~~~
jcliff
You don't have to be mentally ill to act mentally ill. The charade has pretty
much removed all credence to the idea that he is the creator of bitcoin.
Perhaps that's what he wants.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
"Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM the Messiah!"

------
mladenkovacevic
What about that guy who, after the original Newsweek story was posted, made a
post about meeting Nakamoto after he bought an item from his girlfriend's
bakery? Apparently he recognized him from the Newsweek photos of Dorian
Nakamoto. Was that just a bit of overactive imagination?

EDIT: The post I'm talking about
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326)

~~~
DannyBee
The rate of mistaken id is ridiculous.

For example, over 75% of DNA based exonerations were convicted based on
mistaken ID's (and this is limited to those exonerations where DNA would be
conclusive).

Post-identification feedback (IE learning facts later) can often even alter
the original memory someone has of an identification:

[http://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100715](http://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100715)

------
stcredzero
_Despite having a background in engineering, Nakamoto notes that he couldn’t
find a programmer’s job for over a decade._

I get the sense that lots of 20-somethings in SV/Bay Area just don't think
middle aged Asian men are capable of programming. (Middle aged Asian man.)

~~~
eli
IMHO, ageism is a pretty big problem for developers and not just in the Bay
Area.

~~~
stcredzero
IMHO, It's a much bigger problem in the Bay Area than most other places in the
country.

------
danso
This is not looking good for Newsweek. For Dorian to give such a flat
unconditional denial means:

1\. He _is_ Satoshi Nakamoto but is calling Newsweek's bluff.

2\. He is _not_ Satoshi Nakamoto and is calling Newsweek's bluff.

In scenario 1, he's apparently confident that Newsweek has no other real proof
and won't be finding any proof in the future...which is a _lot_ of confidence
in himself that he's wrapped up all the loose ends. Either way, Newsweek
better have a trump card...they've been hinting that they had more information
that backed their claims, so now's the time to show the cards.

~~~
gwern
> which is a lot of confidence in himself that he's wrapped up all the loose
> ends.

I'd agree with him. SN's so far done a very good job of avoiding leaks and
disappearing: there's a few potential errors he may've made, but nothing
serious. And people have completely failed to find anything connected to
Dorian which makes him a better candidate for SN, which is in stark contrast
to Ross Ulbricht - after his name was released and you started Google-hunting
him, within hours you could find tons of evidence he was DPR (most brazenly,
his LinkedIn page). If nobody's found anything about Dorian by now, then
either he's really not Satoshi or he's done a perfect job cleaning up.

------
sergiotapia
>Shortly thereafter the reporter confronted me at my home. I called the
police.

That reporter is such a scumbag. What repercussions did she face?

~~~
vvpan
The ethics here are very questionable. Wtf - you just find some dude, based on
no real evidence, then you "out" him for something that's not criminal and
give the internet trolls his whereabouts? What could be more "yellow press"? I
really wish their ass got sued.

~~~
gnaritas
The internet trolls are the least of his concerns; when you're possibly worth
400 million, you need to worry about criminals. You're a target. That story
put his life in danger.

~~~
beedogs
Criminals and the IRS. But I repeat myself.

~~~
gnaritas
Snarky, but the IRS isn't a danger, they'd need to see evidence of a vast
fortune before wanting to tax it. Given his lifestyle, they wouldn't look
twice at him.

------
kohanz
Statement from Newsweek:

 _Newsweek has not received any statement or letter from either Mr. Nakamoto
or his legal counsel. If and when we do, we will respond as necessary._

[http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-statement-dorian-
nakamoto-2...](http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-statement-dorian-
nakamoto-232092)

~~~
slouch
Suddenly, accurate statements are important in this story.

------
andrewhillman
This proves that interviews really need to be done via email or audio
recording. This would seemingly prevent a lot of basic reporting issues.

Interviewee: "I did not say this."

Interviewer: "Here's the email / audio as proof."

Problem solved.

~~~
streptomycin
Not really solved, since you can still have people misspeaking or
misunderstanding questions, and there's no way to prove that without mind
reading.

And isn't that what happened in this case? Nobody's saying she made up the
quote. IIRC everyone (reporter, Dorian, police officers) agree it was said.
It's just that Dorian claims he misunderstood her question, which is why he
gave an answer that appeared to admit to creating bitcoin. A recording
wouldn't be conclusive.

~~~
doctoboggan
Yes but there is so much more information in audio like tone of voice, timing
and cadence. (Most) humans are good at deciphering this information and plying
out the true meaning.

------
jedunnigan
A very informative piece by Mike Hearn breaking down the inconsistencies in
the Newsweek piece: [http://www.mikehearn.com/Hosted-Files/Nakamoto-Could-
Newswee...](http://www.mikehearn.com/Hosted-Files/Nakamoto-Could-Newsweek-
Have-Known/index.html)

------
mik3y
So is this the moment where all the bitcoin fanatics pool together a bunch of
BTC for Dorian as.. a sort of apology? The guy should at least get a new train
set outta the whole mess..

~~~
dsil
One was started 10 days ago, almost at $30,000 USD:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ztjmg/andreas_im_f...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ztjmg/andreas_im_fundraising_for_dorian_nakamoto/)

~~~
mik3y
Oh, awesome!

~~~
jacalata
I hope they have the decency to convert it to usd and not send it as a puzzle
to an old man with enough hassles in his life already.

------
shittyanalogy
Can we drop it and leave these people alone?

------
mistercow
I'm not sure I understand how he figures that this scenario would keep him
from finding work. Who wouldn't want to hire the creator of friggin' bitcoin?

------
pdknsk
I've been wondering, will the word Dorian, real Satoshi or not, find its way
into Bitcoin language? Like Satoshi being the smallest amount of Bitcoin.

~~~
gkoberger
We'll call a transaction with 0 confirmations a "Dorian".

~~~
VMG
Good idea, but nearly all 0-confirmation transactions are confirmed later.

Let's call invalid transactions "Dorian"

------
webkike
This man is not Satoshi Nakamoto, and the way I see it, even if he were
Satoshi, he is not Satoshi. Not even the real Satoshi Nakamoto is Satoshi
Nakomoto.

------
nfoz
Well he ought to apply to work at a bitcoin startup, because his name-branding
alone would probably be worth $$

------
Zarathust
What if the "inventor" of Bitcoin isn't even really named Satoshi Nakamoto?
All of this manhunt would have been in vain for so long.

~~~
gweinberg
"What if?" Pretty much everybody assumed the name was a pseudonym until this
story broke.

------
zaidf
How long before he denies this under oath? At that point he's risking criminal
charges if he is found to be lying.

~~~
eli
Why do you think he would have to say anything under oath?

~~~
zaidf
He doesn't _have_ to but he may choose to if he decides to sue Newsweek, for
example.

------
ceallen
"I haven't been able to find steady work for ten years, and this article
written a week ago is why."

~~~
Hypx
This is the amazing part! The denial from Dorian contains an obvious lie in it
and represents an enormous hole in his argument. I think this is extremely
suspicious and makes me think that this guy really is the creator of bitcoin.
But for some reason unknown, possibly tax-related, that he cannot let anyone
else know about. Reminds me a lot of when Roger Clemens or Lance Armstrong
vehemently denying they used steroids, when the evidence strongly suggests
otherwise.

------
abvdasker
I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source
of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough
evidence to prove it. Because this guy is not a public persona they would
probably otherwise be guilty of libel.

\--

EDIT: As gamblor956 pointed out they would be "liable" rather than "guilty".
It does sound like he may have a case though, especially if Newsweek is wrong.

~~~
gamblor956
Newsweek is not guilty of libel or defamation because those are torts for
which criminal "guilt" is meaningless. Newsweek would not be _liable_ for
libel or defamation because being labeled the creator of Bitcoin is generally
not something that would harm one's reputation.

Libel or defamation claims are generally applicable where one person claims
another person did some heinous act, like rape, or a felony, and told other
people about it. Some statements, like accusing another person of rape are
considered so "heinous" that to win, all the plaintiff has to do is prove the
statement was made, in which case the burden of proof shifts to the defendant,
who must now prove the accuracy of the statement. Depending on the nature of
what was actually said, the defendant's burden may range from simply proving
that their statement was reasonable based on the facts to proving that what
they said is verifiably true. (And note: not a criminal case, so: proof on
either side simply means more likely than not.)

~~~
tptacek
Nit: you appear to be describing _per se_ defamation (accusations of heinous
actions), but this is just a small subset of all defamation claims. So long as
damages are incurred, false statements of fact can and do routinely incur
liability, turning on the credibility of the statements, the recklessness (or
deliberate deceptive intent) with which they're made, &c.

It's definitely not the case that a newsmagazine would be in the clear simply
because designing Bitcoin isn't a crime (although other factors probably do
rule defamation out).

