
The Newsweek Credibility Matrix - peter123
http://www.mikehearn.com/Hosted-Files/Nakamoto-Could-Newsweek-Have-Known/index.html
======
swang
Where the logic of him being "it" falls apart IMO is this:

His name is Satoshi Nakamoto, so he is vain enough to put his name on arguably
one of the greatest technical papers of this century yet when directly
confronted with being found out, completely and utterly denies being the guy
who created it. Not even dropping any vagueries about whether or not he truly
is the creator of bitcoin.

Again to iterate, the creator of bitcoin is vain enough to put his real name
on the paper, but when all the cards are on the table he goes the path of
vehemently denying it, refusing any recognition, and continuing to sit on his
bajillions in bitcoin while he risks possible financial ruin and health
problems.

There are people who create great things and just want to be left alone. But
if their health was at risk, and they could anonymously ask for donations, why
would they not do it? "He is too proud," Screw that you put your name on the
technical paper.

But of course, this isn't the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Because that person truly
wants to be left alone.

You want people to know some time in the future that it was you who created
bitcoin? Leave a note in your will.

~~~
VMG
> Leave a note in your will.

and sign it cryptographically

------
doctoboggan
Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Bitcoin took genius levels
of C++ or cryptography knowledge. I am not saying Bitcoin isn't a genius
invention (it is), I am saying that it wasn't necessarily hard to code up once
the inventor conceived the idea. Also, it is not an advancement of
cryptography, just an incredibly cool application of already existing
cryptography.

Please don't take this as me saying it was easy to come up with Bitcoin, I am
just saying the genius wasn't in Satoshi's coding skills, or advancements of
cryptography, it was in his using of these tools to solve a problem many
thought was impossible to solve (distributed consensus).

~~~
nashequilibrium
This right here is the problem with HackerNews, everyone is making CRUD apps
but then they want to comment on what is genius & what is not. What is even
funnier is that most people here can't even complete their side projects or
main projects/MVPs etc, but want to trivialize bitcoin.

~~~
noname123
Ditto. I'm one of the plebes who can't finish the CRUD MVP but I consider
myself at least a superior plebe because I'm smart enough to know that I'm
dumb.

~~~
argc
You're too smart for your own good. Prepare for extermination.

------
rdl
I find it kind of insane that so many people continue to expend any effort at
all debunking Newsweek's claims. Unless they derive personal pleasure from it,
just write the author off forever as a journalist, and Newsweek and its
editors as a publication, and drive on.

~~~
mikehearn
Hi folks! I wrote the article (and woke up surprised to find it on HN).

I initially compiled this prior to Dorian's definitive written denial. Prior
to that development, it genuinely seemed like the Newsweek article was going
to (a) simply fade into obscurity and (b) never be retracted. The possibility
of "b" was unacceptable, because without a final nail in the coffin, most news
organizations would still treat it as though it were legitimate – e.g.
referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so
on.

I think Dorian's written denial probably served as that final nail, but I
still released this because despite the denials, I think Newsweek easily could
have done the same research I did in compiling this, and come to this
conclusion before they published the feature and damaged their rep.

~~~
ds9
I stopped in here to say, I really like the idea of listing points for and
against a proposition being true, in ambiguous cases like this.

Often in relation to, say news stories or other controversial claims or ideas,
the public have an interest in knowing which of conflicting versions is true,
but lack access to primary sources of info. Then people who need to make a
"best guess" are forced to rather subjectively estimate the plausibility of
various statements, based on more subjective factors including estimates of
general credibility of sources.

In such cases, it's probably best to make explicit the grounds for any
conclusion - it clarifies for oneself, and may enable improvement by allowing
others to review the estimates.

~~~
natdempk
This was what I really liked about this article as well. I wish there was more
news presented in this format, as it is making a point, but also presents
counterarguments to its claims and the evidence for both sides.

------
Hypx
I still think Dorian is very likely the Satoshi Nakamoto we're looking for. My
basis for this is the fact that Dorian is very desperately trying to hide
something, and it is evident in his denials, which contain claims that are
very hard to believe. Three of the them stand out to me: His claim that he did
not hear of bitcoin until February of this year, his claim that he thought the
reporter was talking about "bitcom" and not bitcoin, and that the accusation
of him being the creator of bitcoin has damaged his job seeking prospects. All
three are nonsense claims and very hard to believe.

There's no way an out of work computer engineer could not have heard of
bitcoin until so recently unless he was living in a cave. The hype of bitcoin
was quite large and pretty much anyone computer literate would have heard of
it, especially a guy who's name _is_ Satoshi Nakamoto. As to his claim of
thinking he was talking about "bitcom" not bitcoin, well according to the
Newsweek article, Dorian was first informed of bitcoin through email, which
means he likely could not have confused that word with anything else.
Furthermore, he claimed he was told by his own son about it _before_ he talked
to the AP reporter where the confusion arose. Which means he has at least two
clear-cut occasions where he would have been corrected beforehand. Finally,
his claim of the "accusation" hurting his job prospects are quite silly, since
he's been out of work for more than a decade. The argument makes very little
sense, nor does it seem plausible being accused of creating bitcoin at all
would hurt your job prospects. All in all, it's clear that Dorian is not being
honest, and certainly you cannot trust his words at all.

Finally, if you believe he is the creator of bitcoin, then you must also
realize he is a very intelligent man and should very easily write coherent
English that could pass for a younger person, and then mask it in person when
accused. On the other hand, he probably can't, no matter how smart he is,
completely defeat logical analysis when is directly fingered. Plus, it's
pretty rare to be this vehement in your denials unless there actually is some
truth to the accusation (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). So I still
see Dorian as being very likely being the guy, and this article doesn't do a
particularly convincing job dissuade me otherwise.

~~~
throwawaymsft
Right. Someone with world class level c++ and crypto skills just happened to
be unemployed for a decade and unable to pay his internet bills.

~~~
Hypx
As I pointed out elsewhere, claiming that he has no internet is rather
inconsistent with the fact that he and apparently his brother Arthur clearly
had access to the internet quite recently. This is another act of deception
from him, and totally unnecessary if he merely wanted to clear up a
misunderstanding.

~~~
aroch
Because no one without internet at home has ever gone to the local library to
use it

~~~
Hypx
What's the point in bringing that up if it does not at all impinge on one's
ability to access the internet? Plus the whole financial distress argument
doesn't at all sound plausible either, seeing he still has a house and
apparently no major debts. No one in his family even brought it up in any
previous incident.

~~~
aroch
Because presumably the mastermind behind bitcoin keeps an eye on it. Also, you
don't know anything, _at all_ about his personal finances. Maybe you're the
real Satoshi. You only pop up to comment about how this guy must be the real
one. That or you're a Newsweek shill.

~~~
svenkatesh
>you're a Newsweek shill.

Has Hacker News really fallen to this level?

~~~
aroch
I was under the impression that it was wild speculation week. At least that's
what Newsweek and CNN have left me thinking

------
camillomiller
To answer the last question: Because pageviews and impunity.

Most of the reader base will remember a generic bitcoin scoop by Newsweek and
forget everything that followed.

------
hawkharris
This is an interesting format for a news article. I like how the author
clearly presents the key issues and both sides in an easy-to-read table.

~~~
georgemcbay
I agree that this is better than most of the post-Newsweek followups I've
seen; but it still has things I take issue with like suggesting that the real
Satoshi wouldn't have money problems because he's worth $500M-$1B in bitcoin.

I'd love for someone to explain to me how someone would go about converting
the early Satoshi stash of bitcoins into even just millions of real dollars
over a timespan of less than a decade or two, because as far as bitcoin has
come on a number of acceptance fronts, it just doesn't have that sort of real-
world liquidity or transferability to USD (or something else that does have
that sort of liquidity).

------
Beltiras
You only have to consider the money situation. Why anonymize yourself so
carefully and then blow your cover AND not use the money?

------
ap22213
Internet: 1, Newsweek: -1

The internet has won again, no surprise there.

Newsweek is a magazine that you find in the grocery checkout aisle, along with
other notables such as Time, People, Cosmo, and National Enquirer. I don't
think it has been considered a serious source of news since the 80s.

~~~
ds9
I looked at mage like that in the 80s and even then they were never reliable
sources for anything. They were _influential_ just because they reached mass
audiences, and had a quality of "newsiness" or what's now called "info-
tainment", but were always worthless for knowing what was going on.

In particular, the so called "news" magazines - and later the web and
television media associated with the same big companies and others like them -
had a remarkable talent for writing a whole article, sometimes a long one,
with an authoritative tone in the prose, -and always with a "spin" that you
might or might not notice - yet somehow never including any verifiable facts
or figures, nor identifiable sources. The reader would get a vague impression
of the topic and some claims about it, but never any glimmer of knowledge
(edit:)(except maybe "big media companies want me to believe 'x', hmmm, why is
that?").

------
RexRollman
I personally find Newsweek to be wrong in what they did, regardless of whether
they are right or wrong in their conclusion. In the end, I think we should be
respecting this person's desire for anonymity instead of trying to expose him.

------
InclinedPlane
The biggest thing that stood out to me here is not the difference in fluency
in written English between examples from Dorian and the inventor of bitcoin,
it's the obvious age cues in the use of language from Satoshi. Everything he
writes reads as someone who is very much younger than a 60-something retiree.
Little things like "Sweet, ...", "You know, ...", "You're right, sorry about
that.", and so on are all clearly idiomatic of someone who developed their
writing skills online. People in their 60s just do. not. talk. that way. To me
this makes the idea of Dorian being Satoshi even more unbelievable.

~~~
Nanzikambe
Totally agree on the fluency, the real Satoshi's mother tongue is probably
English.

Regarding age however, that's absolutely meaningless in this context, I know
several people 50 or older that in text are indistinguishable from any younger
generation. How you convey yourself in communication has more to do with your
peer group and self image than your age. That sort of self-expression is
particularly common in several generations techies, geeks, psychonauts,
surfers, hippies and travellers.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Perhaps. Though clearly Dorian Nakomoto does not identify with a peer-group of
young hackers. That's obvious from his lifestyle among other things. Whereas
equally clearly the creator of bitcoin very much does.

------
geuis
I've attempted to post this 2x over a week ago but it got no traction.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7361661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7361661)

Someone signed into the actual Satoshi's account where the original Bitcoin
announcement was made and left a comment on March 7 that Dorian is not
Satoshi. Presumably this is actually Satoshi.

I've been surprised no one else has picked up on this.

~~~
api
Traction seems almost random on HN.

~~~
moheeb
Kind of like a tire on ice, huh?

------
smallegan
Newsweek is a tabloid that will just run stories like this for attention.
Everyone is paying attention to them therefore they win.

------
PhasmaFelis
Everybody's spending lots of energy decrying Newsweek for being wrong. Why
isn't anyone calling them out for, you know, being nasty muckraking paparazzi
who'd try to drag a private individual (who's done nothing wrong and values
his privacy) involuntarily into the limelight to make a quick buck?

Or do we all have so much outrage fatigue at this point that this shit doesn't
even register?

