Hmmmmm. Assuming the post was made by the actual Satoshi...
Dorian Nakamoto is Satoshi:
This is an attempt by him to throw people off his scent, which would be foolish and desperate since chances are the millions of eyes focused on him will find more concrete proof than the Newsweek article, rendering the posting moot.
Almost guaranteeing the drama will continue, if not whip it into a larger frenzy.
Dorian Nakamoto isn't Satoshi:
An attempt to absolve someone of harassment. Noble, but not wise, since now he will have to continue to disprove serious accusations of his identity, or else innocent people will be harmed again. And the corollary, if he does not publish a refutation people will assume it's tacit agreement.
People will continue looking for him.
It's late and I know I didn't think of everything, but I can't see this being a winning move by Satoshi in any scenario.
My personal theory? Dorian was a member of a crypto group that eventually gave birth to Bitcoin, but he was never part of the implementation. Maybe he thought of the original math/idea, so they named their pseudonym after him in his honor? Probably not true, but fun!
This is the only realistic comment I've seen regarding the ning post. Everyone is just going on about how we got the wrong person, while in fact it tells us nothing. Thank you.
What if Dorian is not Satoshi, but Satoshi knows that by doing shady stuff like what he just did, it will just reinforce the idea we have that Dorian is Satoshi
While unfortunately that is the case far too often in this world, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying if this specific act is Satoshi trying to reduce harassment of Dorian and help out an innocent man it doesn't seem to work in his favor, in a game theory sense.
Too true. I depend on hacker news for many things, but being secure is not a bet I'd put money on. There are ways of making more provable claims in either direction--unless it's either attested multiple times in the past (so as to be difficult to doctor) or it's cryptographically signed or there's a convincing prosecution, I don't think we'll be confident about it.
I would bet that anyone who is already very geeky and just happens to be called Satoshi Nakamoto has a much higher than normal chance of being a bitcoin early adopter.
If Dorian was a member of the group that eventually birthed Bitcoin, isn't it realistic that he'd be an early adopter, even if the pseudonym wasn't quite his?
(ignore the signature from today, anyone could have done that in the brouhaha following today's disclosures)
Based on that, it looks pretty clear to me that Dorian Nakamoto decided to "latch on" to the Satoshi Nakamoto founder's myth, either as a way to boost his reputation/ego or as some practical joke (or both!).
That or Satoshi the Founder is trolling us all.
1. Originally noted a few moments ago by mpfrank on bitcointalk.
EDIT: Duh, it's fake. Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back. I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair. Sorry folks, maybe if it were timestamped in the blockchain.
I was wondering this as well. I ended up skimming the wikipedia article for John Titor[0].
/* I should note that "John Titor" is a fictional persona of a time travelling man. People made fake posts on multiple forums, some including elaborate diagrams of a "time machine" etc... */
If you scroll down to the "in popular culture" section it mentions that in 2006 none other than the very "Martin Pohlman" to whom your parent poster linked attempted to patent the time machine that John Titor claims to own...
So maybe this Martin Pohlman had something to do with(created?) the fake John Titor persona... Really renders the whole thing pretty un-comical.
Your parent poster could definitely have been a whole lot clearer though.
One possibility is indeed that Satoshi is trolling us hard. He may actually have based his pseudonym on this guy... but that's playing a dangerous game, as this is in fact one more datapoint to honing in on the real Satoshi.
A number of blackhats did this around Lulzsec time. They would adopt a second-level identity -- and drop very, very small hints to make people think they're some person X. Person X being a person the blackhat in question just chose randomly by, oh I dono, cruising around the web where people talk about IT security... choosing an interesting person, learning about them by googling around, and eventually starting to play that person (or rather, play that person playing to be anonymous). This was one of the suggested strategies in the helpdocs wiki, advertised on the irc channel where lulzsec members usually would be. But since Dorian is kind of an old guy, the real Satoshi would have had to know him in real life (hence my saying that it'd be a dangerous game for Satoshi to be playing).
But really, I think it's just a very funny coincidence. As others have pointed out, Satoshi Nakamoto is not that of an uncommon Japanese name. Too bad Dorian got dragged into all of this. He seems like a sweet old man, with a great sense of humour ("I want a free lunch", wonderful) and an awesome hobby (model trains are fun). I'll buy you a lunch Dorian!
> even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair
This is a strange and unhealthy response. What was so hard/uncomfortable about saying "I did not realize" or "I was wrong"? It is okay to be wrong or not know something.
He did say he was wrong. He was simply stating he was surprised he didn't realise sooner, given how he had already identified a similar method of forgery in an earlier affair.
No he did not. Unless you are 5 years old "Duh, I knew that" is not the same thing as admitting fault:
"Duh, it's fake. Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back. I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair. Sorry folks, maybe if it were timestamped in the blockchain."
He played it off and says the real answer is obvious. Then he provides an excuse for not recognizing this obvious truth. Finally to make matters super strange he informs us (w/o evidence) that he was the one that pointed this "attack" out to us during the Snowden affair.
You're reading something very different into jnbiche's words than I am. I'm reading it more like this:
"[Ooooooh,] Duh[!], it's fake[!] [forehead smack of realization and insight]."
You seem to be reading more of a dismissive "Duh, I knew that, why are you telling me what I already know?" into this, whereas I'm reading a much more realization-striken tone.
"Obviously, it's possible to set your system clock back."
Thinking out loud through the realization and insight as it occurred.
"I was so intrigued I wasn't thinking clearly, even after I pointed this very "attack" out during the Ed Snowden GPG affair."
Explaining the circumstances of and implicitly acknowledging and admitting to a mistake or fault, continuing revelation. An introspective done, not a defensive one, not offered up as an "excuse".
A. This account was hacked and it doesn't matter. This scenario might be uncovered if ning.com discovers a breach.
B. This is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, and s/he is trying to clear Dorian's name.
C. This is Dorian Nakamoto and he is trying to clear his name.
We can never distinguish between B and C, so I don't see the value of posting such a comment, and I'm pretty sure that the inventor of Bitcoin would understand this as well.
I'm confused by all this. I find the drama interesting, but Newsweek quoted this:
"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss
it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a
swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other
people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have
any connection."
Did the reporter really lie about this statement? That seems like really a massive stretch, to me.
The trouble with that statement is that, even if you believe it's a verbatim quote, it isn't clear exactly what he said that in response to. We're meant to assume that it's a response to something like "Are you the creator of Bitcoin?", but the fact that the question isn't part of the quote implies that it isn't that clear.
This guy was involved in classified Government work at several companies, and the question could have been either about that, or vague enough that he could have misinterpreted it as being about that, especially if he had never heard of Bitcoin and had no idea what it was.
The quotes are a little questionable too. How many people really believe that an average street cop in a small town in California would say "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life." It's entirely possible they've been massaged a bit to be shorter and more clear. It's not like there's a recording of the conversations, at least not that we have access to.
If that quote wasn't entirely fabricated, I suspect the officer was responding to a statement that identified Dorian as "Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin".
Also, a minor nitpick: Temple City is part of a community that's directly adjacent to Los Angeles—people have heard of Bitcoin there.
I don't believe the quote in the article, but I believe a cop might have known about bitcoin. The reason being is they might have been briefed about it because of the silk road and its reputation as a drug currency.
I can't upvote this hard enough.
It's almost unfathomable how much of what is reported is deliberate misquotes or out of context statements unless you've dealt with reporters.
I know someone who is a reporter. She reported on something involving a mutual friend. She interviewed the mutual friend's boss. When she reported she misquoted the boss and even got the boss's name(!) completely wrong.
There's absolutely no mention of BitCoin in that quote, the reporter merely implies that BitCoin is the referent by the context of the quote.
Based on my interaction with reporters, it's not a stretch at all for the reporter to misunderstand a part of a conversation, and stick by their misinterpretation. This will happen even on things that could be fact-checked later. I think this strange quirk has something to do with not being influenced by their sources, but I can only guess why they engage in that recipe for inaccuracy.
I am as skeptical about media personalities as anyone else, but I find this explanation hard to swallow. I don't think I would misunderstand a statement like that from a non-native English speaker.
In any case, I have no animosity towards the creator of Bitcoin, and I don't think that the original creator has any need for legal worries. But in the heat of the moment, it seems as if many people are mixing up these two separate ideas.
What a crazy bunch of events in the Bitcoin world today.
Of course, this isn't necessarily proof that Dorian isn't Satoshi. (I personally don't think that he is, but I guess we'll see.) Regardless, it sure will be nice when the media stops hounding this guy. Especially if he really isn't Satoshi. This could have the potential of completely ruining somebody's life, particularly one who seems rather private like Dorian.
Isn't it convenient that, right when there's a minor cascade of failures in Bitcoin related things, a journalist from Newsweek just happens to figure out who Satoshi Nakamoto must be?
I think that is entirely plausible, but I don't really see how Newsweek comes into it. Having a fall-guy in case the shit hits the fan is a bit different from throwing the shit at the fan yourself (the NSA tipping off Newsweek?) and having a fall guy for that.
Its not the admin. Michel Bauwins runs the P2P foundation. He is busy advising the president of Ecuador on their economy. Not a good suspect for juvenile fakery, imho.
People are concerned about the origins of something that has the potential of changing humanity (for better or worse) and dethroning the existing financial hegemony. I feel bad about all the cameras being shoved in his face, but there's nothing wrong with people inquiring.
Holy crap, get over yourself. Bitcoin is a flash in the pan fad. Maybe eventually there will be a cryptocurrency that's worthwhile but bitcoin having the "potential of changing humanity" is utter bullshit. Also, your argument is completely ass-backwards. It doesn't matter how important the issue is, means are just as important as ends.
Look at it this way, consider some other examples. Finding out whether or not someone is a pedophile is extremely important, therefore throwing around baseless allegations is warranted regardless of the impact it has on someone's life. Stopping terrorist activity is important and lives potentially hang in the balance, therefore torturing someone on the basis of limited evidence or limiting people's freedoms or discriminating against people because of their race is justified. It's all variations on the "won't somebody please think of the children!" argument. The seriousness of the issue does not and should not change the importance of protecting an individual's privacy, their rights, and their assumption of innocence.
If you thought that your neighbor had the secret to curing cancer that doesn't give you the right to break into his house and beat the shit out of him until he told you what it was. The privacy of Dorian Nakamoto is a slightly less serious issue but it's still important.
"This internet thing isn't going to go anywhere"
-- Most companies, early 1990's
"No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame."
-- CmdrTaco, the original iPod release
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
-- Prentice Hall editor, 1957
"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
-- Linus Torvalds
Keep a bit more of an open mind, hm? Things have an interesting way of catching on.
Yes, most important advances are initially dismissed. But almost all things that are initially dismissed are not important advances. You cannot infer importance from initial dismissal. Dismissal does not in itself make anything more likely to be important.
Changing humanity? Bitcoin fans are fun. :) look at all this drama and just convoluted jibber jabber. Do you really see bitcoin being taken seriously by very serious people such that it will bring about this libertarian revolution or whatever is meant by "changing humanity?" Even those loafer phrased "existing financial hegemony" ... I think bitcoin people take themselves way too seriously.
If I were Satoshi (Dorian) Nakamoto and I wanted people to leave me alone, I might post as Satoshi and tell people I'm not Dorian.
If I'm Satoshi Nakamoto and I'm not Dorian, I might post as Satoshi to try to get people to leave Dorian alone. But that's a pretty feeble attempt. If he cared enough to get people to leave Dorian alone, you'd think he'd come up with something that provided a bit more proof. Otherwise, why bother breaking silence?
Should we change our beliefs based on this post? Based on Dorian's denials today, isn't this post just as likely in the world in which Dorian is Satoshi and the world in which Dorian is not? I don't have a strong belief one way or the other, but this doesn't seem like good evidence.
More interesting question why people even care? I doesn't really matter if this guy or anyone else is creator of bitcoin. Bitcoin is already established, lets say we know for a fact Al Gore invented bitcoin. What changed? Nothing.
The "real" Satoshi Nakamoto coming forward after all this time just to say he isn't Dorian Nakamoto seems kind of suspicious to me. It's not like Dorian Nakamoto is the first person to have been accused of being Satoshi.
We can only speculate, but I'd imagine the real Satoshi is a human being and doesn't want an uninvolved senior citizen (and his relatives, including a 90 year old mother) to be made targets for violent crime.
It's highly ironic that the media paints cryptocurrency as tools for a coldhearted clique that only cares for their own material wealth, yet they're the ones cruelly exposing someone who has done them no wrong and (in the case of the Newsweek journalist) refusing to apologize. What happened to kindness and respect?
All you people talking about violent crime .., I mean, what, do you think the Bloods and the Crips are following the world of bitcoin? I think the bigger story here, much more interesting than whether this person is Santoshi, is the kind of sociological story of nerd obsession with and belief systems about Bitcoin.
So first of all some background: I grew up during the fall of USSR. Our family had little liquid money, but my dad had a 386 computer (this was early 90s) provided by an American firm. My parents told me to never disclose that fact to others for a simple reason: people will assume we have far more money than we actually do (386s were not cheap!, most of my classmates had Sinclairs, Elektronika's, and XTs), we'll suffer a home invasion, and -- this was very common in former USSR republics in early 90s -- torture in search of that money that we don't have. When you hear stories of people being tortured with soldering irons and blow torches on regular news, you tend to become immensely paranoid about sums much smaller than $400mm and concepts much more technical than Bitcoin (as in, differences between various makes of processors!)
The criminals don't think "Bitcoin, the neat crypto-currency, let's hack his network and steal his private keys if we can!". Criminals think "wow, this guy has something that can be exchanged for $400mm, let's hold a clothes iron to his (or his mother's!) feet until he gives it to us!".
LA gangs contain a lot of people of which at least a few will be clued up on Bitcoin. And quite a lot more will be clued up now Dorian has hit main stream news.
Also a few desperate out of work in heavy debt old IT workers might do something stupid.
But I would be mostly worried about the mob. Italian and Russian mafia is reputed to create a large part of their wealth today by online scams and phishing, so they will have people that are fully aware of Bitcoin. And have no qualms visiting people or their relatives to chop off a few fingers.
After all I don't think the Silk Road and its compatriots was run by innocent people...
You haven't explain why he and his family should be anymore paranoid by fear than any other moderately wealthy people. Why don't all your mafia people just watch CNBC?
"$400m" is not moderately wealthy, it's extremely wealthy.
Most moderately or even extremely wealthy people are obscure. One of the wealthiest people I've worked for had a saying: "it's good to be wealthy but not famous." He dressed like a slob, drove a generic Japanese car, lived in a moderate house but in Los Altos (i.e., given the money he went for a safer location as opposed to a gigantic house), and so forth... He never once talked about finance issues despite being involved in angel investments, exits, etc... Most importantly, you'd never see his name in a press release much less in a newspaper story (except once I think, where he was referred to as an engineer as opposed to his actual title).
However, Dorian Nakomoto's situation is far worse in that he's perceived as wealthy, but actually isn't: so he can't afford security, lawyers, a gated house (remember, he went through foreclosure -- he can barely afford a house at all!), and so on forth... He's sixty five years old, his mother is 90. He can't run, he's post-stroke so he likely won't be able defend himself even with a firearm. He also has much more at stake than others: he can't simply hand the home invaders or extortionists the money if, e.g., one of his relatives is kidnapped. Is this so hard to understand? Do you personally hate bitcoin so much that you're willing to be an apologist for endangerment of someone who isn't even involved in bitcoin?
He's the first person to be declared definitively to be Satoshi Nakamoto by a news piece in a major publication, not just idle vague speculation on someone's blog.
Satoshi has created a new currency, a cryptocurrency. The currency has become more popular and valuable than Satoshi could have imagined. Satoshi now holds almost $1 Billion of his new currency. Due to the currencies psuedo-anonimity, low liquidity and it's value in illicit trade it is far too dangerous for Satoshi to cash in and reveal himself...
Yes and no. The town I live in has multiple billionaires living in it, and is adjacent to two with even more. I've visited two houses owned by such folks and their answer is what you'd expect: private security guards. Large, well-armed, and very unfriendly until they've verified via radio you're actually supposed to be there.
The key is, though, and maybe this is what you're referring to, that these folks don't store wealth on their home PCs. So their threat model is a little different.
I'm sure HN readers who follow Bitcoin more closely than I do could think of a better system, but presumably the real Satoshi could hire lawyers to set up a company or trust to hold his bitcoins, sell them over time, and store the proceeds in a more traditional manner. Not especially difficult. And, assuming taxes are paid, it may even be possible to remain anonymous.
> Due to the currencies psuedo-anonimity, low liquidity and it's value in illicit trade it is far too dangerous for Satoshi to cash in and reveal himself...
- None of Satoshis coins can be linked to illicit trade because he mined them himself.
- Low liquidity isn't really a problem, the Bitcoin community is so fanatical that any coins held by Satoshi would likely sell at a premium... even without the fanclub, he'd certainly make enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he couldn't liquidate all his holdings.
- The same fanclub seems quite fierce in defending Dorian/Satoshi.
- The tax situation has been official clarified in the UK. Now its recognised as a Capital Gain, US citizens can presumably come here to sell Bitcoin and avoid double taxation under tax treaty? (Possibly, I'm not an accountant or a lawyer)
If Satoshi still has his ~$400m in bitcoins, he could also likely strike a great deal with someone like Andreessen Horowitz (the cash), maybe with coinbase (build it), to create a sort of bitcoin bank (at a discount to his holdings in exchange for the liquidity to exit). It would enable a rather unique liquidity tool, sort of like a central bank; the new entity could provide bitcoins to bitcoin service businesses on demand for a fee (eg if they're having a hard time getting bitcoins or for any reason really).
I didn't mean to imply anything illicit concerning Satoshi. I meant that those that would be interested in the stash could be the silk road types or worse. I find it curious that Dorian/Satoshi are not spending the money. Why not? Imagine having $1 billion and not being able to touch it.
Is Satoshi saying he's not Dorian evidence of anything? That could also be a ploy to try and throw off the scent, as much as it might be Satoshi trying to save this random sap.
You can never hope to discover the truth behind the fiction of Satoshi. The closer you think you get, the further fiction will hide the truth. Indisputable evidence is nice, sure - but knowing is not being[0].
The man is a legend for a reason and will remain that way, regardless of anyone who claims or is proven to be, or not be him.
Sure, it seems like every time you get to the whole truth, the truth just divides itself into smaller and smaller pieces and falls out of your hands. Eventually, though, there must be some fundamental smallest unit of truth that is much smaller than an entire truth. We should come up with some sort of name for this smallest possible division of Bitcoin truth....
His known PGP key. Alternately, a message signed by one of the first mined coins and/or movement of coins from those coins would be at least strongly suggestive that it's him, although it probably wouldn't carry the weight of his PGP key.
They could hold up Dorian and ask Satoshi to post something requiring his key, although that couldn't discard the possibility of Dorian having instructed an acquaintance to do so in case of emergency.
There's really no way to prove (a posteriori) without doubt that someone is or isn't Satoshi, unless there was an encypted message left by him (a priori) saying "My DNA is (...)", to which he provides the key.
From the AP article [1] he has a response that seems really odd:
When shown the original bitcoin proposal that Newsweek linked to in its story, Nakamoto said he didn't write it, and said the email address in the document wasn't his.
"Peer-to-peer can be anything," he said. "That's just a matter of address. What the hell? It doesn't make sense to me."
Asked if he was technically able to come up with the idea for bitcoin, Nakamoto responded: "Capability? Yes, but any programmer could do that."
For someone who only recently heard about BitCoin this seems like an odd response. It almost seems like if you made a factually incorrect technical statement about BitCoin in his presence -- he might correct you.
Only he doesn't really know how it works. He apparently thinks it's just about peer-to-peer networking, that's why the idea seems so trivial to him. In the AP video he alludes to the fact that he "never communicated with Bitcoin", further demonstrating that he believes it's about networking and not cryptography. He really doesn't know.
I've said it before in the other threads but it bears repeating. What Newsweek did was shameful and it looks to me that this guy is a very unlikely candidate. He still has money problems in real life, as well as severe health problems. Framing him as SN is irresponsible.
One thing is for certain, if Dorian is the real Satoshi, the Feds - NSA and FBI - are all over him, and they will know for certain whether he is the Satoshi (if they didn't know a long time ago). If Dorian = Satoshi, he's going to be forced in front of the NSA, and interrogated about bitcoin, he will have no choice in the matter (it won't matter if he's no longer involved, and it won't matter if there are no weaknesses to give the Feds, they will still do it).
If you get contacted (or arrested or detained) by a law enforcement agency, you could ask to have a lawyer present before answering any questions. Your lawyer can help you assert your fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination.
I don't mean to deny that the Federal government might already know who the creator of Bitcoin is. They may, and they may have quite strong evidence. However, having "no choice in the matter" of whether to reveal one's identity under interrogation is less clear. At least in the context of a law enforcement investigation, the fifth amendment privilege is quite strong when properly asserted, and the government's power to compel answers from a suspect is correspondingly weak.
And the Patriot Act craps all over the 5th amendment unfortunately. A bitcoin founder could be called a domestic terrorist for creation of a "terrorist" money source.
Do you have an example of someone described as a domestic terrorist being compelled to answer questions in an interrogation as a result of the Patriot Act?
Seriously, how about we leave the guy who had a stroke and cancer but just happens to have a similar name alone. It's obviously not him and this is sloppy journalism.
It would seem odd for someone who's otherwise been so careful about security to use his or her real name. It would seem less odd for them to flick through the phone book and choose someone else's name though (or pick it off a grave stone, randomly mash forename and surname together - whatever.) Sharing the name is weak evidence at best. With so many people, odds are if you pick something vaguely okay someone in the world will have it too.
If Satoshi disappeared for as long as he did, would he really come back for THIS? It seems like a waste of time and it's awfully risky. I don't believe Dorian is Satoshi and I don't believe that the response from "Satoshi" is Satoshi. Or perhaps Satoshi isn't as intelligent as he is made out to be and this screw up will in turn screw him, just like the other internet recluses that have fallen?
Why Dorian would say something below?
Asked if he was technically able to come up with the idea for bitcoin,
Nakamoto responded: "Capability? Yes, but any programmer could do that."
"Yes, but any programmer could do that." ---- Either this Dorian is ignorant or it is his natural response. This quote is weird.
Satoshi/Dorian just wants to be left alone and distance himself from it all; the press conference (if you can call it that) and this is all a big cry for having people leave him alone.
He's probably already taking steps to change his identity and location.
I think the most compelling evidence that Dorian is Satoshi is described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326
[EDIT: if an eyewitness account is compelling enough for you, this is evidence. it is to me, apparently not to some.]
Dorian (as recognized by the retailer) bought a crepe from one of the first retailers to accept bitcoins, the 1st transaction of the crepe retailer's bitcoin address at 1KfQKmME7bQm5AesPiizWk6h3JPUekwoBC for 2.2 bitcoins on July 17 2011, can check the Crepe twitter feed: twitter.com/Ocrepes - "The award for being the first customer who bought crepes for @bitcoins goes to ... anonymous (the winner refused to reveal identity)"
Tracing those addresses/transactions back leads to large volume addresses.
[EDIT: 432,000 coins]
Early on, there were so few people mining that practically everyone had a "large volume". As such, if you pick any arbitrary bitcoin transaction at that time, it's highly likely it will have originated from a large volume source in the recent past.
I think it's more likely a case of mistaken identity; there are many people in this world, and I think that the chance of someone remembering someone from 3 years ago that they saw for half an hour, tops, with sufficient accuracy for a positive ID is much lower than the chance that there are simply two middle aged asian men who look vaguely similar. It's also improbable that "satoshi" would fly across the country for this purchase.
One person's word is certainly not compelling to me.
Even if that account is 100% accurate, it does not link the man who paid with bitcoins to satoshi, but merely to Dorian. The HN link relies on the flawed NewsWeek article to make the further connection from Dorian to Satoshi.
That still does not follow. It proves that he lied about not knowing what bitcoin is and it proves that he had bitcoins. Those two facts do not prove that he is Satoshi. It is not obvious.
Here, I'll give you an alternative explanation:
Dorian was an early bitcoin adopter or otherwise had a small number. When reporters started asking his son if he was Satoshi, he realized that that would damage his reclusive lifestyle if people thought he were Satoshi. He thought that telling the truth, that he knew about bitcoin but wasn't Satoshi, wouldn't be believed so he told a lie to preserve his reclusive lifestyle.
Well, you're just taking that it is not logically imperative that he be Satoshi as a counter argument. I think if all is true that it is a pretty interesting coincidence given that, despite people think here, Bitcoin was not a very common thing for normal people in 2011.
But anyway, this eye witness seems a bit odd for other reasons.
Linking Dorian to Bitcoin at any time proves everything, proves Dorian = Satoshi. If Dorian paid for crepe in July 2011 with Bitcoin, Dorian is lying and Dorian = Satoshi. There was a large Bitcoin Conference in New York at that time, giving good reason to be there. The retailer said she recognized Dorian as the customer. He didn't want his picture taken or name recorded. Good odds to me it was him.
You say "good memory," but there's no evidence of it. The post said "recognized him," though there's a bit of priming (A NEWSWEEK COVER STORY!) to encourage that process along: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326
Memory is highly fallible. Eyewitness accounts are highly unreliable even after a shorter period of time than three years. The burden of proof is properly on the Dorian == Satoshi folks.
That is the most spurious logic I have encountered all week. Dorian lying about the specifics of his involvement with bitcoin does not logically imply that he must also be lying about not being Satoshi.
Even if Dorian is lying about knowing what bitcoin is, I think it wouldn't be a proof of Dorian = Satoshi. He might be worried people would dig his personal life more if he acknowledges he knows what bitcoin is.
Its unfortunate you're being marked down by people who don't realize that memorable events create recallable memories.
It's easier to remember the first time you do/experience something. The situation is novel and unique, which creates stronger mental connections that allow for subsequent recall.
If Dorian was the 15th guy to buy something with Bitcoins from the retailer, that would definitely be suspicious. But the first guy to buy something from you with Bitcoin? That's a memorable event. That doesn't mean it happened, but it does mean there's a good chance it actually happened.
Eyewitness accounts are known to be incredibly unreliable and full of bias. I saw a show once when they staged a bank robbery or something like that. Later they showed interviews with witnesses who got every single detail about the suspect wrong (ethnicity, clothes, etc) and details about the robbery wrong. They were asked questions like "did he have a gun?" and they mostly answered "yes" even though he didn't. It was nuts.
In one of her experiments, Loftus demonstrates that false verbal Information can integrate with original memory. Participants were presented with either truthful information or misleading information, and overall it showed that even the false information verbally presented became part of the memory after the participant was asked to recall details. This happens because of one of two reasons. First, it can alter the memory, incorporating the misinformation in with the actual, true memory. Second, the original memory and new information may both reside in memory in turn creating two conflicting ideas that compete in recall.[13]
interesting that you value this testimony so highly, because my weighting of probabilities for 'can a random woman in brooklyn definitively and uniquely identify an elderly japanese man among a line up of elderly japanese men based on a single interaction three years ago' comes down quite heavily on 'no'.
The thing is, if Satoshi Nakamoto actually is any kind of elderly Japanese man in Brooklyn, then it's probably this one. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence (like, for example, his name, his background, etc) that link it to him.
How likely is it that this ISN'T the Satoshi Nakamoto, just another dude with the same name who happened to be an early adopter of the same technology at time when it was very obscure?
Of course this all depends on her story being true or not. But I don't think it depends on how well she would distinguish this Nakamoto from another Nakamoto. If she's telling the truth, high likelihood it's actually him.
My assertion is simply that this woman most likely just cannot tell if the man she saw three years ago is the same man as she saw in NewsWeek today, however much she believes it[0], so the actual information I'm willing to believe in her report is that an old Japanese man was using bitcoins in New York in 2011. If you think that information is the smoking gun that says Dorian must be Satoshi, ok but I don't see it. When you say 'distinguish this Nakomoto from another Nakomoto' it sounds like you think she knew the customers name, which doesn't match my reading of the anecdote.
[0]obviously it's possible it'll turn out she is Japanese/very familiar with Japanese people and therefore probably can tell apart two Japanese men with very little to go on, but I'm working on the assumption that is unlikely for a woman running a crepe shop in new york
Meet Dorian Nakamoto. He is just a regular scientist who likes model trains. But the world thinks he is creator of Bitcoin and mafia is chasing him for his $400m fortunes.
Dorian Nakamoto is Satoshi: This is an attempt by him to throw people off his scent, which would be foolish and desperate since chances are the millions of eyes focused on him will find more concrete proof than the Newsweek article, rendering the posting moot. Almost guaranteeing the drama will continue, if not whip it into a larger frenzy.
Dorian Nakamoto isn't Satoshi: An attempt to absolve someone of harassment. Noble, but not wise, since now he will have to continue to disprove serious accusations of his identity, or else innocent people will be harmed again. And the corollary, if he does not publish a refutation people will assume it's tacit agreement. People will continue looking for him.
It's late and I know I didn't think of everything, but I can't see this being a winning move by Satoshi in any scenario.
My personal theory? Dorian was a member of a crypto group that eventually gave birth to Bitcoin, but he was never part of the implementation. Maybe he thought of the original math/idea, so they named their pseudonym after him in his honor? Probably not true, but fun!