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.
It is probably that not only cypherpunks thought that bitcoin is nice but weird idea, but also Satoshi Nakamoto himself. True, if it takes off, Satoshi will change the world and make some money, but what if it doesn't? Then bitcoin is like bit gold or b-money -- cool theoretical concept, and Satoshi want some recognition for his work(just like Nick Szabo or Wei Dai who used their real names).
Of course there is some chance that bitcoin will succeed, so Satoshi wants to protect himself from government hostility. He knows about Liberty Dollar(don't confuse with Liberty Reserve), he knows about e-gold, and he knows about Phil Zimmermann(criminal investigation related to PGP).
So why does Satoshi need anonymity? Well, he doesn't. All he needs is _plausible deniability_, and he maintains it pretty well.
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.
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"?
This gave some justification for initially accepting the story at face value.
"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."
Are we somehow to believe that someone who can't even get the name of the currency right (he called it "Bitcom" repeatedly), is the inventor? Nothing in Leah McGrath's articles or the follow up interviews with the AP or in this letter suggests to me that Dorian Nakamoto is anything more than who he says he is: just an old engineer looking for work.
The Newsweek article, in my view, is a disgusting piece of yellow journalism produced by a hack journalist who was doing whatever it took to get a flashy cover story for Newsweek's inaugural issue. In that, it succeeded. But in establishing Newsweek's journalistic bona-fides or establishing Leah McGrath as a decent human being, it failed utterly.
Reporter: Tell me, are you the inventor of Bitcoin?
Dorian: I don't want any trouble, please leave me alone.
Reporter: As an engineer working for defense projects,
you clearly had the skill to build this type
Dorian: I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it,...
>this is hardly state "tacitly":
>>"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."
>>-Dorian S. Nakamoto
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.
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."
An thus create a unfalsifiable, worthless hypothesis. Al Gore could be Satoshi then.
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?
Yes. Yes, I would.
If they wanted to be anonymous, wouldn't they use a pseudonym?To create a decentralized identity protecting project as an anonymous individual using your real name (because you don't want to be found) seems... poorly thought out.
I doubt it's him.
My point is: he didn't choose his alias aided by the benefit of knowing what bitcoin would become. So it's suspect to deduce that his actions had been perfectly targeted to the facts of the present.
EDIT: The post I'm talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7354326
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:
The only proof put forward was that the address that was 'probably' used was funded by a very early address linked to Gox. Gox isn't Satoshi (for what we know so far!), so NO.
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.)
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.
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.
You're right. To emerge looking good, they'll need one. All evidence so far is that they don't.
Their story hangs on a misunderstood quote.
How long until editors start resigning at Newsweek? And the lawsuit gets filed?
That reporter is such a scumbag. What repercussions did she face?
She re-launched Newsweek in print, though, so presumably she got lots of hoped-for money.
The WashPostCo owned Newsweek forever, then sold it to Sidney Harman (whose name you might recognize if you're into high-end audio) in 2010. Then it became Newsweek Daily Beast Co owed by IAC and went all-digital. Then privately held IBT Media bought it from IAC last year and relaunched it in print this month. IBT is best known for publishing http://www.ibtimes.com/, which ironically last December accused someone else of inventing Bitcoin. Sigh.
It would be unusual for the reporter charted with writing the launch cover story on Bitcoin to receive significant equity, but it is fair to say that the current editors may have a significant incentive to defend their launch cover. I have not see them hire an independent outside ombudsman to investigate the launch cover's accuracy, for instance, which other news organizations have done in similar situations.
[Disclaimer: I spent a few years working at Newsweek competitor Time Inc. and Newsweek once offered me a job.]
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.
Interviewee: "I did not say this."
Interviewer: "Here's the email / audio as proof."
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.
Let's call invalid transactions "Dorian"
1 dorian = 100 satoshi
Why a person who put so much effort to remain anonymous, was found through a phone book, because he used his real name in all correspondence?
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.
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.)
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).
This is irony, right?
irony (noun): the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
And it's not "guilty of" libel; it's more like "liable for defamation."
Libel refers to written/printed/online defamatory statements  - as opposed to slander, which is spoken defamation.
You can held liable for libel, but that's an awkward phrasing, so "liable for defamation" is broader and better.