Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dorian Nakamoto Officially Denies That He Created Bitcoin

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the wasn't-me dept.

Bitcoin 102

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.'"

cancel ×

102 comments

Quick (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46508355)

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

Re:Quick (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508419)

You are the WORST first date ever. Just so you know.

Re:Quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508485)

Even worse than this? [xkcd.com]

Re:Quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508531)

Step 1) Collect underpants (coin)
Step 2) Dump underpants (coin)
Step 3) Profit!

Evidence? (5, Insightful)

AltGrendel (175092) | about 4 months ago | (#46508357)

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? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46508613)

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."

OH GOSH & BEGORRA! ALWAYS AFTER MY LUCKY CHARM (3, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#46508949)

Catch the leprechaun and he'll give you a pot of gold!
Of course, the tradition has it he'll trick you and the gold will turn to worthless bitcoins after you've let him go.
sneaky Japanese leprechauns!

Re:Evidence? (1)

GoCrazy (1608235) | about 4 months ago | (#46508631)

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.

Re:Evidence? (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 4 months ago | (#46509163)

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:Evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509387)

should have used Mr Lee's Kongbucks, then they could harass every 'Mr Lee' from here to Timbuktu

Re:Evidence? (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about 4 months ago | (#46509409)

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 create enough confusion as to allow a person who regretted using his real name to fade away into obscurity....without going as far as trying to fake his death or anything.

All that said, I am pretty doubtful as well, I don't think this guy invented bitcoin. Of course, I also don't think the association hurts his job prospects, especially if he hasn't found work in the industry in a decade.

If anything, it may help his job prospects as people feel bad for this old engineer, or don't believe his denials and want the famed Satoshi Nakamoto on their payroll. I mean hell, even if he denies it, truth has never stopped a salesman from making winks and nudges at a client.

Shit I can practically hear the conversation
"Well I mean, we are the company with Satoshi Nakamoto on staff"
"I heard about that, he claims he didn't invent bitcoin"
"right, well publicly he claims that, yes."
"Oh?"
"You know I can't talk about that but... ::wink::"

Re:Evidence? (1)

GoCrazy (1608235) | about 4 months ago | (#46510405)

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 otherwise.

As for the job thing, I can hear it too
"There's this guy that people claimed invented Bitcoin who wants a job here"
"Really, the virtual currency best known for black market drug trades, laundering, and vanishing money? Please, send him in"
"Okay but wait a few reporters followed him here [latimes.com] "
"Oh that none of this sounds like a liability at all. Let us wait for him to finish"

Re:Evidence? (1)

SeeingMole (1965542) | about 4 months ago | (#46512823)

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:Evidence? (1)

portnoy (16520) | about 4 months ago | (#46510979)

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.

Re:Evidence? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#46509807)

I think Rusty Shackleford could get away with it.

Re:Evidence? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#46510485)

That's just what he wants you to think.

Re:Evidence? (1)

netsharc (195805) | about 4 months ago | (#46514641)

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? (3, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#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? (3, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#46508785)

Not that kind of high.

Re:Evidence? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#46510503)

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

Re:Evidence? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 months ago | (#46511333)

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:Evidence? (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 months ago | (#46514975)

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.

Re: Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46510357)

Reporters don't usually disclose all their evidence. Goodman put the reputation of herself and Newsweek on the line here with a cover story. They would have known that disclosing all this information about him would lead to other reporters contacting him, since they were outing him after all. Knowing that people are going to immediately try to verify the story, I don't believe Newsweek would run it if they weren't 100% sure it were true.

Re: Evidence (1)

iNaya (1049686) | about 4 months ago | (#46510747)

Even newspapers with a very solid reputation for good reporting sometimes put out stories which are embarrassingly untrue. Any investigator worth his/her salt would be able to tell you that one can never be 100% certain about anything.

Re:Evidence? (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#46511593)

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.

Re:Evidence? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 months ago | (#46514727)

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.

Bitcoin could harm your future job prospects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508367)

It is interesting that he states being accused of being associated with bitcoin reduces his future job prospects.

Re:Bitcoin could harm your future job prospects? (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#46508427)

He's 64 and hasn't had a job in 10 years, so I doubt he's going to a lot of job interviews anyway.

But he spent his career doing high security work for the government. Those jobs don't like the idea of you sitting on $600M worth of untraceable currency.

Re:Bitcoin could harm your future job prospects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509167)

Why exactly? The dude has never heard of it before and doesn't want to be famous. The vultures of newsweek have more to gain then this poor man with cancer.

Economical Cursing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508371)

Chortling cursing antigravity - The Anus Child's mortal enemy.

I don't blame him (0)

DiEx-15 (959602) | about 4 months ago | (#46508399)

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:I don't blame him (2)

ebcdic (39948) | about 4 months ago | (#46508477)

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

Re:I don't blame him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508479)

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

Re:I don't blame him (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 4 months ago | (#46508519)

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

Re:I don't blame him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508607)

After.

Re:I don't blame him (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 4 months ago | (#46508569)

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:I don't blame him (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 4 months ago | (#46508781)

You don't have to be doing anything illegal to desire privacy.

Re:I don't blame him (1)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#46508625)

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.

Re:I don't blame him (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#46508713)

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.

Re:I don't blame him (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46508661)

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 cryptographers to read the paper and drink some coffee while thinking about it.

Maybe some enraged central bank chairman wants to take a rasp to his teeth just for spite; but there isn't much interrogative value.

Re:I don't blame him (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46509283)

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.

Re:I don't blame him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46510215)

The transaction log only shows source and destination bitcoin addresses, it doesn't tell you who has control over those addresses. Combine the use of Tor with a new bitcoin wallet every time you make a transaction and it's completely anonymous.

Re:I don't blame him (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46510965)

Keep telling yourself that, I'm sure your amateur obfuscation attempts can outsmart the data analysis experts at the NSA.

Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508403)

Newsweek stands strongly behind Ms. Goodman"

Newsweek stands with knife in hand, ready to run for it...

Ssssure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508413)

Took him a month to deny it?

Makes one wonder.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 4 months ago | (#46508463)

Took him a month to deny it?

Makes one wonder.

Officially, sure. But I've read some articles in the past like 1-2 weeks ago where he said he denied it when asked.

He was probably hoping that denying it that much would be enough for the paper to admit it made a mistake, but now has to make a formal denial. Besides, a formal denial probably needs to go through a lawyer first of something just to make sure everything you're saying is kosher.

Re:Ssssure... (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46508611)

Oh great, so you need to be a Jew in order to make a formal denial? This atheist thing is starting to be more troublesome than I imagined.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

TC Wilcox (954812) | about 4 months ago | (#46508677)

Oh great, so you need to be a Jew in order to make a formal denial? This atheist thing is starting to be more troublesome than I imagined.

Kosher is also commonly defined as "legitimate". "she consulted lawyers to make sure everything was kosher" is actually an example sentence if you type, "define: kosher" into google.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46508729)

Score: 2 (+1 Informative, +1 Woosh)

Re:Ssssure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508905)

You only get to say woosh when the joke you made is actually funny. Stupid and slightly anti-Semitic jokes don't count.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | about 4 months ago | (#46509113)

please explain in detail how the joke was in any way 'anti-semitic'

Re:Ssssure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509923)

well thats obvious, its because if you type the word blonde you are a nazi.

Re:Ssssure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509941)

So if his joke was highly anti-semitic, we could all whoosh?

Re:Ssssure... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#46511981)

You only get to say woosh when the joke you made is actually funny. Stupid and slightly anti-Semitic jokes don't count.

I found it funny, to me at least. I got it and there's nothing 'anti-semitic' about it. I guess one needs to start from the top of the comments and read down, hitting his reply I lol'd.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#46509827)

Oh great, so you need to be a Jew in order to make a formal denial? This atheist thing is starting to be more troublesome than I imagined.

Kosher is also commonly defined as "legitimate".

"she consulted lawyers to make sure everything was kosher" is actually an example sentence if you type, "define: kosher" into google.

That covers the kosher but, sure, but not the lawyer bit.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | about 4 months ago | (#46508901)

I hate the blood sucking leaches that are today's legal professionals. Why should I have to hire a lawyer to say I didn't do something that I didn't do. Should the rest of the 300 Million Americans that didn't invent Bitcoin hire lawyers to deny it.
By the way - when did you stop beating your Significant other?

Re:Ssssure... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 4 months ago | (#46509903)

I hate the blood sucking leaches that are today's legal professionals. Why should I have to hire a lawyer to say I didn't do something that I didn't do. Should the rest of the 300 Million Americans that didn't invent Bitcoin hire lawyers to deny it.

The guy is being accused of doing something that many countries' government leaders would love to make into a crime. Add to the fact that he's done sensitive government work in the past... and even if they can't get it considered a crime regularly they can say it's treason or something.

When being accused of something in a major way, you go to a lawyer. I don't care if it's something small like some reported to the police that you stole their stuff... you go see a lawyer. Because as much as we want to believe the system is there to protect the little guy and common sense will prevail, too often the little guy gets squished.

So when a flippin' newspaper is shouting from the rooftops "This guy did that thing that you politicians would LOVE to call treason" then it's time to see a lawyer.

If for no other reason than to make sure your statement isn't going to shoot yourself in the foot later.

Re:Ssssure... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 4 months ago | (#46510523)

I've been told I was an idiot for signing a contract for a $4000 timeshare without a lawyer reading it first. After the timeshare was foreclosed upon in 2002 and they just sent me my 2014 bill for maintenance fees.

On second thought.....I was an idiot, and that's what the entire timeshare industry is built on, sucking idiots dry (I'm just not enough of an idiot to have paid those maintenance fees in the last 12 years, and they'll never get another penny out of me).

Re:Ssssure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46510141)

No, he denied it the day the article was launched.

This isn't so much a denial as it is prep-work for the impending lawsuit.

High Standards? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#46508445)

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:High Standards? (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 4 months ago | (#46508645)

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:High Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509725)

wow -- this is the first issue of Newsweek in print since it was dumped how long ago? it's obvious they have no writers with experience or credentials and a sensation like this was too hard to ignore. It was the cover of the premier issue of the relaunch.

I think they are doomed if they think anyone will want to read a story about bitcoin printed on paper. How many people have seen a copy of the new Newsweek?

Re:High Standards? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 4 months ago | (#46510551)

For that matter, who the heck would pay $8 for a print magazine these days?

Re:High Standards? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 months ago | (#46512095)

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.

Newsweek stands strongly behind Ms. Goodman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508453)

and is prepared to sink into oblivion with her.

Only the real messiah would deny that he... (3, Funny)

bazmail (764941) | about 4 months ago | (#46508487)

is the real messiah. All Hail Nakamoto!!!!!!!!!

The original article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508551)

Just for reference, here's the original Newsweek article [newsweek.com] .

Re:The original article (2, Interesting)

chatteringmonkey (3580839) | about 4 months ago | (#46508753)

Original article states:

"Tacitly acknowledging his role in the Bitcoin project, he looks down, staring at the pavement and categorically refuses to answer questions.

"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."

Curiously ambiguous, if truly a direct quote. Is he no longer involved in Bitcoin, or no longer involved in talking to reporters who contact him because his name happens to be Satoshi Nakamoto? The "turned over to other people" could refer to his attorneys. But "no longer have any connection" imples that at one time, he did have a connection. Hmmm.

Re:The original article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46508879)

Or he's been involved in government security work in the past, doesn't speak/understand English that well, and that's his response to everything.
The reporter could have asked him if he'd eaten a turkey sandwich recently and gotten the same response.

Re:The original article (1)

Dahan (130247) | about 4 months ago | (#46510693)

doesn't speak/understand English that well

I don't buy that part... he's been in the US since he was about 10 years old, and has been here for 50 years. He's been working alongside English-speakers--i.e., he's immersed in the language. He's a smart guy. Therefore his English is comparable to a native's. I'm from an immigrant background too, and have many friends who moved to the US when they were around 10 (+/- a few years). They haven't been here as long as Nakamoto has, but their English is native-level. Some still have a bit of an accent, but they don't have any problems understanding or speaking English.

Re:The original article (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#46514429)

he probably does speak english quite well. the reporter however assumed that he understood the question, which was not a matter of speaking english well but a matter of understanding the context, which might be hard if you've been involved with security work but don't really give a shit about bitcoin or current happenings.

"were you involved with cryptography gkracurrncccry bit com??" --> the stated answer. he was involved with some crypto systems... but hasn't been in 10 years.

Re:The original article (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 months ago | (#46514733)

Yeah this hes a poor immigrant whose English isn't very good does not wash.

Re:The original article (2)

crashumbc (1221174) | about 4 months ago | (#46508889)

Just to play devils advocate...

Given his age, medical condition and his work history in government security fields.

He probably had no idea what the fuck a "bitcoin" was and thought it was something from his security past that he shouldn't be talking about...

Re:The original article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509329)

You're making the same mistake that the reporter did by inferring that he was talking about Bitcoin at all. She was pressing him with questions about his previous work for the government which is classified - and which he is longer involved in, and which naturally has been handed off to other people - and cannot talk about. She basically just threw out the word Bitcoin at him after he had already resolved to end the conversation which was about his government work.

The part that is ambiguous is what exactly the reporter was saying in the moments leading up to Dorian's "denial". It sounds to me - and is perfectly consistent with how this story has played out - that she went in with a preconception that Dorian must be Satoshi. Her assertion of a "tacit acknowledgement" is based on fitting his response to her understanding of the questions, which is not at all the same as Dorian's understanding of her questions.

He almost got the name right (0)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 4 months ago | (#46508783)

'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.

Re:He almost got the name right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46510059)

I will never understand why people don't like free money. Whatever morons.

I'm not the creator of bitcoin either (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#46508793)

And nor is my wife.

And I quote... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46508801)

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... (2)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#46508881)

Newsweek should find out who invented bitcom!

Re:The real story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46511911)

Newsweek should find out who invented bitcom!

uh... ok, but the already did

In an ensuing discussion with the reporter from the Associated Press, I called the technology "bitcom." [sic]

Newsweek has uncovered and already reported that Dorian Nakamoto invented Bitcom and quotes him as admitting as such. And while the fools are laughing, making jokes and pointing fingers at Newsweek, I'll be down in the cafeteria selling Bitcom, and making a cool fortune as an early investor.

changes nothing given evidence (1)

Kishin (2859885) | about 4 months ago | (#46509073)

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 Newsweek for this. (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 4 months ago | (#46509117)

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 (5, Interesting)

Jmstuckman (561420) | about 4 months ago | (#46509199)

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.

Awesome Fp!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509277)

Core teaRm. They

Told you it was my dad (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 months ago | (#46509429)

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

wait, what? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#46509465)

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.

Re: wait, what? (1)

chatteringmonkey (3580839) | about 4 months ago | (#46509753)

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

Re:wait, what? (2)

Dahan (130247) | about 4 months ago | (#46510729)

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."

All Those Profitable Interviews (1)

mlw4428 (1029576) | about 4 months ago | (#46509581)

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.

Yet more irrational bashing of Newsweek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46509595)

CONservatives hate that magazine because they tell the truth. They perceive it as having a bias when it doesn't. It is simply more truthful than other news sources in the US. The reporter already confirmed the story so we know this denial is simply not true.

Re:Yet more irrational bashing of Newsweek (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 4 months ago | (#46514161)

CONservatives hate that magazine because they tell the truth. They perceive it as having a bias when it doesn't. It is simply more truthful than other news sources in the US. The reporter already confirmed the story so we know this denial is simply not true.

Ms. Goodman?

MegaCoin (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 4 months ago | (#46510665)

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

Re:MegaCoin (1)

Cruciform (42896) | about 4 months ago | (#46511193)

There is a megacoin, supposedly unaffiliated.

If you don't believe Ms. Goodman (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 4 months ago | (#46510725)

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

I had nothing to do with Bitcoin. (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 4 months ago | (#46510889)

But I am responsible for Bitchickens and Bitgoats.

fobeta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46511601)

fobeta

It was invented by the NSA ... (1)

Evil Pete (73279) | about 4 months ago | (#46512053)

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

Russia's Bill O' Reilly .. (1)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 4 months ago | (#46512341)

Dmitry Kiselyov , the Bill O' Reilly of Russian television ..

oblig (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 4 months ago | (#46512621)

I'm Spartacus!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...