Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details? 276
Nerval's Lobster writes "Newsweek's Leah McGrath Goodman spent months tracking down the mysterious founder of Bitcoin, "Satoshi Nakamoto," a name that everybody seemed to believe was a pseudonym for either a single individual or a shadowy collective of programmers. If Satoshi Nakamoto, former government contractor and model-train enthusiast, is actually "Satoshi Nakamoto," Bitcoin founder, then he's sitting atop hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto-currency. Does the article's exhaustive listing of Nakamoto's personal details place his security at risk? Many in the Bitcoin community think so, and poured onto the Web to express that opinion. The Newsweek article has raised some interesting questions about the need for thorough journalism versus peoples' right to privacy. For example, should Goodman have posted an image of Nakamoto's house and car, even though information about both would probably be relatively simple to find online, anyway?"
But He Isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
It's become petty clear that the guy in question ISN'T Satoshi Nakamoto. This is basically just a crazy lady writing a delusional account of the two months she spent stalking a random Japanese guy.
Re: (Score:2)
In a March 2014 article in Newsweek, journalist Leah McGrath Goodman stated that Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto, 64, of Temple City, California, whose birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto was the Nakamoto in question. However, Dorian Nakamoto denies this, saying that Newsweek misquoted him
How does one verify the identity of the real man and, is it really important who he physically is ?
Re:But He Isn't (Score:5, Informative)
No real way to verify it, but there is a surefire way to discredit it!
https://twitter.com/mikko/stat... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No real way to verify it, but there is a surefire way to discredit it!
https://twitter.com/mikko/stat... [twitter.com]
How is that surefire in *any* way? The guy already denied it. Now, an account denied it as well.
Russia denies their troops are occupying Crimea.
Denials are easy to make.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Denials are easy to make
I almost puke this morning when I heard over BBC's news interviewing that female reporter from Newsweek.
She seems to be enjoying basking in her 15-second fame - and during the interview, she actually said that her action on "revealing the true identity of the founder of bitcoin" is not wrong, as it would not harm that Japanese guy in anyway.
We all know that journalism in America sucks, and this is one heck of a prime example how sucks American journalism can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, that post is in reality nothing more than the account of someone who has shown that he doesn't want to be identified simply denying some-ones attempt to identify him - there's no guarantee he isn't simply lying because he wants to remain unidentified.
Re:But He Isn't (Score:5, Interesting)
So an "official" SN account has denied this being the "real" SN.
The question I ask is: Why didn't that "official" account post a denial for each of the other times someone has been suggested to be "the guy"? Why does this Satoshi Nakamoto get a denial, and not the others?
Methinks he does protest too much.
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Because none of the other cases resulted in reporters getting into a car chase with an elderly Japanese man?
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
No idea, but that's her problem, and without proof it's just "chatting shit", and I didn't think Newsweek was in the business of doing that just because proper journalism times time, effort and integrity. If you just want to type something, get a blog.
But it isn't really Newsweek anymore. (Score:3)
No idea, but that's her problem, and without proof it's just "chatting shit", and I didn't think Newsweek was in the business of doing that just because proper journalism times time, effort and integrity. If you just want to type something, get a blog.
There is no story without the sensationalism and journalistic conjecture.
Is Newsweek above this sort of tabloid investigative journalism or are they one of many failing and desperate former dead tree rags? Circulation was down from a historical high of 4 million worldwide per week in 2003 to just 1.5 million in 2010. The most liberal-leaning of the former Big 3(with Time & USN&WR), was sold by the Washington Post for $1 and assumption of it's liabilities in August 2010 and merged with the news an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and this article reflects the warnings and stories about newsclowns, their ignorance, their destructiveness, their disinformation campaigns and their social status below pinworms in dogshit, that I usually get modded TROLL for by the naiive.
Newsclowns are our natural enemy and should be thwarted, mocked and abused publicly anytime anyone sees them in action. Its a load of fun to ruin live newscasts or to at least drive the lying liars and their lies away from the good people they do disservice to. Thes
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been following this pretty closely today and it honestly seems to be fairly convincing to me that he is. What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?
That's not how it works - you need to provide evidence that he is. What is the main reason you think he *is* the guy?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's at least one other Satoshi Nakamoto in the world, so it's not more likely to be this one on that basis.
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that but it's hardly an uncommon name. Uncommon in the west sure but that's about it. Hell take my real first name, there's a lot of people named thus in the west. Not so much in Japan. Take my Japanese name lots in Japan, not so much in the west. The entire thing just wants me to bang my head against the wall to make the stupid stop.
In fact, (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, there is at least one Satoshi Nakamoto in Japan who claims to be bitcoin's inventor (though nobody believes him, of course).
Re:But He Isn't (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just glad he's not a criminal... or founder of a cryptocurrency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Newsweek has already provided plenty of evidence.
No, they haven't - provide a link to the evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What, seriously? I said: Newsweek. It's the very first link in the summary, you can't find that? Fine, for your lazy ass: link [newsweek.com].
Hate to burst your bubble, but that link has no evidence whatsoever, only a lot of conjecture and speculation. As of now, there is still no evidence that this man and the bitcoin inventor are the same person.
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Informative)
What is the main thing that makes you think he isn't the BitCoin creator?
Satoshi "Bitcoin" Nakamoto was a computer scientist experienced in publishing scientific papers. He was a native English speaker with a flawless control of his writing, mixing at will American and British English to confuse his trackers. Satoshi "Old crazy dude" Nakamoto has not published anything in his life and the quotes and alleged online profiles he created for himself reveal a tenuous grasp of the English language.
Satoshi "Bitcoin" Nakamoto wrote on the first try a very complex cryptographic application in C++ that turned out to have only a handful of security bugs. We have no ideea if "Old crazy dude" can even write code, let alone of this quality.
There is basically:
- no publication history
- no proven experience in writing crypto code (let's handwave that by saying he worked for "the military")
What we do have is him believing he is Satoshi Bitcoin Nakamoto and declaring it to a journalist, i.e proof he is a old crazy guy.
False Positives (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here is false positives. If you slowly go through all the Satoshi Nakamoto's in the entire world, what is the probability that you _won't_ find one who fits the profile of a secretive computer geek? Chances are that that is basically what we are seeing here.
The list of circumstantial evidence is fairly convincing, but it must be weighted against the odds of _not_ finding such a person. If you look for a person with the name "David O'Neill" who could fit Bitcoin Satoshi's profile, odds are you will also find such a man, with just such a set of circumstantial evidence.
On top of all that, there are details of the story which, bluntly, make it seem fabricated. The line about the cop who knew about "the guy who invented bitcoin" reads conspiculously like either an embellishment or an outright fabrication
I don't think the story has much credibility. Then again, I have a pretty low opinion of journalists anyway.
P.S.
*Stands up* I'm Satoshi!!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is false positives. If you slowly go through all the Satoshi Nakamoto's in the entire world, what is the probability that you _won't_ find one who fits the profile of a secretive computer geek?
No, the problem is that the chances of finding a secretive computer geek that uses his name in his handle while hide his identity, WHILE finding the correct person matching said name is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And yet the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto's legions of followers/fanboys are denying any possibility that this is the guy. Sometimes double-bluffs work.
Re: (Score:3)
A double bluff with names is stupid. There are literally an unlimited number of names he could have chosen, and no matter what the one name GUARANTEED to get scrutiny is the one he gives.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Could be a triple bluff: he picked some random name in the phone book so that people would think he's that guy trying to double-bluff them.
Re:But He Isn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Oblig Monty Python (Score:3, Funny)
Brian: I am not the messiah!!!
Crowd: Only the true messiah would deny he is the messiah.
Brian: Ok, I'm the messiah!
Crowd: HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!
Re: (Score:3)
And what is the evidence in favor of him being "the guy"?
His name is the same as a notoriously anonymous programmers online handle and thats about it. On the other hand one of the real Satoshi's known accounts posted that he is not this guy. And has been verified as a the legit account by the forums admin.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/... [ning.com]
https://twitter.com/jdaviescoa... [twitter.com]
Re:But He Isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
> shouldn't a good researcher have looked into that?
What makes you think she's a good researcher? She writes for Newsweek for Christ's sake.
Re:But He Isn't (Score:5, Funny)
She writes for Newsweek for Christ's sake.
And there was me thinking He just wanted us to live a good life and be nice to our neighbours. Who knew?
Oblig Monty Python (Score:5, Funny)
Crowd: Only the true messiah would deny he is the messiah.
Brian: Ok, I'm the messiah.
Crowd: HE'S THE MESSIAH!!!
Personal Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Outing anybody without their permission, especially in circumstances such as where someone has done nothing wrong is incredibly unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Outing anybody without their permission, especially in circumstances such as where someone has done nothing wrong is incredibly unethical.
Hear, hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Personal Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Thought experiment: Remember that guy at Tiananmen Square? If you're not Chinese, you probably know who I mean. Would you consider it "ethical" for an American newspaper to publicise his new identity, location, family, etc.?
What if it then turns out that wasn't the guy after all? Do you consider it "ethical" to publicise all the details about some random citizen, and - at the very best - turn their life upside down, just because some journalist thinks they're probably someone important, due to finding some circumstantial evidence?
"In the public interest" is not the same thing as "interesting to the public".
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting ethical question, indeed. The thing is, anonymity lets you act without threat of retaliation. That retaliation doesn't need to come in the form of secret police or even a crazy gunman; no, in our society
Re: (Score:2)
Great timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the story is apparently wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that apparently they didn't actually discover the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto after all [arstechnica.com], I'd have to go with "no, they shouldn't have revealed anything."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And would the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto say anything different? It's pretty clear that whoever is behind bitcoin does not want the spotlight -- they could be on pretty much any media outlet they chose by now if they wanted. So why would anyone in their right mind take a denial as absolute proof that he isn't the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto, when that is more or less exactly what a reasonable person would expect the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto to do if identified?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that apparently they didn't actually discover the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto after all [arstechnica.com], I'd have to go with "no, they shouldn't have revealed anything."
Bingo and there are liabilities here.
Freedom of speech only goes so far. We all know that shouting fire
when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble. Should someone
die in the crush to exit murder becomes one of the long list of charges.
Newsweek has responsibility and owns much of the consequences
for their actions. Should there be inconveniences I can see a tort.
Should there be damages I can see civil and criminal actions.
Should there be bodily harm... jail time for all in the decision process
and
Re: (Score:3)
We all know that shouting fire when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble.
I don't think "we all" quite covers it [popehat.com].
TL;DR:
Holmes is often misquoted (more specifically, truncated). Holmes himself recanted that position later.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
what does sherlock holmes have to do with anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Sherlock, but Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The one who originally said "fire in a crowded theater".
Shachar
Re: (Score:3)
In trouble for other people's actions (the idiots who would trample others). That's because the government hates freedom and ignores the first amendment, though.
Idiots? - When you are part of a crowd of tightly packed humans that suddenly stampede in response to a universally recognised alarm call you have two choices, join in or get trampled. The only idiots in the equation are the free speech extremists who think there must be a third choice because they are absolutely convinced their dogma trumps human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
How about taking a step outside your little world where everyone acts rationally, and warnings of imminent danger or death are things to be pondered and decided upon with logic.
Humans are not vulcans, a good part of the way we deal with the world is guided by instinct, and when all your senses are telling you that there is something to fear, the instinctual part of the brain takes over. This is especially obvious in situations where information about danger is transferred by other humans, an "incoming tiger
Even if it's accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even if it's accurate (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's absolutely wrong to out someone who is actively trying to remain out of the spotlight
Let's say for argument sake that it is accurate. That is the bitcoin owner, who isn't spending any of the bitcoins.
The person does not want to talk about it. If he is serious about that, waving microphones in front of the man is NOT going to encourage him to be forthcoming with personal stories.
So what does it change? Nothing!
There is no benefit to anyone. Now if the guy wanted to open up and share stories, that is what the media is hungering for. But he isn't doing that.
The BEST thing the guy could do is say "Yes that is me. I have nothing more to say, and I don't think I ever will. Now get off my lawn." and then refuse to say anything more. In fact, judging by the story, that is EXACTLY what he did say. There is no story or controversy around it. This is just some guy who has access to something valuable.
Some of the media folk may want to ask him questions, hoping to make a buck when he shares a story, but if he chooses not to share anything they'll quickly lose interest when the next something shiny comes around.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from Newsweek's ad revenue, which probably skyrocketed after publishing this story.
Absolutely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the media is supposed to speak truth to power, an to perform these investigation and exposes on corrupt and criminal bankers, politicians, civil servants, etc, etc. Needless to say, this isn't happening.
Whoever Dorian Nakamoto is, it's clear he's not a powerful person. So this isn't journalism; it's exploitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad (Score:4, Informative)
It's just bad journalism all around. There's nothing newsworthy about chasing people around their front yard and ringing their doorbell at all hours.
Journalists used to have a little class.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's just bad journalism all around. There's nothing newsworthy about chasing people around their front yard and ringing their doorbell at all hours.
Journalists used to have a little class.
pass that shit you're smoking bro
Re: (Score:3)
Journalists used to have a little class.
No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.
Re:Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalists used to have a little class.
No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.
Come on, even Hunter S Thompson had more class than the vultures who are filling columns these days. And consider someone like Edward Murrow -- he would probably not even get a job at any major news outlet today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you under the impression that in the last 2-300 years of journalism, Hunter S Thompson or Edward Murrow are representative of the vast majority of journalists?
Hell, even the supposedly famous "Did a great job on that one famous story" types are rarely as great as their reputations suggest. Look at Bob Woodward. Is he really the Bob Woodward of Woodward and Bernstein, or a hack who reports any old crap to sell newspapers (and books)?
Maybe not exactly representative, no. My point was that even types like Thompson, who I don't think was ever especially known for his classiness, had a certain respect for his subjects. In my opinion, but of course you're welcome to disagree, that is sorely lacking these days. I consider Murrow to be an exceptional journalist, but I somehow doubt that his qualities would count for much in todays news business. For one thing he didn't really have "the looks".
Of course there have always been trash journos, if
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
From the Earth to the Moon, Episode 8, "We Interrupt This Program"
(25:40)
"Nobody wants to see a mother in pain."
"They do if it's news."
"That's not news. It's invasion of privacy."
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists used to have a little class.
Not during my 50 odd years on the planet*, before the luggable betamax cameras came onto the market in the mid 70's, jurnos would mill around people's homes with a pencil, a notepad, and maybe a camera with an enormous flash bulb attachment that recorded pictures on strips of photo-sensitive plastic called "film". At some point (about the mid 90's) the technology reached the point where we are now. ie: A one man TV camera crew can run faster with his camera equipment than a jurno can run with her high heels
Open Source (Score:2)
Abhorent (Score:5, Interesting)
I found the story abhorent. Them showing up on his porch and confronting him as he was coming through the door with cameras like he's some criminal was equally disgusting.
He's not famous, he's not a public figure, he's just some random guy they wrote a big story about and then confronted him like he's a movie star and they were paparazzi scum. I think newsweek and the people involved should burn in hell for what they did. When I read the story and saw the photo's and video I almost gagged at the complete lack of any kind of morals the people involved have for doing this. I will not be offering them any kind of future business because of this. Just like I don't frequent TMZ because of their paparazzi BS, I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
Is anybody still reading it? I thought they stopped their print edition few years ago because their circulation tanked and even online they are nowhere in the top 100 news sites. Going tabloid, like CNN, may be a desperate attempt to pull out of the death spiral.
Quote / Un-quote: (Score:2)
I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (Score:3)
The simple fact is that BitCoin is drawing a lot of mainstream media interest. Given that nobody really knows who's behind it, (and for those really suspicious of a conspiracy, what all this crowd sourced crypto is analyzing), it's certain to draw questions. Like the ST:TNG episode "Clues", we have a series of minor mysteries on our hands.
But nevertheless, it isn't clear to me that Newsweek outed the right guy. As odd as Nakamoto appeared in the article, I'm left with feeling that the reporter is the one that's acting weird.
Re:I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the value of knowing who the original creator of bitcoin is and where he is living?
I'd say there is no value.
Re:I think it's reasonable, if it was accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the value of knowing the intimate details of the lives of the Kardashians?
absolutely no value.
I can only yurn for the days when I thought it odd people were talking about Cardassians from Deep Space 9. Now that would be an interesting show I would watch religiously. A show about say Garek before being banished to Bajor and DS9 that would be worth watching as apposed to seeing what rapper/football player is knocking up a ex porn star between trips to the mall.
Hold journalists/publications accountable. (Score:3)
Too much crap in the media.
In the race to be first with the story, half of what I read in a breaking story in the first 24 hours is half speculation / utter crap presented as fact.
Generally I am for society working it out on their own ... for "journalism"... the way it has been going, I would love to see the following:
1) Mandatory and obvious front and center RETRACTIONS and CORRECTIONS when they F-up details of the story.
2) Some sort of punishment for both the journalist and the publication that present the story.
3) Funds from punishment could be used to fix the situations they caused*
*Restitution to innocent victims of bull$hit. - for example.
If a journalist does not do due diligence before releasing a story and the result is that someone's life is put at risk ... that is a very serious offence.
Yes and No (Score:2)
Yes and No but they made a mistake. DO you want folks showing up at your place?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Good luck getting me to answer the door though, and even if you do you'll never make it past the kitchen and into the basement. I've been coming in and out of my lair through a secret route -- The dishes haven't been done in a decade. The kitchen is dead to me.
No of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really not even a question that should have to be asked. Here is a man who wasn't seeking the limelight and this idiot reporter stole something from him he will never be able to fully recover.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Even asking the question is fucking stupid.
He wanted to be left alone, there is nothing the public gains from knowing his identity except some entertainment. There are cases where identifying someone serves the public good, but in this case it really serves nobody except the rag that published it.
Hiding under his real name was actually pretty smooth. I'm sure a dozen nosy reporters passed him up before because they thought that can't be.
The more I read... (Score:4, Interesting)
The more I read about Dorian Nakamoto, the more I want him to be Satoshi. That would make it an even better story.
Unfortunately as it stands, this is just a story of a journalist with an obsession and some amount of tunnel-vision. The more you want something to be true, the more blind you are to evidence against it.
At least he got a free lunch.
Whatever happened to protecting your sources? (Score:2)
Ok, suppose the media tracks the real Satoshi down, and wants to interview him. It doesn't take a lot of brains to realize that his wealth is stored in a way that could be irrevocably taken from him by two goons and a five dollar wrench. Why not ask if he'll agree to a taped interview in a secure location with his face blurred and voice distorted -- the same as we have always done for individuals whose lives are in jeopardy?
By the way, I'm not up on what can/can't be done with the blockchain, but is there
Re: (Score:2)
(I mean, yes, the real Satoshi has a blog [ning.com], but if you want to prove that you're the guy who mined the first x Bitcoins, it seems like there might be a very straightforward way using the BTC protocol itself.)
Re: (Score:3)
is there some way that the real Satoshi could affirm his existence
Why?
What does it gain anybody?
Let's say that is the guy, he didn't lose the key, and he has access to a valuable resource. So what? I know several people who are fairly wealthy, their wealth does not define them, nor does it make them inherently powerful or anything. What is the point of having them prove their wealth to someone?
About the only thing anyone would want is to hear stories. No matter if that is the man or not, the real bitcoin owner does not want to share stories. Sticking microphones in his f
Re: (Score:2)
Summary (Score:2)
It makes no difference to bitcoin ( the identity of satoshi )
It gives the journalist lady a pat on the back and a bonus maybe
It gives all the bitcoin wannabes some kinda fantasy figure
It does not help to the correct the flaws that bitcoin fundamentally has
In all, it doesn't make any difference to the world in general.
__________________________________
Bitcoin is the DOS of crypto cc's . The Unix is yet to come
Yes. No. Maybe. (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to set aside first whether or not this is Satoshi Nakamoto. Assume it was the victim of a terrible crime, or assume it was the perpetrator of that terrible crime. If you start saying it's okay for one to be outed, but not the other, you're already on shaky grounds of having to somehow define which is which in what case. You can argue "we can decide that on a case-by-case scenario", but then you'll inevitably overstep the boundaries. Doing a mea culpa and saying you're moving the boundary a bit is great for the future, but doesn't negate the overstepping that has already occurred.
So, that out of the way.. I think at the heart of it are two things:
1. The author's suggestion that this information is already public; and, given that she did indeed find the name through public records and went from there, one could argue that if it's already public, it doesn't matter that she published it all conveniently in one place.
Or does it? Considering the information was indeed public, but nobody bothered with it until this article, and considering the response it has gotten (overwhelmingly: great journalism in finding the person, questionable journalism at best in publishing the details), clearly it does matter when you start aggregating all of those bits and pieces into a single document; doxxing.
Some countries even have laws against doing that, fully acknowledging that the individual bits and pieces may well be public, but that aggregating them is not allowed.
2. Whether or not these details added anything to the story besides sensationalism. I.e. the photo of the house which included house number; would the story have been worse, or less believable, etc. if that had been blurred out? While the internet sleuthing machine would undoubtedly have found the address without that bit of information eventually, it would certainly have taken substantially longer. Imagine next that there were no picture of the house, merely a description that the person lived in just an ordinary house. Now the internet sleuthing machine (and that includes other media) have a monumental task ahead of them; it could be any house in the city mentioned. Would you have taken the author's word for it, though? The evidence that they had found the person they were after would have to be a lot stronger to lend weight to words than does a picture - human nature tends to do that.
Think of interviewees who agree upon the interview as long as they are not identified and are made unrecognizable (silhouette shots at best, voice warbled). This could be anybody making up any sort of story. The reason we often trust these interviews anyway is because what facts said can be verified, and because we tend to trust the interviewer based on their reputation.
We generally don't say "well unless I can see the person's face and hear what they sound like, I'm going to dismiss this interview".
You have to think to yourself how low the trust in the author of this piece has to be, and how shaky the facts on the actual subject material ("is this person Satoshi Nakamoto?") , that they saw no other recourse than to release personal details that could be verified instead ("we don't know truly if this is Satoshi Nakamoto, but it is 'A Guy', and 'A Guy' can be found here, go ahead and look him up for proof that it is 'A Guy'").
Reputable investigative journalists usually allow people who don't want to be found to remain 'not found', no matter how much bits and pieces of public information end up pointing to them; be that victims or perpetrators of terrible crimes. Without that, they're just the next doxxing TMZ, chasing people downs streets with cameras and pummeling them with leading questions.
Note that I'm just as opposed to doxxing of the author in question. While it seems like just deserts, it's really just perpetuating the problem. Rather than attacking the author, it would be more interesting to get an in-depth interview with her on her motives, thoughts (before/during/after), etc.
All I can say (Score:2)
is that if this the Satoshi Nakamoto of BitCoin fame, the Newsweek has just doubled his wealth.
If he hasn't then Newsweek has just made him as wealthy as the other Nakamoto.
NO (Score:5, Insightful)
As Eleanor Roosevelt said: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Lets get back to discussing Bitcoin..... the idea.
It all looks very circumstantial anyway (Score:2)
Man wants privacy. Jerk reporter outs him anyways. (Score:4)
"News at 11."
That's the whole story folks. The fact that he did something notable doesn't remove his right to privacy.
JD Salinger (Score:2)
For all of you arguing that college requirements for non-technical courses are BS, this is a great counter-example. If you have no idea of what _Catcher in the Rye_ is, nor who Salinger is, then you are at a disadvantage vs. the Harvard (etc) graduates.
Perfect Storm, timing everything at others expense (Score:2)
They'd been investigating this guy for months. A combination of things led to this story being exposed. Newsweek were about to make a print comeback, Mt Gox went under the journalist (and her two "forensic analyst" sidekicks) had to print something. End result a media ready to run with anything true or not, lots of web hits to Newseek, poor guy being harassed. Newsweek win in the short.
Right to be left alone (Score:2)
I thought it was David Chaum (Score:3)
Though unless there's a cryptography + programming + economics expert who's known by almost no one - which is pretty damn unlikely - then there's only a limited number of people it could be anyway and from what I've read he's the #1 suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
To come up with something as sophisticated as bitcoin would take more than the usual type of bedroom coder who knocks up some social network site. So I'm afraid I don't believe he's some lone genius who's managed to stay under the radar and then suddenly amazes the world with his invention. He's almost certainly a known polymath expert.
People keep saying Bitcoin is legitimate ... (Score:3)
and yet millions of dollars have gone missing and the Bitcoin inventor apparently requires anonymity?
Probably not. (Score:2)
Since when has Newsweek been known for journalism? As with most tabloid pieces, this one is 95% speculation and hearsay.
I found the article distasteful and inconclusive.
If Newsweek could find him... (Score:2)
I don't follow bitcoin enough to know one way or another, but there's a commonly stated idea that the guy who invented bitcoin is sitting on a big stash of coins because he was able to mine them when it was much easier to do so.
If that's true or even if it's a strong maybe, if Newsweek could find him then presumably anyone motivated enough, good motive or bad, could find him, and the idea that he's sitting on a lot of bitcoin ought to be a big motivation for black hats to find him. And by black hats, I don
Some clues about the real inventor of bit coin (Score:2)
He's not Satoshi Nakamoto (Score:2)
Software development model. (Score:3)
News reporting, whatever little there is left with all the talking head crap, has adopted the software development model. Post a story in "beta" so that you can beat everyone else to the punch; although, sometimes the errors are so blatant it's probably more akin to an alpha release. By the time the appropriate fixes come along the damage is done and everyone has moved on.
There's no accountability whatsoever. But what do you expect in a culture driven by celebrity and craving the next sensationalistic fix like a drug addict?
Re: (Score:2)
her car etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's 90% incompetence. More like 45% incompetence and 45% actively pushing any sensationalist BS that will sell with no regard for the truth.
Now we have the internet with it's easy access to information it's become obvious just how must rubbish professional journalists spew.
Re: (Score:2)
Those people live(d) different lifestyles "appropriate" for their wealth. Their residence, for example, was somewhat different than a suburb house that's essentially trivial to break into. Also, the Bitcoin business is a little richer on violent criminals than IT.