Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#41

Post by declan »

ZoF wrote: post #15
willvarfar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

repercussions? None that I know of. But this letter looks to be setting the stage for some legal action against Newsweek. She re-launched Newsweek in print, though, so presumably she got lots of hoped-for money.

What does "re-launching" mean in this context?

Newsweek may share the same name as the nearly century-old newsweekly, but it's no longer the same, ah, beast.

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.]

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#42

Post by declan »

abvdasker wrote: post #37

I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it. Because this guy is not a public persona they would probably otherwise be guilty of libel. -- 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…

Um, remember Newsweek's under different management. See my other post nearby.

And it's not "guilty of" libel; it's more like "liable for defamation."

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#44

Post by voxic11 »

ZoF wrote: post #15
willvarfar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

repercussions? None that I know of. But this letter looks to be setting the stage for some legal action against Newsweek. She re-launched Newsweek in print, though, so presumably she got lots of hoped-for money.

What does "re-launching" mean in this context?

Newsweek used to have a print edition that was discontinued some time ago. They just started it back up again and her article was the frontpage of the first print edition since it was discontinued, hence relaunching.

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#45

Post by Crito »

VMG wrote: post #36
345723 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. I would put absolutely NOTHING past the original architect. Honestly, I would expect nothing else.

> I would put absolutely NOTHING past the original architect. An thus create a unfalsifiable, worthless hypothesis. Al Gore could be Satoshi then.

My girlfriend works at a bakery. She swears that one day an elderly Elvis and Tupac came in together, bought some pastries with bitcoin, then told her they invented the entire thing.

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#46

Post by declan »

danso wrote: post #33

This is not looking good for Newsweek. For Dorian to give such a flat unconditional denial means: 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…

> Either way, Newsweek better have a trump card

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?

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#47

Post by gamblor956 »

abvdasker wrote: post #37

I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it. Because this guy is not a public persona they would probably otherwise be guilty of libel. -- 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…

Newsweek is not guilty of libel or defamation because those are torts for which criminal "guilt" is meaningless. Newsweek would not be liable for libel or defamation because being labeled the creator of Bitcoin is generally not something that would harm one's reputation.

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.)

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#49

Post by 345723 »

jere wrote: post #21
345723 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. I would put absolutely NOTHING past the original architect. Honestly, I would expect nothing else.

>Honestly, I would expect nothing else. 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 ?

> You would expect the original architect to confess to being involved and then deny it hours later.

Yes. Yes, I would.

Re: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto Denies All Bitcoin Ties in Verified Letter Via Lawyer

#50

Post by atmosx »

abvdasker wrote: post #37

I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it. Because this guy is not a public persona they would probably otherwise be guilty of libel. -- 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…

> I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it.

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.

Post reply on HN