61–70 of 106 posts
Here is what doesn't make sense about Dorian Nakamoto being the Satoshi behind bitcoin: 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…
I've been wondering, will the word Dorian, real Satoshi or not, find its way into Bitcoin language? Like Satoshi being the smallest amount of Bitcoin.
We'll call a transaction with 0 confirmations a "Dorian".
Let's call invalid transactions "Dorian"
I've been wondering, will the word Dorian, real Satoshi or not, find its way into Bitcoin language? Like Satoshi being the smallest amount of Bitcoin.
1 dorian = 100 satoshi
Here is what doesn't make sense about Dorian Nakamoto being the Satoshi behind bitcoin: 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…
This whole thing reminded me of the lesswrong.com post on Amanda Knox [1] 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 w…
This gave some justification for initially accepting the story at face value.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 don't have to be mentally ill to act mentally ill. The charade has pretty much removed all credence to the idea that he is the creator of bitcoin. Perhaps that's what he wants.
>Shortly thereafter the reporter confronted me at my home. I called the police. That reporter is such a scumbag. What repercussions did she face?
The ethics here are very questionable. Wtf - you just find some dude, based on no real evidence, then you "out" him for something that's not criminal and give the internet trolls his whereabouts? What could be more "yellow press"? I really wish their ass got sued.
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.
> We are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. 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.