The man who Newsweek named as the inventor of Bitcoin has hired a lawyer in a bid to clear his name. Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto of Temple City, California, has released a statement in which he claimed to be so skint that he couldn't even afford an internet connection. He "unconditionally" denied the Newsweek report. Seeing as the …
Nakamoto admitted he had the ability to write computer code, but had been unable to find work as a programmer or engineer for 10 years. This "severe financial distress" caused Nakamoto to cut off his internet connection last year.........
"My prospects for gainful employment has been harmed because of Newsweek's article,"
Not sure how these two tally up!
Agreed. If I was a judge I'd throw the case out of court based on that alone.
Re: Too poor for internet
"no win, no fee". Look it up.
Jesus, I see the rocket surgeons are in the house today...
Let's look at it in terms of probability, something we all ought to be comfortable with, right? ;)
[Note: entirely made-up, ill-considered, plucked-out-of-thin-air numbers follow, purely for illustrative purposes.]
Probability of him getting a programming job before the story broke: 0.0007
Probability of him getting a programming job now: 0.000000002
Probability of him getting any job now that's better than bussing tables, punching data or however he currently is supporting himself and his family: 0.000004
Unless you assert his chances were absolute zero before the article (hard to back up, statistically), then yes, the article hurt his employment prospects.
On the other hand, ISTR the previous article mentioned that his response to the journo who doorstepped him was: "I'm not involved in that any more", so if that's on tape and not bullshit, he may have his work cut out.
I'd of thought the skills writing a crypto currency would make him very employable.
"I'm not involved in that any more"
He has said that he was referring to programming, not bitcoin.
He speaks English as a second language (far better then I can speak any language other then English, mind you, so my hat's off to the man), so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt there.
Both he, and the holder(s) of the cert that signed the original posts have said he's not it. Not to mention, with all the trouble he went to to avoid being tracked, using part of his own name for the handle would be surprising.
If he hasn't been able to get an IT job for 10 years then his financial loss can't be that great.
Re: If he hasn't been able to get an IT job for 10 year
.. he's (I suppose) quite likely been doing some different kind of job, something now significantly affected by this publicity, hence leading to financial loss.
To me, the problem is really simple: the guy wants to be left alone.
Did he invented the maths behind bitcoin? May be. May be not.
It doesn't matter.
Why the insistence on exposing someone to the world?
Leave the guy alone!
Correct. Unfortunately, now he's hired a lawyer, everyone must hate him. I read that in a manual somewhere.
A) There's a manual for life???!! Why isn't this more generally known?
2) You read the manual. -10 man points.
Why would you invest your money and time into a currency nobody wants to claim the credit for?
He's not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy.
Note to DrewC and J. Hamill: May I suggest that comments on this thread be moderated, so as to avoid all the unnecessary, uninformative, unhelpful, hurtful, disrespectful, and frankly childish sniping at the subject of this story?
For the life of me, I cannot imagine how any half-decent person would try to make fun of or belittle a 64 year old unemployed person, especially one they have never met or know anything about.
My personal benchmark is if I wouldn't say something to the face to a fit young lad that can beat me to a pulp, I will not say it at all to anyone else--and I'm a boxer. Is this too much to ask?
> Note to DrewC and J. Hamill: May I suggest that comments on this thread be moderated, so as to avoid all the unnecessary, uninformative, unhelpful, hurtful, disrespectful, and frankly childish sniping at the subject of this story?
Seconded without reservation.
"and I'm a boxer"
Oooh, subtle threats of violence. Classy.
Oooh, subtle threats of violence. Classy.
I would say it's more like an assertion that the OP has some restraint. As in "I won't go insulting you regardless of how big and hard I may or may not be."
I certainly don't see where the threat is, subtle or otherwise.
> I would say it's more like an assertion that the OP has some restraint. As in "I won't go insulting you regardless of how big and hard I may or may not be."
Correct, Sir. Taking on someone weaker than yourself just makes you a bully and a coward.
"May I suggest that comments on this thread be moderated, so as to avoid all the unnecessary, uninformative, unhelpful, hurtful, disrespectful, and frankly childish sniping at the subject of this story?"
If you don't want to read unhelpful, sniping, childish, disrespectful posts then don't read the comments section. Because that's kind of what we do, generally.
Just because the subject of the article elicits a degree of sympathy in you it doesn't warrant the mods stepping in and censoring anything 'unhelpful'. We're regularly up to the waist in offensive, unhelpful comments, misogyny and Joey Deacon gags*, yet I've never seen you wading in and asking for us to be nice before. That either means that you're new or that you believe it's fine to rip on things that you want to rip on, but somehow the object of your sympathy is a sacred cow.
It's not like anything or anyone else is a sacred cow here and immune from passing comment on, nor have they ever been (and I'm pretty sure that if they were then we'd be making comments about pepper sauce). I wouldn't like to see the yellow cards dished out on the basis of some very light banter which would pass without comment on any other thread, at the expense of anyone else.
*Remember those, eh. Jumpers for goalpoasts, sixteen nil the score and Dangermouse on thetele.
Fairy snuff, I overthought that one a bit.
I thought everything was lightly moderated anyway?
Just because your comment is not normally moderated, it doesn't mean that it has to be offensive. I'm as guilty as the next man of the odd childish, or trolling comment, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people here taking the piss out of an elderly stroke victim for not having a job, because they think it's big and clever.
To quote my favourite character from A Game of Thrones - "there's no cure for being a cunt". But there is a cure for having to watch other people be cunts to some poor old bloke who just wants to be left alone.
And you know what? If he did invent Bitcoins, it'd be a "so what" situation anyway. He's broke. It's not like there's anything to be jealous of unless you think being skint and recovering from a stroke is like totally rad and awesome.
As far as I can see, an ordinary member of the public who hasn't bothered anyone is being insulted for absolutely no reason other than that some people are cunts.
Personally, I'd ban 'em all.
"My personal benchmark is if I wouldn't say something to the face to a fit young lad that can beat me to a pulp, I will not say it at all to anyone else--and I'm a boxer."
Logically, this means that as the vast majority of fit young lads would not be able to beat you to a pulp, what with you being a trained martial artist, you can be as rude as you like to absolutely anyone. Unless you're a crap boxer.
"but that doesn't change the fact that there are people here taking the piss out of an elderly stroke victim for not having a job, because they think it's big and clever."
That's true, and taking the rip out of someone who is both benign and less fortunate is generally unpleasant. (Especially if it's not actually funny. I'm willing to give a lot of slack if it's funny, but a lot less if it's just nasty)
Personally, I'm a big fan of letting arseholes say what they like. It reflects on them, not the subject of their ire. It's why I fully support UKIP and the NF et al being invited onto Newsnight; so everyone can see what dicks they are by means of them demonstrating it with their own words.
However, in this case, I only noted after the fact that the mods had already sprung into action, and that my rant had come in the wake of censure. So while I was writing based on a 'what's even the problem?!' mindset, there probably was a problem, given that the mods here seldom get stuck in unless things have gone way too far.
Read again the bit you quoted, Spleen.
Spleen's interpretation is correct.
Newsweek? That's still around?
Re: Newsweek? That's still around?
Apparently it is. I have to say that the article "conducted under the same high editorial and ethical standards that have guided Newsweek for more than 80 years", complete with a picture of the guy's house and car (and his own likeness) is a sad reflection of the state of journalism in the US. I don't believe even a tabloid like The Register would fall so low in its quest to attract a few readers' attention.
According to a journalist friend of mine in Spain, an article like this would squarely expose the author to prosecution under Spanish privacy laws ("derecho a la intimidad"). The article could have just given generic details about its subject while preserving its privacy. I realise sensitivities are different on both sides of the Atlantic, but that is just cheap voyeurism.
Re: Newsweek? That's still around?
Back. Or so I heard, though I can't imagine it'll be for long.
Zombie Newsweek, just waiting for a spade to the head.
This does not surprise me.
Not after the 'trial' of Joanna Yates' landlord. Newspapers are like those people you occasionally meet who have a phobia of losing arguments (presumably perceiving this as a loss of face) and, once they've locked onto something, they'll just keep going on and on and on regardless of anything that contradicts their line.
It should be mandatory for the 'corrections' section of the newspaper to be on the front page with a minimum font size.
Re: This does not surprise me.
> It should be mandatory for the 'corrections' section of the newspaper to be on the front page with a minimum font size.
Meanwhile in France...
Was this instead, meant to be the provided further info link?
Something like this ... group ... makes more sense - if anything about coins makes any sense at all - than a model train enthusiast with a dodgy prostate. Maybe ...
can haz tuppence
My 2p- I don't think this guy is The Satoshi based on the fact that he's an unemployed dev. If he had the wit to cook up the bitcoin protocol he would've been able to program it as well. I think The Satoshi is a mathematician or cryptography boffin, that fits better with the subject matter and manner of publishing it.
If he's really invented Bitcoin he'd be rich enough to buy a new identity, a private island, a Learjet, and wouldn't be working for a living (or trying to find work at an age when most of us would prefer to be retired)
He's also been made the target for a large group of idiots who have lost a lot of money, one or two of whom may be psychopathically vengeful.
Good luck to him with the lawsuit. I hope he doesn't just get the record put straight, but a large settlement. Unless, of course, Newsweek's story is true. (I doubt it. More likely, just make up the story about a small guy who can't defend himself. This smells just like the News of the World did, until it stank too much for even Murdoch to defend).
Re: Get real
"If he's really invented Bitcoin he'd be rich enough to buy a new identity, a private island, a Learjet [...]"
And to hire an out-of-work 64 year old man to move into his old house and answer to the name of Satoshi Nakamoto if any reporters come by.
From what I've seen of the story behind the story it would certainly seem that due diligence was missing and intentional misinterpretation of quotes were abundant in the writing of the article that named him as the Bitcoin creator. I don't have anywhere near the full picture, of course, but from the bit of it I do have it looks like a slam dunk libel case at the very least. No doubt the rest of the picture will come out in court (unless Newsweek settles).
I hope he sues
If the guy is telling the truth and it appears that he is, then I hope he sues Newsweek and collects as three times money that Newsweek has derived from a flase story plus punitive damages.
It's quite possible
that this is a "made up" name, a red herring, by the Bitcoin folks to keep whatever 3-letter agency you care to name off their backs. I've read that the guy/gal who came up with original code is a mathematician, or developer, or just a genius. No confirmation.
However, this is the American Press giving the American People what they want: a face, a name, rapid fire questions by 50 reporters (note: reporters are not journalists, IMO) to the point were the victim will blurt out anything in a futile attempt to get them out of his face. Geraldo, the 60 minutes guys, and a few others have pioneered this approach and mostly it gives them flashy airtime and occasionally substance. Suing does no good... think about the Streisand Effect.
All in all, it's pretty sad statement about the press and those who read it. I won't even begin to mention how far down the food chain some of the comments have been.
Personally, I hope the guy did invent it and has several millions tucked away and this is his idea of a fun week. But it's probably not him and he should be left alone, in peace.
"However, this is the American Press giving the American People what they want..."
I'm curious to know where it is that you think that the press is any different.
Newsweek can no longer rely on it's reputation...
...when it publishes crap like this:
With that article, it decided to trade in a lot of credibility for a lot of clicks. Unfortunately, that credibility is now gone and means I am much less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. And nor should any wise person.
"Let Me Tell You How It Will Be; There's One For You,.."
"Seeing as the person, or people, who go under the name Satoshi are reckoned to own more than a million Bitcoins, it is extremely unlikely that the real inventor of the cryptocurrency would be short of a bob or two."
Well, what's the likelihood that the person or people who go under the name Satoshi are doing their damnedest to hide them from the taxman, eh?
Hold on here
He's so broke that he has to hire a lawyer to clear his good name? Smells of a heaping pile of horseshit. The last time I had to hire legal help the gentleman wanted to be paid up front win, lose or draw. What's this clown been doing to keep the lights on? Working with the 'geek squad' at the local Best Buy?
Your average ambulance chaser
works on a no win - no fee basis.
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook