= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Pfft comments on Amanda Knox Redux: is Satoshi Nakamoto the real Satoshi Nakamoto? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (54)
Does the fact that the Satoshi Nakamoto account denied it really add any confidence beyond knowing that Dorian Nakamoto denied it? If they were the same, he could issue a denial through both channels.
My gut instinct would be that Satoshi denying it actually makes it more probable that it's Dorian, given that we've had other suspects before but Satoshi has never bothered commenting on them. If nothing else, there's something about Dorian that makes him interesting to Satoshi in a way that hasn't been true for any previous suspect.
My response to that is never before has a Satoshi proposal led to a scrum of reporters on a target's front lawn, and also none of them have been sick or old (except Finney). If Satoshi was ever going to deny it, of the targets so far, Dorian is the best. And there's an additional factor here: Satoshi may feel directly responsible for Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto's problems, given that he could have chosen a globally unique pseudonym (it's not that hard) but failed to do so and so put people like Dorian at risk. This is untrue of any suggestions about Wei Dai, Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, etc.
(This has, incidentally, been a good reminder of why I don't post my Satoshi research publicly, and generally limit my comments to debunking proposals.)
Despite the fact that I would personally be very interested in this research, I would like to endorse this as a good policy.
If you don't mind sharing, what was the reason for research, besides curiosity?
The usual: curiosity; deriving security lessons; research practice; prolonged & severe irritation with the incompetence of other Satoshi hunters; the outside chance of undying renown & deathless fame.
EDIT: Seth Robert furnishes a handy example of the crappy reasoning & rampant confirmation bias in such discussions: http://blog.sethroberts.net/2014/03/11/nick-szabo-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-inventor-of-bitcoin/
Thank you. I asked because I don't understand other people's attraction to personal details like this. Nothing specific to Satoshi or bitcoin.
In case you haven't seen it, here's a great piece about Hal Finney, which includes the strongest arguments I've seen so far about why he's not Satoshi (despite the author's initial suspicions):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/
Yes, I too agree Finney is less likely to be Satoshi than is commonly assumed. Mostly based on the early emails to each other - it beggars belief that Satoshi would set up two accounts, sockpuppet them talking to each other, find crashing bugs as one account and report it with debug logs to the other account, etc. Satoshi was trying to be pseudonymous, but nothing suggests he was so paranoid that he would resort to such ruses and stratagems that early on.
Good points.
Was Dorian back home from his day out with reporters yet?