New Yorker Reporter May Have Uncovered Secretive Bitcoin Creator
from the in-the-clear dept
There's been plenty of press attention on Bitcoin over the last six to eight months, and many talk about how Bitcoin came about in a rather secretive manner by someone going by the name "Satoshi Nakamoto," who then basically disappeared. No one seems to know who Nakamoto is. However, in a new New Yorker article (mostly hidden behind a paywall), reporter Joshua Davis may have tracked down Nakamoto. While the New Yorker is going to lose traffic and interest in this story by not putting it online, it's opened up the opportunity for others, such as the folks at Planet Money, who have the key details: including the belief that "Nakamoto" is likely a guy named Michael Clear.So Davis, the author of the New Yorker story, emails Clear.The other key point is that Clear points out a weakness in the Bitcoin code: encryption for wallets. When Planet Money's Jacob Goldstein asks another Bitcoin expert about what's new in Bitcoin, the guy points out that the latest version... has wallet encryption."I like to keep a low profile," Clear replies. "I'm curious to know how you found me."
Davis eventually cuts to the chase:
Finally, I asked, "Are you Satoshi?"
He laughed, but didn't respond. There was an awkward silence.
"If you like, I'd be happy to review the design for you," he offered instead. "I could let you know what I think."
"Sure," I said hesitantly. "Do you need me to send you a link to the code?"
"I think I can find it," he said.
In the end, Clear says he's not the guy — but his denial leaves the door open just a crack:
"I'm not Satoshi," Clear said. "But even if I was I wouldn't tell you."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bitcoin, currency, michael clear, satoshi nakamoto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A: More transparency. Tax evasion is much harder. Black markets are much more difficult. There is far more transaction traceability.
B: Forgery is much more difficult.
In some ways it gives governments more control, in other ways it gives them less.
At the same time it does have its drawbacks, which are being worked on (ie: the lack of wallet encryption, which has been discussed by me and others on Techdirt, can make it easier for people who gain access to a computer to gain access to someones bitcoins. That's now being/been corrected).
It might not do away with regular money, which also has its pluses and minuses, but it might turn into an international currency that works alongside regular money. Maybe not Bitcoin itself, but perhaps Bitcoin is a precursor to something else to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spi ral
a currency that can be created out of thin air by everyone interested in doing so, that should be easy enough to make sure your millions don't turn in to ones.
When you have to adjust your currency based on the market, rather than adjusting the market based on currency, something seems very amiss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and processor time requires money. It requires computer use (which takes up electricity), the cost of paying for computers, opportunity cost of those CPU cycles, the space required to store those computers, etc...
and Bitcoin already controls for increased future processor speeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/06/bitcoin-value-plummets-as-main.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But my post wasn't addressing the economic side of the debate since that's not the issue you brought up. It was addressing the technical side.
Two basic ways inflation can happen. The creation of more money (all other things constant), or the production of fewer goods (all other things constant). Bitcoin controls for the former, which was the point that you raised and the point that I was addressing.
Other ways 'inflation' can happen is simply the adoption of a new currency (which can inflate, or devalue, the old currency) or simply the public attribution of less value for a given unit of currency (though I'm not sure how much these possibilities meet the definition of 'inflation'?). Currency has ascribed value, the reason that a hundred dollar bill is worth more than a one dollar bill is purely artificial. Bitcoin can't control for how much value we ascribe to those coins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suppose I need DH to author, or Marcus to pen a rhyme entitled:
"technical flaws -vs- implementation flaws -vs- ridiculous market fluctuations in a digital currency"
so that i can start telling them apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, what you said was,
"a currency that can be created out of thin air by everyone interested in doing so"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your links
"Deflationary spiral is an economic argument ..."
[emphasis added]
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral
Then, when I addressed that issue, you went off on a tangent about a technical issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you went off on a tangent about a technical issue.
yeah, i was as lost as you were in your posts. The contention that 'mining' is somehow built in to the system and the future abilities to do so forecast, and that is somehow related to its inflation....is not something i could not readily believe as i cannot place that much faith in any piece of code, so i gave examples highlighting the waterfall effect to the market, when technical flaws are exposed upstream. And they will be exposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't lost, I was merely addressing your posts. No one here got lost besides you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
because chances are the only thing you will address (again) is the smarm with which i litter the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example, see "the number of bitcoins in existence will never exceed 21 million"
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_Currency_Supply
To address your "a currency that can be created out of thin air by everyone interested in doing so" comment. It's not that simple. Entities can't simply create unlimited bitcoins at will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's like saying the US dollar is worthless because Paypal got hacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
..Ive seen other advocates boast of the artificial ceiling of 21 million coins. And i can only see that continuing to keep the market shallow enough to be influenced by single trading events such as these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If China stopped pegging the yuan to the dollar tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the values of the yuan and dollar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If anybody had that we would have trillionares by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suspect Bitcoin will be no different. The government can implement it and simply tax more. It can implement it and start banning more products and better enforce the abolition of black markets to products that it doesn't like. Sure there are ways around it (ie: I'll pretend I'm selling you x when I'm selling you y, an alternative currency can be used, but such limitations make markets less efficient; there is also bartering, which is also less efficient), but that requires more work and can more easily raise suspicion, especially with people who have a history of something. and Bitcoin use still lets the government know more about how much money you earn, spend, and where it goes, where it comes from, which can make it easier for them to figure out what you're doing regardless. Such information is also great for marketers and can pose a huge privacy concern.
So the solution to our monetary and other problems isn't 'bitcoin' or 'digital money', it's a having a reasonable non-oppressive government. There is no easy solution, we still need to go out there and protest, vote, assemble, keep ourselves informed, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe a look at who would oppose bitcoin is more telling than how the government might oppose it. Sure, they can try to buy more bitcoins, increasing the value. Just the same that people can buy more gold and it raises the value.
I believe the ones opposed are the ones tied to the current system of borrowing money, ie the Federal Reserve Bank. Otherwise, bitcoins sound pretty good to use and I just don't understand how the government could even know what your money is without infringing on your rights to privacy and anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All copy protections can be circumvented, and nobody found a way to stop that, everything can be copied.
In the monetary realm, people will trade with the coin that it is easiest for them and in a global market, if you like it or not, solutions to the problem for different currencies and values will appear with or without government approval this is not something that will be negotiated behind closed doors, this is something that you can see happening before your eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is a mark against it being officially adopted. The government and (especially) big business absolutely require the existence of a viable black market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silk Road?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bitcoin would be perfect, it doesn't create a currency that can be manipulated centrally and all participants have their own currencies that they translate to that one value.
It would be like an overlay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York Reporter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who gives a crap about bitcoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have no problems with Bitcoins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Saga of BitCoin
What BitCoin really and truly needed yesterday is an adjunct:
A communication methodology whereby BitCoin can operate alternately over the Internet *and* also through it's own adhoc network comprised of both wifi routers and individual computers linked peer-to-peer. Something akin to a BitCoin VPN.
This will help to avoid the inevitable attacks by government (sovereign or shadow) upon BitCoin. Both obvious (arbitrary declaration of illegality, etc) and surreptitious (propaganda and slander, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Saga of BitCoin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitcoin via Tor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitcoin via Tor
Besides fears of backdoors, the most popular conspiracy theory is that they wanted to build out a network of anonymous communications in order to shield their own spies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]