I initially compiled this prior to Dorian's definitive written denial. Prior to that development, it genuinely seemed like the Newsweek article was going to (a) simply fade into obscurity and (b) never be retracted. The possibility of "b" was unacceptable, because without a final nail in the coffin, most news organizations would still treat it as though it were legitimate – e.g. referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so on.
I think Dorian's written denial probably served as that final nail, but I still released this because despite the denials, I think Newsweek easily could have done the same research I did in compiling this, and come to this conclusion before they published the feature and damaged their rep.
Often in relation to, say news stories or other controversial claims or ideas, the public have an interest in knowing which of conflicting versions is true, but lack access to primary sources of info. Then people who need to make a "best guess" are forced to rather subjectively estimate the plausibility of various statements, based on more subjective factors including estimates of general credibility of sources.
In such cases, it's probably best to make explicit the grounds for any conclusion - it clarifies for oneself, and may enable improvement by allowing others to review the estimates.
That is a correct way to refer to him, even if you didn't believe it was him.
al·leged
əˈlejd/
adjective
adjective: alleged
1. (of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
"the alleged conspirators"
synonyms: supposed, so-called, claimed, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven
How the heck else would you refer to him? Someone publicly alleged him to be the Bitcoin founder.
The question the article is interested in, is whether they should have known that they were wrong, before publishing. I think that was already a pretty obvious YES before this matrix was compiled, but there's some value in systematizing it.
Also to me the sending of a letter "via lawyer" seems fairly suspicious, adding some air of legal legitimacy to the claims without actually suing Newsweek or taking action that would open the issue up to real legal discovery.
What do you think he can (successfully) sue over?
If he had simply made a simple denial he would be more believable. There is no need for blatant deception in your own denial.
The harder Satoshi's denials are, the more I think
Newsweek was on to something here.
We put up with it because it's still easy enough for us to cognitively delude ourselves that there are still "good" outlets left, that conveniently line up with our personal partisan political views.
Journalism is no longer the art of being right, it's the art of being first.
Oh come on now. Totally unfair.
"Unless they derive personal pleasure from it"
What's wrong if they do? What do people gain from watching football or answering other peoples questions at no charge on stack exchange?
"just write the author off forever as a journalist"
Are you saying the OP or the journalist at Newsweek?
Anyway I thought it was an excellent analysis (assuming of course the base facts are true...)
Your top comment is a put down in the vein of "anyone important wouldn't have time to do something like this". Like something a parent says to a child not recognizing that they might enjoy and gain benefit from something that the parent doesn't understand.
(I meant the newsweek author should be written off as a journalist. And probably as a human being.)
He did an exceptionally good and thorough job in debunking it here, but he's also one of the ~10 most important people in Bitcoin, so I'm just kind of sad if he felt obligated to do this. If he did it because it was fun for him personally, then great.