Linguistic Analysis Says Newsweek Named The Wrong Man As Bitcoin's Creator(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Linguistic Analysis Says Newsweek Named The Wrong Man As Bitcoin's Creator
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/03/10/data-analysis-says-newsweek-named-the-wrong-man-as-bitcoins-creator/
64 comments
Where did you read that he does not have internet at his home? Do you have a link? I've been keeping pretty up to date on this story, but I haven't heard that anywhere else. If true that is pretty damning evidence I think.
Pretty damning indictment of Newsweek if this is what passes for "investigative journalism" there.
We're talking about Newsweek here.
Remember the "Heaven is real!" cover? (https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/10/heaven-real-doctors-expe...)
Remember "The Fall of France"? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-sinclair/france-newsweek-...)
Remember the "Heaven is real!" cover? (https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/10/heaven-real-doctors-expe...)
Remember "The Fall of France"? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-sinclair/france-newsweek-...)
The Cuckoo's Calling was identified as being Rowling's work due to the fact her lawyer leaked it, the fact this analyst is claiming credit for it (but is carefully worded to allow for multiple readings) doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their ability.
Yes, still, someone could leak "Book X is by Author A" regardless of it being true.
The main issue are the candidates. However, I believe that for this type of analysis exclusion of a certain candidate is much more reliable than finding the one who did it (as the article exemplifies)
The main issue are the candidates. However, I believe that for this type of analysis exclusion of a certain candidate is much more reliable than finding the one who did it (as the article exemplifies)
There was a recent episode of House of Cards where the protagonists were exposed in the media over something. They came up with a false cover story, but they also deliberately bungled their response (asked another party to deny the claims completely, then somewhat contracted them in their own statement). The reasoning was that people would smell a cover up if everything was too neat.
I wonder if Dorian Satoshi used the same tactic. Once a journalist discovers him, he tacitly admits to being the Bitcoiner, then in his next public statement retracts this and says it was a misunderstanding. Now everyone's going about saying the real Satoshi would never have responded to the journalist like that.
Probably not but arguably it would be the best way to handle the situation if you wanted the story to blow over.
I wonder if Dorian Satoshi used the same tactic. Once a journalist discovers him, he tacitly admits to being the Bitcoiner, then in his next public statement retracts this and says it was a misunderstanding. Now everyone's going about saying the real Satoshi would never have responded to the journalist like that.
Probably not but arguably it would be the best way to handle the situation if you wanted the story to blow over.
Given that he did at first admit to being previously involved, you just might be on to something..
His "admission" was very, very weak.
"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."
Or the reporter was talking about his previous work, and took the quote completely out of context. Or the reporter was told to deliver the story, and just plain lied. Have you ever dealt with an actual reporter?
> For all we know he was confused and thought she was talking about his previous, possibly classified, work.
If we're going to play that game, for all we know, bitcoin was his previous, classified work, and there is no confusion at all.
If we're going to play that game, for all we know, bitcoin was his previous, classified work, and there is no confusion at all.
> For all we know he was confused and thought she was talking about his previous, possibly classified, work.
Which is precisely the explanation he gave to AP
Which is precisely the explanation he gave to AP
Given that he did not really admit to it, but that the journalist chose a quote where there were only pronouns and not the word "BitCoin," my guess would be that this is not the tactic that he employed. It would rely too much on the reporter exactly quoting ambiguous phrasing and also giving it the desired interpretation.
What terrible UI on that website. I think in 2014 we know how to scroll already and don't need a full page pop-over to explain it.
I was just thinking about this earlier today. I realized that most desktop websites were plenty readable on my early smart phones and tablets. Now, the tablet and mobile designed sites are barely usable. Some just crash the browser. The touch buttons are out of place. Mobile install rollovers block basic UI spots.
The number of sites I don't read on mobile anymore is increasing.
The number of sites I don't read on mobile anymore is increasing.
Does anyone knows enough about the stylometry to judge if letters to editors and a letter to a local government can really be compared to a white paper? It seems to me that in tones, style and vocabulary, these are very different format which would not yield good result.
Has the expert actually ever tried his technique to infer the author of a white paper based on sample of correspondence?
Has the expert actually ever tried his technique to infer the author of a white paper based on sample of correspondence?
I don't know about "stylometry", but textual analysis is definitely a field that is grounded in statistics and probability.
And here's an excellent textual analysis of Satoshi's writing -- really quite convincing: https://likeinamirror.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/satoshi-nakam...
The verdict? Nick Szabo, a professor of computer science at GWU and trained attorney, with significant expertise in the digital economy and smart contracts. He's got a fascinating blog at: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/
To be honest, I was convinced by this particular analysis back in December, but I haven't been passing it around because I respected Satoshi's desire for anonymity. However, now that an innocent man is being hounded and harassed, I think it's about time that the creator step up and claim his creation. We also need to know what happened to the Satoshi stash for this amazing project to move forward with greater certainty.
So I would encourage the real Satoshi to step up. I'm not at all convinced that Dorian Nakamoto -- albeit a pretty fascinating man -- is actually the creator of Bitcoin.
And here's an excellent textual analysis of Satoshi's writing -- really quite convincing: https://likeinamirror.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/satoshi-nakam...
The verdict? Nick Szabo, a professor of computer science at GWU and trained attorney, with significant expertise in the digital economy and smart contracts. He's got a fascinating blog at: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/
To be honest, I was convinced by this particular analysis back in December, but I haven't been passing it around because I respected Satoshi's desire for anonymity. However, now that an innocent man is being hounded and harassed, I think it's about time that the creator step up and claim his creation. We also need to know what happened to the Satoshi stash for this amazing project to move forward with greater certainty.
So I would encourage the real Satoshi to step up. I'm not at all convinced that Dorian Nakamoto -- albeit a pretty fascinating man -- is actually the creator of Bitcoin.
It's a weak tie between Szabo and Satoshi. Both write in cryptographer/academic/cypherpunk style. That's true of plenty of other likely Satoshis. Most of the specific phrases which link the two are fairly standard phrases within the community.
I do think Szabo is in a top-100 list of Satoshi candidates, and the most damning linkage is Satoshi's failure to cite Szabo, but it's far from conclusive.
I do think Szabo is in a top-100 list of Satoshi candidates, and the most damning linkage is Satoshi's failure to cite Szabo, but it's far from conclusive.
Yes, but there are a few other things that I'm thinking about writing about. They may not implicate Szabo conclusively, but it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that Satoshi is an academic. In any case, it's not Dorian Nakamoto. I'm sorry he's having to endure this scrutiny (especially after what he and his family went through during WWII).
It could easily be an academic who is outside academia (e.g. Zooko), or a team of academic + non-academic.
Nitpick: you linked to his very interesting static page, his blog is at http://unenumerated.blogspot.de/
> However, now that an innocent man is being hounded and harassed, I think it's about time that the creator step up and claim his creation.
The creator would have to balance his desire to protect Dorian's family against his desire to protect his own family.
The creator would have to balance his desire to protect Dorian's family against his desire to protect his own family.
Here is a non-biased description of their technique: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5536
I would take it with a few grains of salt.
edit: woops, I meant to link the original as well http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5315
I would take it with a few grains of salt.
edit: woops, I meant to link the original as well http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5315
I don't know about your particular question regarding the different styles for a white paper vs the Dorian writings, but in this case there is enough writing by Satoshi Nakamoto ignoring the whitepaper itself, some examples:
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November...
So you can compare Dorian's vs those where both include more off the cuff wrirings. Personally I think it's pretty evident that Satoshi Nakamoto has a better handle on English than Dorian. I also believe that a textual analysis of the white paper vs. other shorter writings by Satoshi Nakamoto would show a strong correlation, maybe even finding rare pairs, while Dorian's would not match strongly at all.
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November...
So you can compare Dorian's vs those where both include more off the cuff wrirings. Personally I think it's pretty evident that Satoshi Nakamoto has a better handle on English than Dorian. I also believe that a textual analysis of the white paper vs. other shorter writings by Satoshi Nakamoto would show a strong correlation, maybe even finding rare pairs, while Dorian's would not match strongly at all.
Her twitter posts at the bottom take the Newsweek reporter's credibility even lower if you ask me. A lot of people would have loved to talk with you pre-story, lady!
She doesn't come off well in those comments, but neither does the Forbes writer. Journalistic etiquette and best practice is to ask someone for comment if you're going to be writing about her. Ideally, you should make that attempt in earnest and in advance.
If, as alleged, he emailed her at 10:50pm the night before he went to press -- and then said "she could not be reached for comment" and/or "she did not respond" -- he was being either lazy or disingenuous in that regard.
Her Twitter comments make her sound petty, but at least one of her complaints seems legitimate. She felt that she got railroaded here.
If, as alleged, he emailed her at 10:50pm the night before he went to press -- and then said "she could not be reached for comment" and/or "she did not respond" -- he was being either lazy or disingenuous in that regard.
Her Twitter comments make her sound petty, but at least one of her complaints seems legitimate. She felt that she got railroaded here.
Welcome to pageview journalism. There is no etiquette, accuracy doesn't matter. Pageviews do.
In the past if you published crap you lost the high quality advertisers. Now advertisers just go where the audience is, like the Huffington Post and Business Insider. In other words, all journalists are gossip columnists now. Even better if they wrote for free.
In the past if you published crap you lost the high quality advertisers. Now advertisers just go where the audience is, like the Huffington Post and Business Insider. In other words, all journalists are gossip columnists now. Even better if they wrote for free.
There's certainly been a trend towards optimizing for pageviews and clickbait above all other considerations. That trend has had a horrendous effect on the average quality of journalism in this country, by dint of the brutal economics of pageview advertising. (In recent years, focus has shifted away from pageviews and toward shares, engagement, etc. But it's mostly the same shit, different day: pay writers as little as possible, crank out heavy volume, bait people with headlines, weave vanity metrics into ad dollars.)
But I see a bright spot in all of this. In a sea of crap, good content might glimmer on the surface, wherever it appears. There's been a serious backlash among the tech and journalism communities against content farms and clickbait. People are, once again, experimenting with quality. Whether quality will be able to last depends on whether anyone can figure out how to make money from quality, and that's the unfortunate truth of the matter. Meanwhile, content farming is a gravity well that seems to suck every new publication down into oblivion, slowly but inevitably. A tweak here, an optimization there, a formula plied and followed, and before you know it, you're writing emotionally manipulative headlines and minimizing costs (and quality), like everyone else. But wow, look at those shares and pageviews! :)
I guess I still have hope. Otherwise I wouldn't be involved in journalism right now. For my part: I don't trade in gossip. I don't write clickbait (though typically, and depending on the publication, I don't have editorial control over my headlines or promotional copy). I try to be interesting. I try to be thoughtful. I try to have standards. I have yet to make a serious living as a writer, and until that changes, writing will remain a part-time gig. But I'm an optimist.
I suspect that whoever figures out how to monetize quality writing will do it by reaching back to first principles, rethinking the idea of publishing altogether. Trying to prop up a digital business on the scaffolding of a centuries-old business model makes no sense.
But I see a bright spot in all of this. In a sea of crap, good content might glimmer on the surface, wherever it appears. There's been a serious backlash among the tech and journalism communities against content farms and clickbait. People are, once again, experimenting with quality. Whether quality will be able to last depends on whether anyone can figure out how to make money from quality, and that's the unfortunate truth of the matter. Meanwhile, content farming is a gravity well that seems to suck every new publication down into oblivion, slowly but inevitably. A tweak here, an optimization there, a formula plied and followed, and before you know it, you're writing emotionally manipulative headlines and minimizing costs (and quality), like everyone else. But wow, look at those shares and pageviews! :)
I guess I still have hope. Otherwise I wouldn't be involved in journalism right now. For my part: I don't trade in gossip. I don't write clickbait (though typically, and depending on the publication, I don't have editorial control over my headlines or promotional copy). I try to be interesting. I try to be thoughtful. I try to have standards. I have yet to make a serious living as a writer, and until that changes, writing will remain a part-time gig. But I'm an optimist.
I suspect that whoever figures out how to monetize quality writing will do it by reaching back to first principles, rethinking the idea of publishing altogether. Trying to prop up a digital business on the scaffolding of a centuries-old business model makes no sense.
Well considering that she really has no problem sidestepping the generally accepted etiquette and ethics of journalism when it suits her, I think that was exactly the way Forbes should have handled it.
"Linguistic analysis" and...pretty much every facet of evidence there is. Newsweek is such a joke.
As a linguist and computer nerd I can't read articles like this without shouting inside my own head "NLP with no open source code is not NLP!" and then I can never trust the person again, like the author of this... analysis, so even if he's nailed it, and it's really Satoshi, to me it would be just a struck of luck and not a linguistic discovery per se IMHO.
Using a non-trivial computer program to conduct research and not disclosing the source is basically like leaving the Methods section of a paper blank. The code could literally be doing anything, regardless of what the author claims it does. They don't even need to release it under a free license- just show it.
Would Dorian Nakamoto's writing style still be identifiable if he had the Bitcoin paper professionally edited? If he had that done on-line, it would have cost very little.
You raise a question which was raised in the article. Did you read all of it?
Yes. Read that passage. They make some vague claims of being able to identify both an author and editor. That might be true for a book-length manuscript, or even a dissertation of dozens of pages, but the Bitcoin paper is eight and a half pages including diagrams and references. That leaves less than six pages of text. Hire some TaskRabbit to wash out the awkward grammar and usage and you might well eliminate all trace of Nakamoto.
..."you might well eliminate all trace of Nakamoto."
Except for aaaaa his full name? If he was trying to be discreet, something tells me he wouldn't use his actual name.
Except for aaaaa his full name? If he was trying to be discreet, something tells me he wouldn't use his actual name.
Who has other people edit their tex files...
It is pretty easy. If the editor works in word then you copy the tex and past it into word. Then tell the editor to not mess with the funny symbols and images etc. Use track changes and reject any changes that would mess up the tex.
Then just compile the tex to enjoy a beautiful laid out and professionally edited document.
Then just compile the tex to enjoy a beautiful laid out and professionally edited document.
Most physicists. Though it's usually in the form of corrections to the printed version not edits to the raw TeX.
A new plan:
1) Invent a disruptive technology that threatens the foundations of governments and traditional currencies.
2) Deliberately create a corpus of writing that doesn't look like your natural writing style to linguistic analysis.
3) Have a confederate arrange to have the press "discover" you hiding "in plain sight."
4) Someone "debunks" the discovery through linguistic analysis and you get away scott free.
1) Invent a disruptive technology that threatens the foundations of governments and traditional currencies.
2) Deliberately create a corpus of writing that doesn't look like your natural writing style to linguistic analysis.
3) Have a confederate arrange to have the press "discover" you hiding "in plain sight."
4) Someone "debunks" the discovery through linguistic analysis and you get away scott free.
1) Invent a disruptive technology that threatens the foundations of governments and traditional currencies.
2) Upload the idea at a semi-random time in the future, from a random location in a randomly chosen country, over a public network, using a computer bought with cash from a randomly chosen store. Have that computer link to it from as many places as possible.
3) Never speak about it.
-------------
If a highly weight goal of yours is not being found, then you limit your interactions, since you know that you'll leak information whenever you interact with something. And you randomise as many data points as you can think of that someone might correlate with you.
Then again, Satoshi obviously isn't doing 3 - assuming the Satoshi persona is the person who invented it.
2) Upload the idea at a semi-random time in the future, from a random location in a randomly chosen country, over a public network, using a computer bought with cash from a randomly chosen store. Have that computer link to it from as many places as possible.
3) Never speak about it.
-------------
If a highly weight goal of yours is not being found, then you limit your interactions, since you know that you'll leak information whenever you interact with something. And you randomise as many data points as you can think of that someone might correlate with you.
Then again, Satoshi obviously isn't doing 3 - assuming the Satoshi persona is the person who invented it.
[deleted]
The real Satoshi would have thought of linguistic analysis and taken appropriate action during his writing.
And then use his real name in the paper? That doesn't make much sense.
But is the "real Satoshi" a true Scotsman?
The real Satoshi is obviously Japanese and thus would have a katana available at all times.
http://www.xkcd.com/225/
http://www.xkcd.com/225/
the real satoshi wouldn't go out of cover.
Linguistic analysis isn't a field I particularly trust. If they were analyzing his Reddit posts, I'd find that potentially an issue. People post quite differently on Reddit.
And a true paranoid could fake styles.
And would not use his real name.
I wonder if that was an accident that he couldn't back out of. A programming game that turned into, "Holy sh*t, this might go somewhere" but it was too late to turn into a synonym.
Maybe the author of bitcoin used the name Satoshi Nakamoto because he knew that journalists would find Dorian Nakamoto?
Personally I hope we never find Satoshi. Chuck Norris was getting old anyway...
I do not think it is him.
why
did I really get a downvote for asking why?
wow. tough crowd.
People here can be picky about things like sentences, capitalization, and punctuation. Try asking "Why?" instead.
"I have never communicated with bitcoins".
Did this man create the first distributed digital cryptocurrency? No. Instead, here's what happened: Newsweek senior writer Leah McGrath Goodman went scouring a database that contained the registration cards of naturalized U.S. citizens (for the record, Nakamoto is the ~400th most common Japanese name). "A Satoshi Nakamoto" then turned up who had a physics/engineering background. She interviewed the man's family, fabricated a few quotes implying involvement with Bitcoin (or took the quotes out of context, which is equivalent), and published a clickbait story destroying the man's privacy.
That's it.