Dorian S. Nakamoto is the Satoshi Nakamoto. (Nobody will prove / find really compelling evidence as to why Dorian is not Satoshi in 2014)
Created by Tenoke on 2014-03-06; known on 2015-01-01; judged wrong by PseudonymousUser on 2015-01-01.
- Tenoke estimated 70% on 2014-03-06
- gwern estimated 70% on 2014-03-06
- two2thehead estimated 95% on 2014-03-06
- Jayson Virissimo estimated 80% on 2014-03-06
- lavalamp estimated 49% and said “I say 30% he’s the real Satoshi, but not convinced we’ll know for sure this year.” on 2014-03-06
- gwern estimated 50% and said “knocking down due to poor writing, inability to link him to C++ or P2P coding (or any kind of programming thus far)” on 2014-03-06
- lavalamp estimated 20% and said “http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/06/alleged-bitcoin-creator-dorian-prentice-satoshi-nakamoto-denies-bitcoin-involvement/” on 2014-03-06
- gwern estimated 15% and said “full explicit denial in AP interview: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BITCOIN_FOUNDER_DENIAL still no links to C++/P2P/crypto dug up” on 2014-03-07
- Tuxedage estimated 20% on 2014-03-07
- Jayson Virissimo estimated 50% on 2014-03-07
- gwern said “a (formerly) Satoshi controlled account has denied Dorian: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o” on 2014-03-07
- gwern estimated 5% and said “astounding. Satoshi has had no publicly known activity since November 2013, and no public messages since ~2011” on 2014-03-07
- Tenoke estimated 5% and said “Leah wrote all this? ..Psshhh” on 2014-03-07
- Tenoke estimated 10% on 2014-03-07
- lavalamp estimated 7% and said “Still no evidence provided in newsweek’s non-retraction. http://www.newsweek.com/newsweeks-statement-bitcoin-story-231242” on 2014-03-07
- adbge estimated 5% on 2014-03-07
- Nithi estimated 40% on 2014-03-07
- RandomThinker estimated 65% on 2014-03-07
- Ken estimated 50% on 2014-03-07
- lavalamp said “RandomThinker: Why so high?” on 2014-03-07
- Leo estimated 40% and said “He is not, but evidence might not be found/published” on 2014-03-08
- Jayson Virissimo said “Well, on the one hand, he is named Satoshi Nakamoto and at one point did work on some bank software. On the other hand, he called it “BitCom” during an interview.” on 2014-03-08
- ggreer estimated 5% on 2014-03-09
- chemotaxis101 estimated 10% on 2014-03-10
- mjgeddes estimated 10% and said “Guy has roughly the right background and smarts (libertarian, physicist), right name. Writing style a mismatch but he could have written his paper with the help of an English editor.The real Satoshi posted soon after LW post – Wei Dai? ” on 2014-03-11
- Jayson Virissimo said “There may be something more complicated going on like Nick Szabo editing his writings or something. Just throwing that out there.” on 2014-03-12
- fela estimated 35% on 2014-03-14
- anonym estimated 33% on 2014-03-15
- mimosomal estimated 7% on 2014-03-16
- PseudonymousUser said “Dorian says he’s not Satoshi. Satoshi says he’s not Dorian. They have different writing styles and programming skills. Satoshi wouldn’t be using his real name. What more compelling evidence does one need?” on 2014-03-17
- RandomThinker said “@lavalamp: I don’t know, I believe the story. Why make up a name like Satoshi Nakamoto? The simplest explanation is that it’s his real name.I don’t give denials much credit. Denials are easy to make.” on 2014-03-19
- procran estimated 10% on 2014-03-19
- Neznans said “Does it make sense to change predictions about an event happening during a year time slot, after the event had happened? It’s like predicting a 3% chance of a tsunami happening in 2012 and ” on 2014-04-29
- Neznans said “then changing it to 99% after the March 2012 tsunami, and being proud about your accurate prediction on January 1, 2015.(To be really clear, the Satoshi account announcement seems like a rather “compelling evidence”) ” on 2014-04-29
- Neznans said “@RandomThinker: Why make up a name? Because if one sets to create a systems that is “completely decentralized, with no [..] trusted parties”, tying the system to a “real person” upon inception is a terrible first step.” on 2014-04-29
- gwern estimated 1% on 2014-09-09
- Grognor said “why isn’t this marked wrong already?” on 2014-09-09
- Jayson Virissimo said “This is a bad prediction statement. Too many subjective judgments involved in verifying/falsifying it. “Compelling” to whom?” on 2014-09-12
- PseudonymousUser judged this prediction wrong on 2015-01-01.