Opinion

Felix Salmon

Satoshi: Why Newsweek isn’t convincing

By Felix Salmon
March 10, 2014

I had a 2-hour phone conversation with Leah McGrath Goodman yesterday. Goodman wrote the now-notorious Newsweek cover story about Dorian Nakamoto, which purported to out him as the inventor of bitcoin. At this point, it’s pretty obvious that the world is not convinced: in that sense, the story did not do its job.

As Anil Dash says, the geek world is the most skeptical. Almost all of the critiques and notations attempting to show that Dorian is not Satoshi are coming from geeks, which makes sense. If the world is what you perceive the world to be, then there is almost no overlap between the world of geeks in general, and bitcoin geeks in particular, on the one hand, and the world of a magazine editor like Jim Impoco, on the other hand. As a result, there’s a lot of mutual incomprehension going on here, which has resulted in an unnecessarily adversarial level of aggression.

As befits a debate which is centered on bitcoin, a lot of the incomprehension comes down to trust and faith. Bitcoin is a protocol which requires faith in no individual, institution, or state — all you need to believe in is cryptography. Dorian Nakamoto could have told Goodman explicitly that yes, he invented bitcoin — and still a lot of the bitcoin faithful would not be fully convinced unless and until Dorian proved that assertion cryptographically.

Goodman, on the other hand, is a proud journalist, who gets personally offended whenever anybody raises questions about her journalism, her techniques, or her reporting. In a reporter’s career, she says, “you check facts, you are building trust and building a reputation”. Goodman feels that her own personal reputation, combined with the institutional reputation of Newsweek, should count for something — that if Newsweek and Goodman stand behind a story, then the rest of us should assume that they have good reason to do so. There’s no doubt that a huge amount of work went into reporting this story, very little of which is actually visible in the magazine article itself.

In aggregate, says Goodman, an enormous amount of evidence, including evidence which is not public, persuaded her that Dorian Nakamoto was her man. Goodman has not decided whether or how she might publish that evidence. When she appeared on Bloomberg TV, she said that she would love for people to look at the “forensic research” and the public evidence in the case — but, talking to me, she made it clear that she didn’t consider it her job to help out other journalists by pointing them to that evidence. What’s more, she also made it clear that she was in possession of evidence which other journalists could not obtain.

In other words, Goodman spent two months following leads and gathering evidence, both public and private. Eventually — after confronting Dorian Nakamoto in person, and getting what she considered to be a confirmation from him, both she and her editors felt that she was able to say, on the front cover of Newsweek, that he was the guy. The article itself was the culmination of that process, but it did not — could not — contain every last piece of evidence, both positive and negative, public and private, about both Dorian Nakamoto and every other candidate she looked at. The result is not the process, and Goodman feels that she should be given the respect due a serious and reputable investigative journalist, working for a serious and reputable publication.

Newsweek, it’s fair to say, has not been getting that respect, although it has been getting a lot more attention than most purely-digital publications would have received had they published the same story. Jim Impoco, cornered at a SXSW party, said that he finds criticism of his story to be “phenomenally offensive”, and then went on to make the highly ill-advised remark that “we eliminated every other possible person”. But that’s really a messaging failure: he was on the back foot (SXSW is, after all, geek HQ this week, and the geeks are gunning for Impoco right now). Clearly, this was not the time or the place for a considered discussion of evidentiary standards.

That said, both Impoco and Goodman should have been smarter about how they talked about the story, post-publication. Both have been largely absent from Twitter and Reddit and RapGenius and other online places where the debate is playing out; instead, they have been giving interviews to mainstream media organizations, which are often unhelpful. TV interviews devolve into stupid fights; interviews with print or online journalists result in just a couple of quotes.

Goodman spent a lot of time, with me, walking me through her journalistic technique: she started, for instance, by trying to track down the person who initially registered the bitcoin.org domain name, and then followed various threads from there. And yes, she did consider and reject the individuals who are considered more likely candidates by the geek squad. Nick Szabo, for instance, might well look like a good candidate if you’re looking only at the original bitcoin paper, and asking who is most likely to have written such a thing. But when she looked at Szabo’s personal life, nothing lined up with what she knew about Satoshi Nakamoto and his communications. Instead, she found the Dorian Nakamoto lead — and didn’t think much of it, at first. But the more she kept trying to dismiss it, and failing to do so, the more she wondered whether Dorian’s very invisibility — “contextual silence”, she called it — might not be sending her a message.

Towards the end of Goodman’s investigation, when she was preparing to try to meet with Dorian Nakamoto in person, Goodman told Impoco that if it didn’t turn out to be Dorian, then “we’ve got nobody”. That’s what Impoco was most likely talking about, when he talked about eliminating people. Goodman — and Impoco, more recently — was just saying that this was her last open thread, and that if Dorian didn’t pan out as the guy, then they didn’t have a story.

From my perspective, then, there’s a big disconnect between what I now know about Goodman’s methodology, on the one hand, and how that methodology is generally perceived by the people talking about her story on the internet, on the other. With hindsight, I think that Goodman’s story would have elicited much less derision if she had framed it as a first-person narrative, telling the story of how she and her team found Dorian and were persuaded that he was their man. The story would surely have been more persuasive if she had gone into much more detail about the many dead ends she encountered along the way. The fateful quote would then have come at the end of the story, acting as a final datapoint confirming everything that the team had laboriously put together, rather than coming at the beginning, out of the blue.

That storytelling technique would not persuade everybody, of course: nothing would, or could. And, more importantly, it isn’t really what Impoco was looking for. Even the piece as it currently stands was cut back a few times: the final version was pared to its absolute essentials, and, like all longform magazine journalists, Goodman wishes that she might have had more space to tell a fuller story.

But here’s where one of the main areas of mutual incomprehension comes into play. Impoco and Goodman are mainstream-media journalists producing mainstream content for a mass audience; Goodman’s article was probably already pushing the limits of what Impoco felt comfortable with, given that he couldn’t reasonably assume that most of his readers had even heard of bitcoin. Impoco was interested in creating a splashy magazine article, for the print reincarnation of a storied mass-market newsweekly. Of course, seeing as how this is 2014, the article would appear online, and would reach the people who care a lot about bitcoin, who were sure to make a lot of noise about it. But they weren’t the main audience that Impoco was aiming for. Indeed, in early 2012, when Impoco was editing a much smaller-circulation magazine for Reuters, I sent him a draft of what ultimately became this article for Medium. He passed: it was too long, too geeky. Even if it would end up reaching a large audience online (it has had over 200,000 page views on Medium), it didn’t have broad enough appeal to make it into a magazine.

Similarly, while Goodman has done a lot of press around her article, most of it looks like a tactical attempt to reach the greatest number of people, and build the most buzz for her article. So she’s been talking to a lot of journalists, especially on TV, while engaging relatively little on a direct basis with her online critics. There’s no shortage of substantive criticism of Goodman’s article online, and of course there is no shortage of venues — including, but not limited to, Newsweek.com — where Goodman could respond to that criticism directly, were she so inclined. But instead she has decided in large part not to join the online debate, and instead is pondering whether or not to write a self-contained follow-up article which might address some of the criticism.

There’s a good chance that follow-up article will never come, and that Goodman will simply cede this story to others. And you can’t necessarily blame her, given how vicious and personal much of the criticism has been, and given how many of her critics seem to have made their minds up already, and will never be persuadable. Goodman has said her piece, and there are surely greatly diminishing returns to saying a great deal more.

Still, it’s just as easy to sympathize with the frustration being felt by the geeks. Appeals to authority don’t work well on this crowd — and neither should they. If the US government can lie about the evidence showing that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it’s hard to have much faith in an institution which, 18 months ago, slapped “HEAVEN IS REAL” all over its cover. (That story, interestingly enough, was demolished by another mass-market magazine, Esquire.)

Indeed, both sides here have good reason to feel superior to the other. From Newsweek’s point of view, a small amount of smart criticism online has been dwarfed by a wave of name-calling, inchoate anger, and terrifying threats of physical violence. And from what you might call the internet’s point of view, Newsweek is demonstrating a breathtaking arrogance in simply dropping this theory on the world and presenting it, tied up in a bow, as some kind of fait accompli.

The bitcoin community is just that — a community — and while there have been many theories as to the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, those theories have always been tested in the first instance within the community. Bitcoin, as a population, includes a lot of highly-intelligent folks with extremely impressive resources, who can be extremely helpful in terms of testing out theories and either bolstering them or knocking them down. If Newsweek wanted the greatest chance of arriving at the truth, it would have conducted its investigation openly, with the help of many others. That would be the bloggy way of doing it, and I’m pretty sure that Goodman would have generated a lot of goodwill and credit for being transparent about her process and for being receptive to the help of others.

What’s more, a bloggy, iterative investigation would have automatically solved the biggest weakness with Goodman’s article. Goodman likes to talk about “forensic journalism”, which is not a well-defined phrase. Burrow far enough into its meaning, however, and you basically end up with an investigation which follows lots of leads in order to eventually arrive at the truth. Somehow, the final result should be able to withstand aggressive cross-examination.

At heart, then, forensic analysis is systematic, scientific: imagine an expert witness, armed with her detailed report, giving evidence in a court of law. Goodman’s Newsweek article is essentially the conclusion of such a report: it’s not the report itself, and it’s not replicable, in the way that anything scientific should be. If Goodman thinks of herself as doing the work of a forensic scientist, then she should be happy to share her research — or at least as much of it as isn’t confidential — with the rest of the world, and allowing the rest of the world to draw its own conclusions from the evidence which she has managed to put together.

A digital, conversational, real-time investigation into the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, with dozens of people finding any number of primary sources and sharing them with everybody else — that would have been a truly pathbreaking story for Newsweek, and could still have ended up with an awesome cover story. But of course it would lack the element of surprise; Goodman would have to have worked with other journalists, employed by rival publications, and that alone would presumably suffice to scupper any such idea. (Impoco was not the only magazine editor to turn down my big bitcoin story: Vanity Fair also did so, when the New Yorker story came out, on some weird intra-Condé logic I never really bothered to understand. Competitiveness is in most magazine editors’ blood; they all want to be first to any story, even if their readers don’t care in the slightest.)

Instead, then, Newsweek published an article which even Goodman admits is not completely compelling on its own terms. “If I read my own story, it would not convince me,” she says. “I would have a lot of questions.” In other words, Goodman is convinced, but Goodman’s article is not going to convince all that many people — not within the congenitally skeptical journalistic and bitcoin communities, anyway.

Goodman is well aware of the epistemic territory here. She says things like “you have to be careful of confirmation bias”, and happily drops references to Russell’s teapot and Fooled by Randomness. As such, she has sympathy with people like me who read her story and aren’t convinced by it. But if there’s one lesson above all others that I’ve learned from Danny Kahneman, it’s that simply being aware of our biases doesn’t really help us overcome them. Unless and until Goodman can demonstrate in a systematic and analytically-convincing manner that her forensic techniques point to a high probability that Dorian is Satoshi, I’m going to remain skeptical.

Comments
27 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

You’re avoiding the ethical question.

The guy’s home address and license plate are plastered on the article. I thing if they’d been even a little bit careful to shield Dorian’s privacy, most of the vitriol they’ve received would not have happened.

They wouldn’t be any more credible of course, but they’d have attracted a lot less negative attention.

Posted by cbiocca | Report as abusive
 

How could someone who concealed his identity for this long make such a rookie mistake in an interview? And he randomly woke up one day and said I’m going to an invent a cryptocurrency? Where’s the paper trail? How did he get from A to B? What problems was he trying to solve?

Posted by DavidSlyke | Report as abusive
 

Newsweek completely violated the Harm Limitation Principle with this article.

All the evidence was conjecture, and seems to clearly be pointing at the wrong person.

http://standingup.net/2014/03/07/name-va lue/

Posted by RobClose | Report as abusive
 

Hi Felix,

Insightful perspective on this debacle (although you are perhaps being overly kind to Goodman).

One sentence caught me: “But when she looked at Szabo’s personal life, nothing lined up with what she knew about Satoshi Nakamoto and his communications.”

How, exactly, did she find out anything about “Nick Szabo’s personal life and communications” from publicly available records?

How, exactly, did she rule out “Wei Dai”, on similar grounds?

Do we even know where either of these individuals live, or who they work for? Does anyone have a photograph, or audio recording, to even establish their existence?

The same could be said for many other people with an actual background in cryptography, C++ programming, and digital economics.

What specific evidence ruled them all out?

Posted by maxbeerbohm | Report as abusive
 

“No…I never communicated with bitcoins.”

That was the only sentence I needed to hear Dorian S. Nakamoto utter, to know he had nothing to do with creating it.

Leah was wrong. She’ll never cop to it, but she was wrong.

Posted by FreeJack2k2 | Report as abusive
 

You are missing the point.

When you track down a man, someone that has gone through great lengths not to be found, drag him into the limelight against his wishes, and expose him to exactly the sort of attention he does not want to be exposed to, just because you want to publish an article, you lack integrity as a journalist, and as a human being.

Posted by Freek | Report as abusive
 

Felix – Jim Impoco went on record saying that this was “textbook” reporting. Frankly, any J-school using that textbook deserves to be shutdown for malpractice and moral ineptitude. This story does not pass the smell test on any level. The worst of it is the reporter’s use/misuse of the supposedly condemning quotes from Mr. Nakamoto with the words “it” and “that” assumed to be bitcoin. Without the questions, they don’t make sense. The way she’s hung them into the piece is a huge red sign that she may well be manipulating them for her purposes. Obviously, her tape recording of the interview would clear that up. But now she says there is no recording. That’s not only an F in any journalism class, it tells you everything you need to know this reporter’s credibility. It now turns out that there’s an even better quote from the reporter, which might be seen to make her case: “I was prepared up until the day I spoke to him for him to laugh and say it was a ridiculous coincidence. But he didn’t he acknowledged it,” says Goodman. “I told him, ‘You’re acknowledging Bitcoin and if you weren’t involved you need to tell me now.’ He said, ‘I cannot do that.’” Still circumstantial, it is the only time she ties the word bitcoin to one of Mr. Nakamoto’s answers. It is, by far, the best evidence she’s got. However, the quote doesn’t appear in the article. It shows up in an interview, as reported by Forbes, 24 hours after the story broke. 24 hours afterwards! I believe she made up it during an interview because she knew she had nothing else. Compare what she wrote with what she said and it’s clear she’s either invented the second version, 24 hours later, or manipulated the “I cannot do that” for her piece. Both cannot possibly be true. Until now, the media has let her get away with what are, in my opinion, unethical techniques, the fantasy of deductive conclusions through “forensic journalism,” shoddy journalism and her use of quotes that, again in my opinion, should disqualify whatever credibility she might have had. Some of us care about journalism and the way it is conducted. From reading this reporters articles and especially her most important quote that did not appear in the article, I claim that her textbook reporting is a textbook offense./ JR

Posted by JeffreyRobinson | Report as abusive
 

Felix,

I think you’ve effectively laid out the journalistic compromises that led to this story, as well as the way that it could’ve been done had the goal been about *reaching the truth* rather than *getting the scoop.*

Your last sentence is the real gauntlet-thrower. I hope LMG and Newsweek pick it up.

Posted by dmcdougall | Report as abusive
 

As Sherlock Holmes would have said if he’d been a journalist, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Because otherwise you’re going to have to tell your editor that everything you’ve been doing for the last two months has been a waste of time.”

Posted by edmundedgar | Report as abusive
 

In future, I think you would be very well served not to conflate words like “forensic” and “evidence” with rumor and one person out of seven billion lacking an alibi.

To be perfectly frank: I have a documented background in every one of the technologies used to build Bitcoin (public record; presenters list for Java One presentation 1998, using public key cryptography to build payment systems for the then newly complete Dallas Semiconductor iButton Javacard Platform), I have no alibi for 2001-2010 and any reporter that can’t find my chatter on mailing lists 2005-2007 flying and dashing different ideas at building a pseudonymous payment system need to relearn how to Google.

That said, why wasn’t I considered for this story, hmm? You can’t argue “process of elimination” until you’ve somehow eliminated several million people who all match the profile better than Dorian; short of his name which anybody who had ever casually heard of him (say working on similar projects) could have easily copied.

Posted by HappMacDonald | Report as abusive
 

“Towards the end of Goodman’s investigation, when she was preparing to try to meet with Dorian Nakamoto in person, Goodman told Impoco that if it didn’t turn out to be Dorian, then “we’ve got nobody”. That’s what Impoco was most likely talking about, when he talked about eliminating people. Goodman — and Impoco, more recently — was just saying that this was her last open thread, and that if Dorian didn’t pan out as the guy, then they didn’t have a story.”

This. This smells to me. So they wanted to return to print. And they thought: either it’s this guy and we got a homerun, or we’ve got nobody and we have to write a nuanced piece about a fruitless search for the creator of Bitcoin. Couldn’t that story have been about the modern wonder of a system like Bitcoin starting with an anonymous person?

But the Newsweek people wanted a **cover**. Nothing excuses what they did. They wanted a splashy cover to save their careers and magazine and so they just pointed at someone and hoped for the best.

This is shameful, and it shocks me that this lack of accountability can stand. The careers of everyone in this magazine should be over, because random people in the internet display a better ethical sense than they do.

Posted by jgrad | Report as abusive
 

The assertion that both Goodman and Impoco keep coming back to is that they had “eliminated every other possible person”. Which implies that they had a complete and exhaustive list of “possible people”, short enough that they could investigate every last one.

This isn’t a locked-drawing-room murder. Where on Earth do you get such a list?

Stripped of the “exhaustive list” mumbo jumbo, what we have here is a geeky Japanese-born guy who happened to have the right birth name. The name is pretty clearly the only thing that got him on the “exhaustive list” in the first place; if he’d been Dorian Takeshi Nakamoto, they’d never have given him a backward glance. But to say that Dorian S. Nakamoto is *the* Satoshi is to say that for all of the “several” other U.S.-resident Satoshi Nakamotos that Newsweek claims to have identified, the name was a pure coincidence. So as evidence, this is a very thin reed, not nearly sturdy enough to hold up the claims in Goodman’s article.

If anything, this is a claim that the “real” Satoshi, who was clearly obsessive about protecting his personal identity, would have published without using a pseudonym — in a community where use of pseudonyms was well-known and rife. Who’s going to believe that?

Posted by rsthau | Report as abusive
 

Are we really a) having a discussion about whether a guy called Satoshi Nakamoto is a guy called Satoshi Nakamoto? And b) concluding that Satoshi Nakamoto is probably not Satoshi Nakamoto, and that Satoshi Nakamoto is some other guy with the same name?

Posted by dsquared | Report as abusive
 

With hindsight, I think that Goodman’s story would have elicited much less derision if she had framed it as a first-person narrative, telling the story of how she and her team found Dorian and were persuaded that he was their man

Posted by Spinchange | Report as abusive
 

“With hindsight, I think that Goodman’s story would have elicited much less derision if she had framed it as a first-person narrative, telling the story of how she and her team found Dorian and were persuaded that he was their man”

Exactly this. There was basically zero first-person analytical insight or expression of any kind of doubt, “devils advocacy,” etc., at all. At least this much was owed to the reader, given that her article is unconvincing by her own admission.

You see this in their other big feature this month about Ret. Gen McChrystal too. It’s like a big advertisement for his consulting firm. His views, motives, all of it taken at face value without even passing questioning or analysis. The new Newsweek is like “confirmation bias week.” But we’re supposed just trust them. Uh huh. Maybe that works at Olivet university, but journalism is supposed to have a higher standard and Newsweek used to adhere to one too.

Posted by Spinchange | Report as abusive
 

Dorian says he never worked for “bitcoin company” and he “doesn’t know anybody there”. It’s on video on youtube during an AP interview. Do you need further proof that this cancer survivor old-man who is trying to just live a quite life had absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin?

And even if he did, why would Goodman post his license plate, pictures of his house against his will? Dorian called the cops: take a hint!

Sorry, no sympathy for irresponsible people with complete lack of empathy and integrity. The worst part of this is Goodman is yet to apologize and Newsweek is still defending their position + posting how the internet must respect the privacy of the journalist. Hypcricy + No skin in the game. She doesn’t deserve any of this sympathy.

Posted by Ferdous | Report as abusive
 

You are assuming “Satoshi Nakamoto” is a single person, and therefore confused when the evidence doesn’t line up with a single person. Based on conceptual background, writing, and programming style, it is more likely that two or more people created bitcoin, with Nick Szabo and Hal Finney as the most likely candidates.

Posted by DanielRavenNest | Report as abusive
 

I’d like to see more info somewhere about the process that Goodman followed. Right now there are so many ad hominem attacks on both sides that its difficult to find objective evidence one way or the other. I’m sure that Goodman did have access to information that may be tough for others to get access to (“confidential sources”). For example, even the Social Security index that she referred to… I don’t think an ordinary person can get access to that. I’ve often wondered about who originally registered the domain bitcoin.org. I also wonder how satoshi has been able to cover his tracks for so long. Yes, I know I could go to my local library and register and email account and I would not be able to be tracked down, and there are proxy servers out there that would aid in keeping my identity and location unknown, but over the course of a decade it just takes one slip before someone can track you down. Are there some good resources out there that discuss how Satoshi was able to stay anonymous for so long?

Posted by bonehead_fibs | Report as abusive
 

Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze is Satoshi Nakamoto. So, Kevin Spacey is Satoshi Nakamoto. htpp://ed-sussman.com

Posted by EdSussman | Report as abusive
 

Dsquared, no. The discussion is obviously about whether a guy called Satoshi Nakamoto is the guy called Satoshi Nakamoto. I recall a junior high school lesson in definite versus indefinite articles….

Posted by Christofurio | Report as abusive
 

Could anyone find any codes written by Dorian Nakamoto?

Posted by giangle | Report as abusive
 

Ah yes, good point. Although I still confess that, in amongst all the learned discussion of Kahneman’s cognitive psychology and forensic analysis and the like, if the question is “Is this guy Satoshi Nakamoto?” then at least some evidential weight should be placed on the fact “Yes he is”.

Posted by dsquared | Report as abusive
 

very fair piece, felix. and I think your editing advice was spot on. this should not have been a ‘we found the creator of bitcoin’ story (because it really wasn’t). it should have been a ‘our search for the creator of bitcoin’ and leave the rest of us to decide if goodman got her man.

fwiw, I don’t think she did. I think she spent two months down the rabbit hole and came up with the wrong rabbit.

and if I hear one more statement about ‘forensic journalism’ I’m gonna puke. it’s just journalism, darlin’. call it investigative if you want. but ‘forensic’ gives it a sheen of scientific objectivity that I doubt it truly has. but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if goodman/newsweek are willing to share all their research. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t, unless she’s planning a book about it.

cheers
dt

Posted by tynanwrites | Report as abusive
 

very fair piece, felix. and I think your editing advice was spot on. this should not have been a ‘we found the creator of bitcoin’ story (because it really wasn’t). it should have been a ‘our search for the creator of bitcoin’ and leave the rest of us to decide if goodman got her man.

fwiw, I don’t think she did. I think she spent two months down the rabbit hole and came up with the wrong rabbit.

and if I hear one more statement about ‘forensic journalism’ I’m gonna puke. it’s just journalism, darlin’. call it investigative if you want. but ‘forensic’ gives it a sheen of scientific objectivity that I doubt it truly has.

I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if goodman/newsweek are willing to share all their research. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t, unless she’s planning a book about it.

cheers
dt

(apologies if this appears twice, it’s hard to tell if the first one took.)

Posted by tynanwrites | Report as abusive
 

attempt #3:

very fair piece, felix. and I think your editing advice was spot on. this should not have been a ‘we found the creator of bitcoin’ story (because it really wasn’t). it should have been a ‘our search for the creator of bitcoin’ and leave the rest of us to decide if goodman got her man.

fwiw, I don’t think she did. I think she spent two months down the rabbit hole and came up with the wrong rabbit.

and if I hear one more statement about ‘forensic journalism’ I’m gonna puke. it’s just journalism, darlin’. call it investigative if you want. but ‘forensic’ gives it a sheen of scientific objectivity and omnipotence that I doubt it truly has.

I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if goodman/newsweek are willing to share all their research. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t, unless she’s planning a book about it.

cheers

dt

Posted by tynanwrites | Report as abusive
 

Here is the crux of the matter: They didn’t have a story and needed to get something out. As you write “Towards the end of Goodman’s investigation, when she was preparing to try to meet with Dorian Nakamoto in person, Goodman told Impoco that if it didn’t turn out to be Dorian, then “we’ve got nobody”. That’s what Impoco was most likely talking about, when he talked about eliminating people. Goodman — and Impoco, more recently — was just saying that this was her last open thread, and that if Dorian didn’t pan out as the guy, then they didn’t have a story” So they have to make it Dorian Nakamoto.

Posted by MilesAheadToo | Report as abusive
 

▲ PIMPS ARE NOW ACCEPTING BITCOIN ▲

Posted by ThePowerElite | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •