Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Nothing is proven (Score 1) 276

by Rufus Jones (#46426123) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?
There are two problems with the article. The more important one is that there is no proof in the piece-- Z-E-R-O. There isn't one thing that a competent journalist would consider evidence, much less a court. Some people say "He's smart enough." BFD. , It's like my saying "Lee McGrath Goodman is a pre-op transexual" and giving as proof "The writer has a girl's name but behaves like a dick." , The logic in the article isn't even plausible, in that it asks us to believe that the creator of Bitcoin (who is paranoid about their privacy) used his birth name to sign the original document. Or, conversely, that a genius scientist who worked on top-secret projects and cared about privacy and security, would use his name to create the currency. , The second issue is, as the comment notes, that it's a total and grotesque violation of privacy. I thought Caleb Hannan's "Dr. V's Magic Putter" (which outed a transexual who wanted to keep that fact private and resulted in her suicide) was bad. This borders on the pathological. This woman has no evidence and yet she holds this guy guilty and puts him in danger. , It's not just that people who lost money on Bitcoin might damage him-- it's the criminals who might torture him to death to get the $400 million in Bitcoin she claims he has.

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Working...