Dorian Nakamoto launches legal fund to sue Newsweek, will accept Bitcoin

[Shawn Knight]

Earlier this year, Newsweek broke a massive story in its return to print by uncovering the man responsible for creating Bitcoin, Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto. The only problem with their story is the fact that Nakamoto claims they have the wrong guy and he had nothing to do with the cryptocurrency.

As a result of the report, Nakamoto was swarmed and harassed by journalists at his home which then led to a slow-speed car chase as he and an Associated Press reporter attempted to outrun other journalists after the scoop.

Nakamoto hired a lawyer a week or so after the story was published and now it seems they’re going to work together. They’ve created the Dorian Nakamoto Legal Defense Fund through a website called Newsweek Lied in which they’re accepting donations for Nakamoto to sue Newsweek.

And in a brilliant and obvious jab at the publication, they’re accepting donations in Bitcoin (in addition to credit and debit card donations).

Nakamoto’s legal fund website argues that the Newsweek journalist that penned the Bitcoin story, Leah McGrath Goodman, was previously sued for defamation in 2011. What’s more, it notes that Nakamoto’s request for retraction to Newsweek was ignored – a request that lists 16 factual errors and altered or invented quotes, he claims.

The question of who actually created the popular cryptocurrency lives on. Considering we live in a world where it seems that all of our online activity can be traced, it’s a testament to Bitcoin’s creator that he / she hasn’t been uncovered yet.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58429-dorian-nakamoto-launches-legal-fund-sue-newsweek-accept.html

 

[Evernessince]

I hope he's able to get them to redact the story and recoup some of the losses. I'm tired of 2-bit publications pushing out false articles to attract readers and advertisers. They have to realize that their lies have consequences.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

This guy is going to sue because reporters followed him around? Good luck with that.... it's called Tuesday for your average celebrity.

Looks like Newsweek was after some cheap clicks. I'll bet the controversy gets more attention than the actual story.

 

[captaincranky]

I hope he's able to get them to redact the story and recoup some of the losses. I'm tired of 2-bit publications pushing out false articles to attract readers and advertisers. They have to realize that their lies have consequences.

I'm not sure I'd characterize, "Newsweek" as a "two bit publication", I guess if you're 15 and like to hear yourself talk you might, but that mag has been around for decades.

I think "Entertainment Weekly", or, "People" might be click hounds, but probably not so much Newsweek.

Of course on today's web, everybody has to fight for each and every hit. Who, are you going to accuse of being a "click w****" next, the "New York Times"?

 

[Evernessince]

I'm not sure I'd characterize, "Newsweek" as a "two bit publication", I guess if you're 15 and like to hear yourself talk you might, but that mag has been around for decades.

I think "Entertainment Weekly", or, "People" might be click hounds, but probably not so much Newsweek.

Of course on today's web, everybody has to fight for each and every hit. Who, are you going to accuse of being a "click w****" next, the "New York Times"?

Notice how I didn't mention any specific publisher as "2 bit". What you just did is called jumping to conclusions and then running with it. a.k.a scare-crowing.

 

[captaincranky]

Notice how I didn't mention any specific publisher as "2 bit". What you just did is called jumping to conclusions and then running with it. a.k.a scare-crowing.

Your use of "two bit publication" was in the context of a Newsweek article, and someone suing Newsweek. What other magazine would you be talking about? Perhaps something like this, "Newsweek" is being sued, and the "National Enquirer is a two bit publication. So, if you're not referring back to Newsweek as a "two bit publication", then, "palepuss speak 'um with forked tongue", and not very well at that. Or to put it another way, "running two simultaneous bullsh!t lines". It seems to be molded to the convenience of your reply.

"Scare crowing", what a tragically cool meme! Did you make that up yourself?

Besides, if you weren't referring to Newsweek, then your remark was just an off topic toss-in?

 

[Evernessince]

Your use of "two bit publication" was in the context of a Newsweek article, and someone suing Newsweek. What other magazine would you be talking about? Perhaps something like this, "Newsweek" is being sued, and the "National Enquirer is a two bit publication. So, if you're not referring back to Newsweek as a "two bit publication", then, "palepuss speak 'um with forked tongue", and not very well at that. Or to put it another way, "running two simultaneous bullsh!t lines". It seems to be molded to the convenience of your reply.

"Scare crowing", what a tragically cool meme! Did you make that up yourself?

Besides, if you weren't referring to Newsweek, then your remark was just an off topic toss-in?

Scare-crowing has been around for a long time and it's really strange you have no idea what it's about. Too busy being grumpy I guess.

God forbid that I generalize other publishers in an article about another. I guess you can't understand the difference and must assume that every comment's scope cannot extend beyond that which is in the article. I guess it's off limits now to comment in general about other cars in a ford dealership Get off your high horse and pull the stick out of your rear.

 

[captaincranky]

Scare-crowing has been around for a long time and it's really strange you have no idea what it's about. Too busy being grumpy I guess..

Like I said, you're just too hip for your own good.

Keep making your, "broad generalizations", coupled with a bunch of convenient double talk, and expect to get jammed up by it..

In any event, I commented on what you said. There's no explicable reason why I need to consult your therapist to find out, "what you said, isn't what I thought it meant, and definitely isn't what you thought you might have meant when you said it". How about we leave that nonsense for the professionals.

 

[Evernessince]

Like I said, you're just too hip for your own good.

Keep making your, "broad generalizations", coupled with a bunch of convenient double talk, and expect to get jammed up by it..

IN any event , commented on what you said. There's no explicable reason why I need to consult your therapist to find out, "what you said, isn't what I thought it meant, and definitely isn't what you thought you might have meant when you said it". How about we leave that nonsense for the professionals.

There you go putting words into quotes that I never said. It's basic English to know not to quote your own words, or in your situation to put put what you think I said within them.

If the basis for your arguments are either falsified quotations or phrases from famous people, it leaves very little ambiguity whether or not you are actually comprehending the material. I can see that you are deep seeded into your own opinion.

 

[captaincranky]

There you go putting words into quotes that I never said. It's basic English to know not to quote your own words, or in your situation to put put what you think I said within them.

If the basis for your arguments are either falsified quotations or phrases from famous people, it leaves very little ambiguity whether or not you are actually comprehending the material. I can see that you are deep seeded into your own opinion.

God, if there's one thing I hate is trading ambiguities with two bit noob trolls.

Not what were we talking about?

 

[HiDDeNMisT]

I am amazed that you guys really had a argument about that. I think it is just silly . Lets get back to the topic at hand.

I think that the reporters should publish facts or at least get as close as you can to facts. If there is any proof in what the reporters are saying then they should have put it in the article. Until they do, this is circumstantial at best.

Those are my two cents on this topic.

 

[captaincranky]

I am amazed that you guys really had a argument about that. I think it is just silly . Lets get back to the topic at hand.

Please spare me your condescension. It's unwanted, unneeded, and unnecessary

I think that the reporters should publish facts or at least get as close as you can to facts. If there is any proof in what the reporters are saying then they should have put it in the article. Until they do, this is circumstantial at best.

Those are my two cents on this topic.

I think where ther's smoke there's fire. Somebody started bitcoin. Nobody has even approached me as to whether or not I started it. Why? Well because I'm in no way associated with it.

If you invented bitcoin, wouldn't you want credit? Unless you think you might have done something illegal, then of course you wouldn't.

In either case, "Kickstarter" has become a haven for crooks, shysters, and a lot of imbeciles, who happen to be the only person(s) in the world, which think their idea is a good one.

If what's his name feels he's been terribly wronged, there are legal defense agencies that may be able to assist.

But really, isn't Kickstarter intended to assist with product development, not pander to America's penchant, predilection, and propensity for civil litigation?

As soon as someone tries to hit, "Beggar's Cove", for money for , "the next big thing", they're done as far as I'm concerned.

The social manipulation that goes into launching a product on Kickstarter, coupled with the sheer stupidity of some of the contributors, casts a harsh light on the gullibility of the American buying public.