[Steko]

Man says X, later claims not X. Bitcoin enthusiasts declare total victory for not X, call for tar and feathering of company that published X.

No harm in giving this some time and seeing if "Man Denies He's Bitcoin Founder" turns out to filed next to[1] "Man Denies Connection to Olympic Bombing" or next to "OJ Announces Search For Real Killers".

[1] pedantry disclaimer: not meant as perfect analogies

[declan]

Except there's no evidence he said X in the first place. See the AP's writethru.

[Steko]

Gonna file your comment under "Bitcoin enthusiasts declare total victory for not X"

On what planet is this not evidence:

"Newsweek writer Leah McGrath Goodman, who spent two months researching the story, told the AP: "I stand completely by my exchange with Mr. Nakamoto. There was no confusion whatsoever about the context of our conversation -- and his acknowledgment of his involvement in Bitcoin."

[declan]

An audio recording is evidence. What you quoted back to me is the possibly flawed recollection of a reporter who's in the unenviable position of defending a very high-profile cover story used to relaunch a national magazine. That reporter is no longer a disinterested observer. The AP, to a first approximation, is.

[Steko]

Discount it however you want, her testimony is a form of evidence [1]. To say there is "no evidence" is simply and flatly false.

[1] That's a quote from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

[declan]

First, we're not in a courtroom with the witness under oath. Second, because we're not, we can't cross-examine the witness. Third, even if we could and her recollection is as you say, the balance of evidence would remain heavily tilted against Dorian == Satoshi. Sorry. :)