Category Archives: All

“The Face Behind Bitcoin”: The Internet Responds

Posted on by

Similar to Hiromi, I also chose Bitcoin this week.

Last week, this Newsweek article by Leah McGrath Goodman on the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the secretive creator of Bitcoin generated massive attention. I decided to curate the Internet’s response to the article.

Along with its focus on Bitcoin’s creator, the article was notable in that it was the cover story of Newsweek, which returned to print for the first time in 14 months.

1. Newsweek Posts Article

2. Bitcoin’s Lead Developer Tweets

3. Reddit’s r/bitcoin responds

r/bitcoin

Bitcoin enthusiasts on Reddit generally express skepticism at the article and are upset that Satoshi Nakamoto was “doxed.” Some anger is directed at Goodman, the author of the Newsweek article.

btcmeme

4. Goodman interviewed by IBTimes

)

5. Man Denies He’s Bitcoin Founder

)

6. The “Real” Satoshi Nakamoto Responds

In a Bitcoin forum where the Bitcoin founder has been active in the past, the following is posted: “I am not Dorian Nakamoto”

Link to Forum

7. NewsGenius Annotation of Newsweek Article Created

NewsGenius Annotation

The annotation argues that the evidence in the article in support of Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity is “extraordinarily thin.” Interestingly, the main annotators are Balaji Srinivasan and Marc Andreessen, two general partners of the well-known Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Posted in All

Where and Who is SATOSHI NAKAMOTO

Posted on by

In the aftermath of Mt.Gox’s bankruptcy in Japan, Newsweek throw another bomb.

titleのコピー

Early in the morning of March 6, Newsweek magazine posted an exclusive article titled “The Face Behind Bitcoin”. The reporter Leah McGrath Goodman claimed in the article that they found the mysterious founder of Bitcoin living in Temple City, California.

newsweek

According to this article, a 64-year-old Japanese-American man whose name really is Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder. He hobby is collecting model trains,and he has done classified work for major corporations and the U.S. military.For the past 40 years, Satoshi Nakamoto has not used his birth name in his daily life. At the age of 23, after graduating from California State Polytechnic University, he changed his name to “Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto,” according to records filed with the U.S. District Court of Los Angeles in 1973. Since then, he has not used the name Satoshi but instead signs his name “Dorian S. Nakamoto.”

Bitcoinfans and press were thrown into confusion at this. Trying to have interview with Nakamoto, a car chase began.

“We are chasing Satoshi Nakamoto,” wrote Buzzfeed reporter Hunter Schwarz in an article published Wednesday afternoon.

And this news about car chase has spread through twitter and facebook.

 

 

In this “manhunt”, AP seems to have stood out from the others.

In the afternoon of March 7, AP posted the article “Man said to create bitcoin denies it” AP succeeded in interviewing Nakamoto.

Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto told the reporter that he is not the creator of bitcoin.”I got nothing to do with it,” he said, repeatedly.

nope

“I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it,” he told AP. “And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied.”

And he continued.

“It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I’m not involved now. That’s not what I meant. I want to clarify that.”

Then on a long-dormant PeerToPeer Foundation site believed to belong to the Satoshi Nakamoto who created Bitcoin suddenly appeared a post denying he was Dorian.

p2psatoshi

Newsweek posted a statement about the story, saying that the research was conducted under the same high editorial and ethical standards that have guided Newsweek for more than 80 years and Newsweek stands strongly behind Ms. Goodman and her article.

 

Posted in All

Malaysian Airlines MH370

Posted on by

Being an aviation geek, I just had to do this. I curated different sources of information using Storify which was helpful, though there needs to be alot more work to share such information. If Storify was to make use of theme’s and add on’s to give more control on how one may want the content to look would be greatly helpful. Here is the story so far..http://storify.com/judemwenda/malaysian-airlines

Challenges

If this was to be a fully professional media story, perhaps there would be  agreat challenge with verification. Early on there were rumours that the plane landed in Vietnam which was later proved not to be true. There needs to be a better way to annotate such crowdsource information. Storify does not do a lot of justice especially when one want to annotate and add comments to crowdsources stories.

Posted in All

Simona Halep match preview

Posted on by
Simona Halep - Thinglink

Click the image to go to ThingLink and see what’s behind the bullets.

For this assignment I tried to use a different form of curation than the in-the-moment stream of Storify or Rebel Mouse, which are more popular (Carvin is on Rebel Mouse, for example). I was specifically looking for something more contained and less cluttered that wouldn’t give the impression of drowning in information.

As subject I chose to preview the fourth round match between Simona Halep, Romania’s top player and #7 worldwide, and Eugenie Bouchard, scheduled for Tuesday, March 11, 2014, at 2pm EST.

I used ThingLink, which allows the use of a photo upon which one can overlay other information (YouTube videos, photographs, links to other information). It’s not perfect (I couldn’t embed it on the blog), and it does take you outside of the piece on almost every click, but I liked the idea of containing all relevant information in an interactive image. (The concept I guess is not unlike a static infographic).

I imagine this type of curation could work great as a preview or summary, and could then be supplemented by real-time work.

Thoughts on ‘Climate Audit’; Why We Need ‘Fact Fight Club’

Posted on by

How do you fact check a blog like Climate Audit? The site details what the authors see as inconsistencies and exaggerations in the work of climate scientists, so they see themselves as the fact checkers. Yet in many cases, the site simply reprints private e-mails and quotes from climate scientists in which they are revealing the messiness of the scientific process, and suggests that this messiness is proof that the scientists are wrong about their conclusions on climate change.

For example, in one post, a climate auditor posts an e-mail from a scientist and writes: “Not sure what this email is about but it doesn’t sound very good.”

The site is full of details, charts, and graphs. It feels like proof of something. And the site details every time a climate auditor has their FOIA requests declined or redacted, suggesting that such secrecy is in itself proof that the scientists are wrong and hare hiding their true findings.

One thing is very clear: the scientists and the climate auditors don’t understand each other. There’s a culture clash full of misunderstandings.

Facing Off: Why Fact Fight Club

I can’t think of a way to create a single piece of media that can refute the ‘climate audit’ site. But here’s an idea for a service that could make a small contribution.

What if we set up a Web site that could match up strangers who hold opposing views and allow them to participate in a live video chat with each other. The participants would get instructions on how to structure their conversation. They’d be asked to spend the first 5 to 10 minutes answering an ice-breaker question and getting to know each other. Then they’d each give a short statement on why they either agree or disagree with global warming. Then they’d have a chance to give rebuttals. Let’s call it Fact Fight Club, though that name is intentionally provocative and probably not the best name for the actual service.

I built a very simple working version of Fact Fight Club using Blogger:
Screenshot 2014-03-04 09.58.10

The site relies on a service developed here at the Media Lab called Unhangouts, which makes it easy to set up Google Hangout video chats.

I tried to find two people to try this, but I wasn’t able to pull that off by the deadline. The concern, of course, is that the two people would take the “fight” in the name to heart and that the experience could feel more like a live-action flame war than a productive meeting of polite citizens. But I think there’s something to this idea of connecting people to those who disagree with them — to pop the “filter bubble” — and to do so in video so that hopefully people might be more civil because they can see the person they’re talking to.

I’ll be curious to see what people think of this idea.