Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Its Adam Back
This is some next-level Journalism. This video is censored from being posted in r/bitcoin and Wikipedia Moderators are preventing this from being added to the wiki because he is not "a real journalist".
More Wikipedia Moderators drama on the Satoshi Nakomoto page
Talk:Satoshi Nakamoto - Wikipedia
Adam Back
A recent set of edits produced a section on Adam Back. A good example is oldid=956395858. These are based on an investigative piece done by YouTuber Barely Sociable, who currently has about 400,000 subscribers. These videos go back several months, but the latest one seems to be the main source for this claim. A journalistic piece about this claim is available here from Decrypt, a blockchain news outlet funded by ConsenSys. The journalistic article is a good source because it mentions the video, its central claims, Adam Back's background and his clear & direct refutations of this claim on Twitter. Decrypt also reached out, received and published Adam Back's comment on the article directly. I think this is fairly well sourced and decent journalism. I think this is comparable or more respectable than the following claims on this page: Elon Musk (Medium blog post), McCaleb (where the only journalistic source publishes a denial from the him). I found this source by simply searching Adam Back on Google News, getting back this link. There are dozens of aggregators covering this story, but they aren't indexed by Google News and clearly fail to follow standard journalistic practice. Adam is also mentioned in certain other (less reliable) sources [5] [6]. Adam is also cited in the BitCoin paper itself, and in Satoshi's first email as being in contact with Satoshi ("Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site.").
I think this section should be added to the article with the Decrypt story as a source, as it covers the claim, the background, and obtained a quote from Adam Back on the topic itself. Adam is notable. ConsenSys (who funds Decrypt) is notable. --sepht (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A recent set of edits produced a section on Adam Back. A good example is oldid=956395858. These are based on an investigative piece done by YouTuber Barely Sociable, who currently has about 400,000 subscribers. These videos go back several months, but the latest one seems to be the main source for this claim. A journalistic piece about this claim is available here from Decrypt, a blockchain news outlet funded by ConsenSys. The journalistic article is a good source because it mentions the video, its central claims, Adam Back's background and his clear & direct refutations of this claim on Twitter. Decrypt also reached out, received and published Adam Back's comment on the article directly. I think this is fairly well sourced and decent journalism. I think this is comparable or more respectable than the following claims on this page: Elon Musk (Medium blog post), McCaleb (where the only journalistic source publishes a denial from the him). I found this source by simply searching Adam Back on Google News, getting back this link. There are dozens of aggregators covering this story, but they aren't indexed by Google News and clearly fail to follow standard journalistic practice. Adam is also mentioned in certain other (less reliable) sources [5] [6]. Adam is also cited in the BitCoin paper itself, and in Satoshi's first email as being in contact with Satoshi ("Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site.").
I think this section should be added to the article with the Decrypt story as a source, as it covers the claim, the background, and obtained a quote from Adam Back on the topic itself. Adam is notable. ConsenSys (who funds Decrypt) is notable. --sepht (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This youtube video would not constitute an RS, nor would Decrypt as we are not using crypto news sites. I guess that there may be other RS out there that list Back as a candidate. I would suggest to search those and see if you can find an RS. We need something mainstream, like wsj, nyt, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: The YouTube video is not the source for WP:SOURCES. Decrypt is. Worse sources are used in the current article. Decrypt is indexed by Google News, and the funding source is ConsenSys. Decrypt is currently used as a source on the following articles: Mwale_Medical_and_Technology_City, Defense Distributed, and Akon. Decrypt is not a self published source for this and showed up as a result on a Google News query (WP:GOOGLETEST). Examples of crypto news sites that I'd consider failing WP:SOURCES and WP:GOOGLETEST are [7] [8] [9]. I agree those are unreliable. But Decrypt, IMO, is fine. --sepht (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sepht: I am afraid that Decrypt does not have a reputation of being an independent reliable source (yet?). Perhaps, it is doing decent journalism as you suggest, and eventually people might come to appreciate that, but at the moment we don't even have an article about it in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if this claim is so well-supported as you suggest, why other media with established reputation is not interested? Perhaps, it will take them a while to notice and verify? We can wait for that to happen. And if that does not happen, maybe this is not as encyclopedic as you think. Retimuko (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Retimuko: see my comment above re: Decrypt used as a source. I think this is clearly stronger than the Elon Musk claim on the article. Decrypt is not on WP:RSPSOURCES, but neither is FastCompany, The Age. Vice is considered as having no consensus. I think adding Adam Back would keep with the current reliability standard on this page. I agree that maybe this should section should be rewritten to a higher standard, but I think it fits into the article as it is now. --sepht (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I recognize it is frustrating to be a new editor to cryptocurrency articles and find that we are using a different and much stricter policy here than what you might read about on the policy pages, however that is the way it is. Fastcompany would be an RS, can you find someone that supports this argument there? I just did a search for Adam Back in mainstream RS as the Back article had been tagged with poor sourcing. I found a half dozen high quality sources and added them to Adam Back, but none of them that I saw referred to him as a potential candidate to be Satoshi. The blockstream conspiracy is an interesting topic and i enjoyed the youtube video, but it is not high quality enough for wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you're conflating the youtube video as a source for the claim and the reporting source on the claim. Multiple claims on this page (Musk, Szabo) started as Medium posts or personal blog posts. But, they gained notability and fit WP:SOURCES once a journalistic source reported on them. I would claim the same has happened here with Adam. I understand if you think more sources are need to include this, but I would disagree. --sepht (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe you are suggesting to use the decrypt source as an WP:RS relating to a cryptocurrency WP:BLP subject (Back) to promote the theory that Back is Satoshi. The answer to that is clearly no from what you are seeing above. If fortune, nyt, or bloomberg cover it, it is a different story. Decrypt is owned by ConsenSys a large backer of Ethereum, and Back is an active critic of ethereum. We are not going to add ConsenSys' WP:COI sourced content without confirmation from good mainstream source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the author of the original edit. Unfortunately, I'm glad someone reverted my edit: Decrypt isn't a reliable source, at least for now. There is no need to rush. Let's wait a few days and I'm sure a well-known newspaper will talk about the issue (and if they don't, it may mean that the information shouldn't be on Wikipedia either). Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll add another source that's reporting on this claim. [10] Regardless of the credibility of the claim, it is definitely gaining notability. GoodCrossing (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Also not an RS. I would like to include the content as I find it interesting. However, our sourcing policy for crypto articles trumps my desire to include it. Right now we have an Ethereum advocacy organization (Consensys) and a BitcoinSV advocacy organization (coinspice) pushing the news. Both are COI and far far from RS. Maybe one of the mainstream will pick it up soon...
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf - fair enough, I just want to point out that this is getting coverage - it's not just a YT video. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
John McAfee alludes to Adam Back being Satoshi Nakamoto here in case that's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7AD0:5500:31A5:20EA:9FC:97E2 (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Possible addition to "Other claimed candidates"
Hello. As you may have seen, a new YouTube video claimed to have the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, being Adam Beck. I was wondering if this could be added to the Other claimed candidates section, or even potentially to the main Possible Identities if deemed important enough. I understand someone else already just linked the video, but that isn't much for discussion by itself. 2601:204:E780
3B0:A9F9:C4A:8979:A42 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. As you may have seen, a new YouTube video claimed to have the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, being Adam Beck. I was wondering if this could be added to the Other claimed candidates section, or even potentially to the main Possible Identities if deemed important enough. I understand someone else already just linked the video, but that isn't much for discussion by itself. 2601:204:E780
3B0:A9F9:C4A:8979:A42 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Why this is notable in Wikipedia sense? This is a self-published source. We need a source from a reputable news organization or something like that. Retimuko (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a reputable investigation that deduced who he was from all the clues he left. Every single private conversation, mails, and times of connection between "both" of them are in the video and completely prove they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:109F:13:33A1:3DE2:77C7161:ABB3 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
161:ABB3 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This is your personal opinion. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS. Retimuko (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, ignore my personal opinion, he made a follow up video, watch it, everything is here and doesn't depend on opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:109F:13:33A1:3DE2:77C7161:ABB3 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
161:ABB3 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Last edited:
