????“我不是多利安?S?中本。”

????這是美國東部時間上周四晚10點，一個賬號在Peer to Peer Foundation網站上留下的簡單信息。這個賬號的用戶名是“中本聰”。

????這位比特幣數字貨幣協議的匿名締造者曾在這個論壇上使用過這個賬號，探討他發明的這種貨幣的未來發展，直到他消失在這個他自己親手創造的世界。這個賬號最后的活躍日期是2009年2月18日——那是一次關于比特幣的討論。Peer to Peer Foundation的創始人表示，這個賬號的注冊郵箱與中本聰之前的比特幣原始設計文檔相關聯的公共郵箱一致。

????其實，這些未必有多大的意義。這個賬號也存在被黑客盜取的可能。或者多利安?S?中本只是為了登錄論壇散播虛假信息，希望轉移已經把他淹沒的媒體關注漩渦。不過在美聯社（AP）的采訪中，多利安否認自己與比特幣的關系，還表現得非常困惑。此外，作為被采訪人的中本與網絡上的中本，兩者的語言能力也大相徑庭。結合這兩點看，利亞?麥格拉斯?古德曼的故事至少看起來是具有爭議的。【自由撰稿人古德曼曾在《新聞周刊》發表文章稱，她已經找到了比特幣的發明人中本聰，還與他進行了面談。然而此人在接受美聯社采訪時否認自己跟這種數字貨幣存在任何關系。——譯注】

????但這根本就無所謂。

????無論他是否是真的多利安?S?中本，也無論他的動機是什么，在他自己創造的虛擬貨幣的大肆炒作中，中本聰置身事外，這一點讓圍觀者不僅好奇，而且變得有些瘋狂。追溯到2011年的一連串推測和調查，都在試圖填補比特幣中心的這一空白。《紐約客》（New Yorker）的約書亞?戴維斯、文本分析師斯凱?格雷和其他許多愛好者和專業調查者都進行過嘗試，但他們提出的理論都沒能讓人們滿意，《新聞周刊》（Newsweek）的獨家新聞可能又將是一次失敗的調查。

????然而不知為何，盡管沒有了創造者，比特幣卻依然堅挺至今。

????我們之所以想搞清是誰創造了比特幣是出于許多重要、合理的理由。畢竟，金錢建立在信任的基礎上，匿名的創造者無法取信于人。即便是比特幣的早期用戶，也在不斷懷疑比特幣的代碼中可能包含由創造者控制的秘密功能——比如能讓整個網絡癱瘓的“殺戮開關”。

????但我們知道事實并非如此，因為比特幣的代碼完全公開，而且此時已經經過全世界成千上萬程序員的檢查和修訂。這些人中也包括盈利性公司的創始人和員工，他們有著充分的動機來確保自己的安全。

????越來越多的人開始信任比特幣，但這種新任有賴于比特幣社區及其生態系統。盡管比特幣的企業家中不斷有人破產，但比特幣分散化和開源的發展模式使得比特幣底層協議的可靠性足以媲美其他優秀開發者控制的任何技術——甚至更加可靠。

????盡管如此，人們依然在尋找這樣一個人，光這個人的身份就能表明整個系統的可靠性。

????"I am not Dorian S. Nakamoto."

????That was the simple message posted from an account on the website of the Peer to Peer Foundation at 10 p.m. ET Thursday. The message was posted from an account under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto."

????The pseudonymous creator of the Bitcoin digital currency protocol had previously discussed the development of his invention on this forum, using this account, until he vanished from the world he created. The last prior activity on the account was from Feb. 18, 2009 -- also a discussion about bitcoin. The founder of the Peer to Peer Foundation has stated that the e-mail registered with the account matches previous public emails associated with Satoshi Nakamoto in Bitcoin's original design documents.

????This doesn't necessarily mean much. The account might have been hacked. Or Dorian S. Nakamoto may simply have logged in to spread disinformation in an attempt to deflect the media maelstrom converging around him. But combined with an AP interview in which a sometimes confused Dorian denied his involvement with Bitcoin and serious inconsistencies in the language abilities of the two Nakamotos, Leah McGrath Goodman's story at least starts to look contestable.

????And it doesn't matter a bit.

????Whether or not he is in fact Dorian S. Nakamoto, and whatever his motivations, the absence of Satoshi Nakamoto from the huge hype surrounding the virtual money he created has obviously left onlookers not just curious, but slightly manic. A constant stream of speculation and investigation stretching all the way back to 2011 has tried to plug the hole at the center of bitcoin, including attempts by Joshua Davis at the New Yorker, a textual analyst named Skye Grey, and a slew of other amateur and professional investigators. None of the theories have proven out, and Newsweek's scoop may be the next to fall.

????But somehow, without its creator, bitcoin soldiers on.

????There are many important, sensible reasons we want to know who created bitcoin. Money is based on trust, after all, and an anonymous creator inspires little. Even among bitcoin early adopters, there has been persistent hypothesizing that the bitcoin code could contain secret functions controlled by the anonymous creator -- for example, a killswitch that would disable the entire network.

????Except that we know this isn't true, because the bitcoin code is entirely public, and has at this point been reviewed and revised by thousands of programmers across the world. This includes the founders and employees of profitable businesses, who have every motivation to ensure they're on stable ground.

????The trust increasing numbers of people place in bitcoin rests on that community, and on that ecosystem. Though shakeouts continue among bitcoin entrepreneurs, its decentralized, open-source development model has made the underlying protocol as trustworthy as any technology controlled by a strong creator -- or more.

????But still, people go looking for one person whose identity can stand in for the trustworthiness of an entire system.