Corrections
The standard
Satoshi Gazette corrects in public. When a published piece is wrong, the correction is recorded with its date, what was said, what the record actually shows, and how the error was made. Pieces are not silently edited, and a correction is never removed once published.
Claims Under Review carries its own verdicts. When a claim's status changes, every published piece that relied on it is re-checked, and any correction that follows is listed here.
- Factual error
- 2
- Imprecision
- 5
- Missing context
- 1
- Attribution
- 1
- Retraction
- 0
- Claim verdicts changed
- 1
Corrections to pieces and the Data Desk3
Newest first.
- Three Pool Labels Built 57.6% of Last Week’s Bitcoin Blocks
Imprecision ·
LinkStory · published
- What we said
- pool attribution measures coordination, not miner ownership
- What the record shows
- Pool attribution shows a coordination surface, the pools that assemble block templates. It does not show that miners coordinate, or who owns them, as the Story's chart caption and its sixth paragraph say.
- How it happened
- The deck shortened the Story's 'visible coordination surface' to 'measures coordination', and the review did not set the deck against the chart caption, which until 30 September showed only as the image's alt text.
- Warsh Says Money Matters. M2 Rose 0.89% From May to July
Imprecision ·
LinkStory · published
- What we said
- a 204.1 billion increase, or 0.8868 percent
- What the record shows
- 204.1 billion dollars over May's 23,013.9 billion is 0.886855 percent, which is 0.8869 percent to four places. The headline's 0.89 percent and the annualized 5.32 and 5.44 percent were right.
- How it happened
- The four-place figure was cut instead of rounded when the paragraph was written, and the review checked the headline's two-place figure, not the four-place one.
- The BLAKE2b Fork’s Early Issuance Ran About Nine Times Bitcoin’s Target Pace.
Imprecision ·
LinkStory · published
- What we said
- The headline and copy presented nine-times issuance as current and described the measurement as beginning at a difficulty reset. The story also compared the chains’ raw difficulty numbers across different proof-of-work algorithms without establishing a meaningful security comparison.
- What the record shows
- The retained operator observations cover August 30–September 2: 4,064 height increments in about 77.2 hours, about 8.8 times Bitcoin’s ten-minute target pace. The interval includes two adjustments. This is faster calendar-time issuance, not evidence of a higher eventual subsidy cap; halvings remain height-based. Cross-algorithm difficulty numbers do not establish relative economic attack costs. The title and deck now identify the historical window.
- How it happened
- SG mislabeled a cumulative observation window, failed to distinguish issuance timing from the height-based subsidy schedule, and juxtaposed incommensurate difficulty figures without the hardware and cost evidence a security comparison requires.
Showing 3 of 9. Clear filters
Claim verdicts that changed1
- “The United States left the gold standard in 1971.”
· Evidence revised · verdict unchanged (Oversimplified)
LinkThe first public worked example was not ledger-derived and linked Executive Order 6102 to 1 FR 1, an unrelated 1936 Federal Register page. This reviewed row replaces that citation with the order text, removes the unsupported 1974 restoration assertion, preserves the order's explicit exceptions, and replaces the seeded identifier with the deterministic ledger id.
Found something wrong?
Write to info@satoshigazette.org with the piece, the passage, and what you believe the record actually shows. A correction does not require you to be polite about it.