What's odd is the time the news broke, a Sunday eve, so some journals have run without confirming sources, the fake shill twitter account that speads fud about KnC for a guy called Andrew Laurus who checks out no where else,
Why do you keep calling this a "fake shill twitter account"? There's no evidence the twitter account doesn't actually belong to Andrew Laurus. Kim Dotcom follows this guy, as does
the WSJ reporter herself (She also follows bitcoin examiner, and bitcoin examiner follows Laurus as well)
While it seems likely that whoever runs the Andrew Laurus twitter is the source, what makes you think the guy running it isn't the same guy who worked at Lehman, etc?
I think you're missing the most obvious person to have planted the story: Andrew Laurus - followed by both Harriet Agnew, and bitcoinexaminer on twitter. He brags to these reporters that he's setting up this big deal. Maybe there is no deal and he's just blowing smoke up their asses in order to get some press for himself and make himself seem like a bigger deal then he is.
If the story is fake, that's a much more plausible explanation then the idea that some random upset chip buyer is able to con the WSJ into running a hoax story by pretending the be Andrew Laurus.
The WSJ content is word for word based on that article. No new substance. It appears to have been that easy...
I don't think anyone approached the WSJ, as I said it is likely the jorno keeps an eye out here, especially w.r.t. the timing of the Bitcoin examiner article succeeded by the WSJ hours later when this forum was still mulling it over.
It also doesn't mention anything about BFL or KnC.