Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[majamalu]

It's not a change of date; it's a change in the text.

I know where your mind is going: "he want's you to believe that he want's you to believe what he doesn't want you to believe", or something like that.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

What is your claim specifically? That he tried to fool people into thinking he was Satoshi? Or that he tried to fool people into thinking he was trying to fool them into thinking he was Satoshi? Those are two very different claims.

I believe I already mentioned attempts to trap so-called "experts." Here I cannot verify, but Craig has often talked about ways to mess with the Wayback Machine. Could be bluffing. I don't know. To me it is just an interesting curiosity. I know him to be Satoshi from an overwhelming pile of other evidence, direct and circumstantial. So I can only speculate what his motives are there. Knowing him pretty well now, I'd guess it is him being cheeky.

Again, all this stuff is old hat to him, and he would know this change would be caught because he knew he'd be under a microscope. Again we have to choose: is he a complete fucking doofus, or is he playing 4D chess. Well, he's not a complete doofus in this field, that much is clear - you don't get to be world record holder in cybersecurity certs while being a cyber doofus.

Another thing is the Dave Kleiman estate lawsuit that is ongoing. And Phil Wilson's purported attempt to extort Craig. This gets into messy conjecture, but here the one who has to explain away the oddity is not me but those who think he isn't Satoshi. How exactly do you end up being implicated in a lawsuit as being Satoshi? And does messing with records and forging documents help you ensure such a court case gets thrown out? This is very much in line with Craig's strategems that I have seen in action recently.

I should here reiterate that this is unlikely to be an efficient vector of discussion, seeing how many words we have already exchanged to get nowhere. Yes, Craig has done a bunch of weird cyber stuff. He always talked a lot about stuff like this on the InfoSec mailing list, like super clever ways of screwing over hackers. It's a deep rabbit hole, and even if in the end it turns out he was for sure faking and not the mastermind, it changes nothing other than maybe I now think Dave is the main guy but Craig is probably the far greater genius. The implications remain the same: take Craig seriously, look closely at what he has to say, implement. That's the real reason I am writing all this.

 

[majamalu]

Let's get to the point: What would convince you that he is indeed a fraud?

Edit: ok, I look forward to your direct and overwhelming evidence. I'm open to the idea that you know something that I don't.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

A fraud regarding the Satoshi claim? Or man who defrauds people? If the latter, any strong evidence of him defrauding someone. I would see that a personality flaw. If the former, at this point it would be hard to convince me of anything other than that he wasn't the main guy but just helped. He knows and understands way too much about Bitcoin that no one else does, and there are too many coincidences. I cannot imagine what kind of evidence could make me think he wasn't intimately involved with the creation of Bitcoin.

Even if I were to be convinced he wasn't the main guy in the project, I would still be convinced he is ~20 years ahead of everyone else in this space unless I was shown some luminary who has been hiding out all these years.
[doublepost=1542004271,1542003281][/doublepost]I'll start lining up the case FOR him being Satoshi and being 20 years ahead a bit later, once I've dealt with the misconceptions and reasoning errors as best I can.

One important consideration: say you find a ton of evidence he's not Satoshi and ton of evidence he is. Or better, a ton of evidence he knows what he's talking about and is the biggest genius in Bitcoin and a ton of evidence he isn't. Which do you conclude? This goes back to: a randomly insightful moron is exceedingly unlikely, but a genius with blind spots and even harboring "idiocies" and delusions is not so strange.

 

[majamalu]

But we are not talking about some minor stuff, unrelated to his claim that he is Satoshi. Einstein's socialism is unfortunate but irrelevant to Einstein's work. This, on the other hand, is akin to a possible proof that Einstein fabricated the evidence that he came up with E = mc².

Anyway, I'm ready to listen to your case.

 

[macsga]

I'm still baffled that every single technical discussion about Bitcoin ends up as an Ad-Hom attack against CSW. Genius...

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

ABC collapsing. SV up.

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash-abc/
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash-sv/

markets realize what's going on. Roger Ver and Jihan will before thursday. There will be no split.

@Zangelbert Bingledack Thank you for the great, long read. I started, but had not enough time to get through. Will reserve it for a quite moment.

 

[freetrader]

There is no question taboo, so please ask away.

Ok first question @Zangelbert Bingledack :

CSW has made the unsubstantiated claim that Prof David Rees was part of Satoshi.
I don't believe a word of it.

Let's see some evidence. This challenge is addressed to all CSW believers, btw.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Yes he made that claim and he hasn't proven it. Likewise with Dave Kleiman, Ray Dillinger, and Hal Finney. David Rees is dead. Dave Kleiman is dead but his family is suing CSW for $10B, saying they co-invented Bitcoin IIRC. To my knowledge, Ray Dillinger hasn't confirmed or denied despite being aware of the claim (subseqently touching on the subject of early Bitcoin history at least once). Hal Finney is dead.

I'm not sure the intent here. It seems like maybe you're assuming he is stating these things to build a case around his Satoshihood. I suspect he is merely saying them because they are true and he cares that history knows of the claims, whereas proving is something that could bring unwanted attention to Ray and the families of the deceased, so he is leaving that up to them.

There is another professor who Craig says he discussed Bitcoin with in 2007 or 2008 at a conference. AFAIK she is still alive, is aware of the claim, and has neither confirmed nor denied. I can dig up her name on Twitter if interested.

In the case of the two living persons, who both look to me pretty straight-laced and unlikely to aid in fakery (but see what you think), it's a pretty bold move as they could easily deny. Likewise with the deceased families, and one of them is confirming in a pretty high-profile way that they believe he was involved and is/was a multibillionaire. (Note to @chriswilmer about funding: Craig says he funds nChain himself. I don't know whether there is a standard way for a third party to prove how a company is funded.)

I'd class this category of questions as fun stuff. Indeed it's a very interesting saga. I hope even these fairly ambiguous examples start to illustrate some of the nuances involved that have the potential to create counterintuitive behavior.

 

[freetrader]

There is another professor who Craig says he discussed Bitcoin with in 2007 or 2008 at a conference. AFAIK she is still alive, is aware of the claim, and has neither confirmed nor denied. I can dig up her name on Twitter if interested.

Yes, please do. I haven't heard of this claim.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

another Bitcoin Maximalist getting in love with Bitcoin Cash


Edit: Here's the pro ABC position in one tweet:

 

[cypherdoc]

@BitcoinExpress was a complicated guy from the earliest days. hated and revered. I personally liked that he destroyed many an altcoin via outright mining attacks. it culled the herd and helped bootstrap Bitcoin.

who is the idiot Rich Martel?
[doublepost=1542022107][/doublepost]

ABC collapsing. SV up

lol
[doublepost=1542022274][/doublepost]

I'm still baffled that every single technical discussion about Bitcoin ends up as an Ad-Hom attack against CSW. Genius...

what's really a shame is watching normally clear monetary thinkers like @jessquit running around reddit with his hair on fire.
[doublepost=1542022884,1542021980][/doublepost]

Maybe we are all being duped:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9wa1bp/what_if_revised/

.>I hope that I am hodl the right coins

I hope that I am hodl too

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Yes, please do. I haven't heard of this claim.

Her name is Dawn Song, a pretty highly cited UC Berkeley professor.

A 2004 paper about sybil attacks she was an author on, which Craig says he liked: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1307346

Her Google Scholar.

I note that she didn't retweet or like either of his tweets. I haven't checked whether she made a statement on her feed or whether anyone asked her publicly. I imagine she understands the gravity, whether that means essentially attesting to him being Satoshi or exposing him as a faker.

A key question would be whether that conference in Hyderabad where he says they met in 2008 was before or November 1st, when Satoshi first announced Bitcoin.

EDIT: Seems likely it was a conference in December, after the Bitcoin announcement, where Dawn Song is listed: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540898610

That means it's not super-strong evidence even if she confirms, as it's conceivable that Craig was just a huge fan of Bitcoin from among the very few who had heard of it then. It would be a pretty big coincidence, but not by itself reliable. If she says he gave details not public at the time, then stronger.

 

[Zarathustra]

We urgently need to get investigative journalists to find out who has been funding Blockstream and nChain...

... and ABC, and Bitmain, which you surprisingly forgot to mention.
[doublepost=1542025559,1542024571][/doublepost]

ABC collapsing. SV up.

The ABC cheerleaders should stop crying about SV miners hashing Bitcoin Cash. They should cry about the ABC miners not mining Bitcoin Cash.

 

[macsga]

Her name is Dawn Song

I have been following her work through different academic paths. Pretty impressive academic impact. Thanks for the text. When / if I have the time I will probably unwrap my musings on the subject. As a general notion, I would say that I have pretty much the same opinion with the one you expressed.

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zangelbert Bingledack

Unlike all those 100% convinced truthers here and there, I wouldn't rule out that Craig is (part of the team) Satoshi, but I can not imagine that Craig is identical to the person who wrote on bitcointalk. Can you?

 

[cypherdoc]

WTF is this? everyone needs to step back a moment and compare what is being said (and done) to that of what Core once said (and did):

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Haha, they start to realize what's going on.

I love the answer from sharkpool-ari


This pic is funny too

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drzsg8vVsAALzOB.jpg:large

"If we don't get what we want, the whitepaper was wrong".

Where do you know this from?

 

[cypherdoc]

for those interested, here is a list of BitcoinExpress presumed attacks:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=790462.0

we're basically in the early days of BCH just like we were in the early days of BTC back then.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Sth slightly else.

Do you remember Mike Hearn's farewall post: "Bitcoin failed because the community failed." He repeated it in his AMA on reddit this or last year, and he said that he sees no reason that BCH didn't repeat the mistake. I wonder if this would change his mind ...