- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Hmm. Interesting theory. I notice conflicting viewpoints about whether this is going to actually happen as he said, within the next year.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The left side of this spectrum does not use anonymity to harass people who are not anonymous. The other side of that spectrum does. On which side do you see yourself?
"ONLINE, I USE my real name for many things. But sometimes, I prefer to use a pseudonym. Not because I want to anonymously harass people or post incendiary comments unscathed; no, I simply want to manage the impression I make, while still participating in diverse conversations and communities."
Give it some thought.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
We're not talking relative possibilities though. I mean, I'd even put Peter R higher than Craig and that's still pretty low. Though I might give Craig a bit more credence if there wasn't a never-ending torrent of bullshit coming from him. A little bit higher if he makes decent tea.
He does not have access to the 1100111 Bitcoins until 1.1.2020 because there are locked in a fund.
Apparently there are 5 signatures (Craig, Dave, 2x Satoshi and the 5th unknow) how many are needed to move them also unknow. Dave obviously can no longer sign.
My take Satoshi is a legal entity created at two different legal company's.
Within the next year we will know more, one way or the other.
Now excuse me i have to finish my cheap Red (which i will enjoy until sometime next year when NWO kicks in)
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
That doesn't make any sense. In a GCBU poll CSW would get at least a tenfold higher probability attest than Peter, freetrader, you and me combined.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
When this date comes and nothing happens, will that convince anyone or will it be more "jam tomorrow"?
[doublepost=1554581279][/doublepost]
It's a good job we have no need for such a poll as you already know how it would turn out. But again, we are talking about my personal opinion (of which you asked) and which, again, relative probability is not the issue. You might as well ask me if I think I will get a flat tire on my next car journey. I don't believe I will but I wouldn't rule it out. WRT the Satoshi team, especially if Craig put a couple of digestives along with that tea.
Last edited:
If you haven't already, you should watch the documentary "beyond the curve".
The way I see it, CSW being satoshi is like looking up at the sky observing that appears to rotate overhead, observing how the horizon dips away, having flown in an aeroplane and seen the change in perspective, and coming to the conclusion that the earth is round. I haven't been to space, so I don't know for sure.
Then people come along and point out that none of that makes sense because the sun and moon move differently, and so one imagines that perhaps they are also spherical and each orbits the other, and measurements confirm this, and so we say aha - this is beyond reasonable doubt.
No no they say, observe there are several of the stars that do not move with the others, and these stars are studied and found to be larger 'planets' and an explanation is found that they are also part of the local system and it all mostly adds up. There are a bunch of oddities for sure, but on the whole, people mostly accept the earth is round.
Thats kind of where we are right now with CSW and the likelihood of his being behind satoshi. Given the available evidence I would find it incredible if most "uninitiated" bystanders didn't on lance one to roughly the same conclusion. They do not have any preconceptions, or cognitive biases based on ownership of coins, pre-existing membership of groups, and all those other things that affect reasoning.
And yet, FE believers, persist in their beleif.
They bought a ring laser gyroscope (RLG) for $20,000. In short this is some piece of high tech geek junk (technical term) that is so sensitive it can detect the rotational movement of the earth. If the earth is rotating, they said, then all it needs to do is register 15degrees an hour on this hunk off a bitcoin miner.
It did.
The crucial part is this: Did they accept the evidence? NO THEY DID NOT.
They decided instead ahh, but it must be picking up the rotation of the sky (never mind that this does not even make sense) they even gave them a cool name - "Heaven Energies", seems legit.
So they put it in a zero gauss chamber which should block the Heaven Energies... still 15 degrees.
They didn't like this either, they were pretty rattled, the signature is fake! They cried. THE EVIDENCE MUST BE EXTRAORDINARY
So they had him sign in a bismuth chamber... and it still he wrote 15 degrees.
It which point they declared that the most obvious reason was that SHA256 was broken, and returned the RLG for a full refund, which they received of course because the rest of the market also calmly and quietly understood that his signature wasn't really evidence of anything other than he could sign some keys. They all knew the truth, the Aussie man was bad, therefore he couldn't possibly be satoshi, so BTC was still definitely going to moon. All hail LN. etc etc.
Later on they did an experiment with another "big-ass (also a technical term)" laser and some poles. After much head scratching about why the experiment seemed to proved the Satoshi was was curved, they concluded that the experiment had been confounded by the wrong date on some leaves.(Yes they actually said it was "leaves"... all I could see in my head was the image of the aliens meme guy with "LEAVES!" written below it).
Anyway, cool story bro'
As funny as all that might be, what was interesting watching the show for me was observing the humans involved and their reactions and coping mechanisms when confronted with information that challenged their beliefs. I appreciate that it will be cut to hell for maximum effect here
the point is the people they were interviews were so massively entrenched in their position that there was absolutely nothing that could be done. It was religious fanaticism. They were proving to themselves the earth was round time after time, nobody was forcing them to do this. Yet they still denied their own experiment... I don't know what better evidence anyone could want. It was pure cognitive dissonance and it was painful to watch. Car crash tv.Now I don't for a second want anyone to think that I am above all that, that would be patently absurd. Of course I am subject to bias as much as the next person. For that reason, I know that the safest thing to do is to assume you are wrong and work backwards. Try not to become entrenched in a position. Right now I know the most dangerous thing that *I* could do is just think you know what, fuck it, he is. What you may not know is how I arrived where I am.
I first saw Craig back in 2014.15 and I was suspicious - like who the hell is this Aussie guy and WTF does *he* know about Bitcoin lol. but I knew that this was an initial bias, only a gentle one so its easy to spot. I knew I had give the guy a fair crack, because imagine if he is and im wrong gI could be missing something pretty important here (just like I gave maxwell, back et all the benefit of the doubt long after most had already declared block stream the devil incarnate - even today I probably take a softer view than most, believing as I do that they genuinely believe in what they are trying to do, im just not sure they were ever really honest about what that was... but thats another thing!).Anywa point was I knew I had to listen to what he was saying and try and remain objective and definitely not get caught up with the groupthink, because everyone else was suspicious too. That was hard because he's quite a character.
After some time I started to think actually, he knows an awful lot about this stuff I think he might have had something to do with it after all. That's the weirdest part, because that was when I flipped my bias detector, I became even more suspicious that he wasn't and that it could be really dangerous to proceed on the assumption he was - this was all going on around split time, and it could have a serious effect. I picked apart what he was saying more, I looked at some of the material he was putting out there, I asked him questions directly "but what if this, but what is this, I don't understand this can you explain it" he fucking explained it. In that I'm only giving you half way he has, but I understand why he does that too. This involved challenging what he was saying, and he was ok with that.
There have been times where I have asked some others questions and come close to challenging their understanding - their behaviour became *just like the flat earther's*. That puts me off far more than someone who is aloof, curt and does not suffer fools gladly. Those people are easy to talk to. They reflect you back at yourself.
So all that happened was over the last 6 months my doubts and scepticism have had the opposite effect, as I have ended up finding information that contradicts those doubts until I have ended at the point where there is little left. I know the claims of plaugurism, no attribution etc all of which is merely an appeal to emotion and has no bearing at all on whether he is or isn't (the fact he knew which bit to copy in itself works more in favour of!). So its all led me conclude that he probably is. I still don't know for sure and so I think it would be foolish for me to go around doing anything that depends on it being fact.
Almost as silly as behaving like you know for a fact that he isn't.
Last edited:
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
Two comments
First, Market dumping all the old bitcoins would be foolish, as it would decimate the entire blockchain space, but more than this it would be a criminal offence. You must announce significant price sensitive moves well in advance. (You see public company directors doing this, every time they sell shares) Market manipulation is a serious crime, with heavy penalties, something I suspect the BCH crew and many others in this space will feeling soon.
The other comment is on signing the genesis block. It's so easy to do, why not prove it? Simple answer lies with the value of information, something the real satoshi would implicitly understand. Sign once in public, and the value of that info is given away freely and forever. How much more valuable would it be if you could sign in private over and over agin?
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
It's funny, I was thinking of the exact same example but in the other direction. He's fallen so far short of what you would expect of someone who was Satoshi (including not even spelling Bitcoin the same) but it's never enough because it's not about a rational attempt to arrive at the facts but faith.
[doublepost=1554591544][/doublepost]
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Thanks, w.r.t. market dumping finally some common sense, although the legal argument is questionable. Of course anyone can bring a suit wherever it pleases them.
Have I mentioned that CSW advised people on Twitter to SELL into fiat before the November fork?
I remember that one. As well as there would be "no split"
Was that an attempt at market manipulation? Did CSW and co in fact sell their BCH into fiat?
I suppose these kinds of questions should be addressed by the many in the space that you mentioned, who felt the effects of "no split" and "we will bankrupt you".
I think they will have some words to share in courts about what constitutes market manipulation.
Has CSW ever publicly presented this as an argument for evading a public signing?
Because if that was the consideration, it would have been straightforward to present it as a reason.
He would've given those whose integrity he cast into doubt by his failure an immediate cover.
Yet AFAIK years went by and we never heard such reasoning from him.
So, I think it's a creative post-hoc argument, but I don't buy it as matching his motivation.
Lol, like when you find out Santa is your parents. So disappointing. Yet the fact remains
Let me explain the metaphor more fully.
The night sky is the body of work, degrees, papers, patents oh and a 100 page long discovery document in a multi billion dollar court case where the plaintiff's whole argument rests on CSW being in the room.
The peculiar movement of the moon and the sun, is the repeated insistence that all of the above is merely an illusion and the fact that some academic paper amongst hundreds does not have a correct citation means all of them are wrong.
The odd little stars that don't behave right, are the dates in blog posts that don't quite match up, meaning that everything that was ever published online ever that might indicate CSW is Satoshi can be disregarded.
No no. The earth is flat. Never mind that charlatan Newton, relativity proved all that gravity mumbo jumbo was bunk.
What if he produces cryptographic evidence (the RLG)? Just put it down to luck that he guessed the right key, I mean that's possible right.
Let me explain the metaphor more fully.
The night sky is the body of work, degrees, papers, patents oh and a 100 page long discovery document in a multi billion dollar court case where the plaintiff's whole argument rests on CSW being in the room.
The peculiar movement of the moon and the sun, is the repeated insistence that all of the above is merely an illusion and the fact that some academic paper amongst hundreds does not have a correct citation means all of them are wrong.
The odd little stars that don't behave right, are the dates in blog posts that don't quite match up, meaning that everything that was ever published online ever that might indicate CSW is Satoshi can be disregarded.
No no. The earth is flat. Never mind that charlatan Newton, relativity proved all that gravity mumbo jumbo was bunk.
What if he produces cryptographic evidence (the RLG)? Just put it down to luck that he guessed the right key, I mean that's possible right.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
You speak of what-ifs as if they are reality and then base your conclusions from that. He has never provided suitable cryptographic evidence and severely damaged the credibility of someone who was apparently close to Satoshi in the shenanigans surrounding the circus he made from that. The guy has repeatedly lied, misrepresented and shown a level of understanding way below what one would expect from someone who was even well versed with the technology time and time again but it is never enough because he knows how to tell some people what they want to hear.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
No, I think that and the previous post by @sgbett is genuine BABble. He seems to have gone incoherent. Intriguing.
Meta-phor for the meta-net or something?Lol, like when you find out Santa is your parents. So disappointing. Yet the fact remains
Let me explain the metaphor more fully.
The night sky is the body of work, degrees, papers, patents oh and a 100 page long discovery document in a multi billion dollar court case where the plaintiff's whole argument rests on CSW being in the room.
The peculiar movement of the moon and the sun, is the repeated insistence that all of the above is merely an illusion and the fact that some academic paper amongst hundreds does not have a correct citation means all of them are wrong.
The odd little stars that don't behave right, are the dates in blog posts that don't quite match up, meaning that everything that was ever published online ever that might indicate CSW is Satoshi can be disregarded.
No no. The earth is flat. Never mind that charlatan Newton, relativity proved all that gravity mumbo jumbo was bunk.
What if he produces cryptographic evidence (the RLG)? Just put it down to luck that he guessed the right key, I mean that's possible right.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
The movement of the sun and the moon aren't even all the peculiar. It's the planets which are more interesting. But that is more related to the heliocentric solar system than to a flat earth. A non-flat earth is pretty trivial to demonstrate actually, as is anyone's provenance as Satoshi. The difference is that one has been done an untold number of times, the other, not reliably proven even once.
Last edited:
Let's play a fun game, I'll be you, you be "The Real Satoshi(TM)" and in order to prove who you are you have to do whatever I ask of you.
Of course, being the real satoshi, you would be able to do these things.
However I can simply say, because I am a true non-believer, that you have only proven you can do the thing I asked you to do, that doesn't *fully* prove you are Satoshi at all, so now you must do this other thing.
Signing will just be the RLG experiment, honestly please watch this and observe the mental processes that bob goes through as he is confronted by evidence *by his own hand* that the earth is rotating as predicted:
its at 4:00 mins in. its worth your time even if you want to project that bob is me, and that the blog typo is dead cert proof. It's just a really interesting video of human behaviour.
Anway, the commentator hits the nail on the head, bob clearly thinks he is being scientific but is in fact using the *opposite* of scientific method. Actively seeking out ways in which to confirm his existing bias.
I'm sure that you all think that poring over old texts, and blog posts looking for the smallest discrepancy makes you scientific, and diligent and thorough, and that the bad Aussie man can't outsmart you.
To me it looks like you really *need* it to be true, because you are pot committed, so are looking for anything that can be used to try and disprove the mountain of circumstantial evidence that suggests that, hmm maybe the glove does fit.
If some other dude came forward tomorrow and signed a message from the genesis block with "Craig is not satoshi" I would say "oh wow, would you look at that I was wrong!" and reasonable people everywhere would say, yeah you were, but hey you never said he was for sure. Life would go on BSV would still be Bitcoin (lets not forget that's what its really about for many, a proxy war).
A million twitter trolls would recreate that last scene out of society, culminating in orgasmic bliss as they revel in the fact they were all personally the first person to point out that he was faking it. Then turn on each other in some proper horrorshow flame war training activity, until they were programmed with the next target.
My bias, of course, would tell me that actually CSW had done it for some reason only known to him, and this merely confirms my suspicion all along
Of course, being the real satoshi, you would be able to do these things.
However I can simply say, because I am a true non-believer, that you have only proven you can do the thing I asked you to do, that doesn't *fully* prove you are Satoshi at all, so now you must do this other thing.
Signing will just be the RLG experiment, honestly please watch this and observe the mental processes that bob goes through as he is confronted by evidence *by his own hand* that the earth is rotating as predicted:
its at 4:00 mins in. its worth your time even if you want to project that bob is me, and that the blog typo is dead cert proof. It's just a really interesting video of human behaviour.
Anway, the commentator hits the nail on the head, bob clearly thinks he is being scientific but is in fact using the *opposite* of scientific method. Actively seeking out ways in which to confirm his existing bias.
I'm sure that you all think that poring over old texts, and blog posts looking for the smallest discrepancy makes you scientific, and diligent and thorough, and that the bad Aussie man can't outsmart you.
To me it looks like you really *need* it to be true, because you are pot committed, so are looking for anything that can be used to try and disprove the mountain of circumstantial evidence that suggests that, hmm maybe the glove does fit.
If some other dude came forward tomorrow and signed a message from the genesis block with "Craig is not satoshi" I would say "oh wow, would you look at that I was wrong!" and reasonable people everywhere would say, yeah you were, but hey you never said he was for sure. Life would go on BSV would still be Bitcoin (lets not forget that's what its really about for many, a proxy war).
A million twitter trolls would recreate that last scene out of society, culminating in orgasmic bliss as they revel in the fact they were all personally the first person to point out that he was faking it. Then turn on each other in some proper horrorshow flame war training activity, until they were programmed with the next target.
My bias, of course, would tell me that actually CSW had done it for some reason only known to him, and this merely confirms my suspicion all along
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
"I have a box. In the box is a hat. But I'm not going to show it to you because you'll just say you don't believe it's a hat." Are you even listening to yourself? You're building your position on fantasy and then accusing others of doing so. I'm not the one who is going to get a rude awakening about a fairy tale. If CSW proves he is Satoshi (he won't because he's not), I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and then I'll reassess my willingness to participate in BSV. I won't be holding my breath.
[doublepost=1554599279,1554598559][/doublepost]But I will be holding my BSV.
[doublepost=1554599279,1554598559][/doublepost]But I will be holding my BSV.
I'm not saying he *is* satoshi.
I'm saying that there is a bunch of evidence that suggests he could be.
I am also saying that there is a bunch of people that can't bear the thought he might be and that those people's bias forces them to focus on minutiae on order that they can deny the existence of any other evidence that challenges their preconceived beleif.
I didn't believe he was, but neither did I conclude that he wasn't. I went and tried out hats, I found them to be very informative. If you cannot see the hats then I can only assume it is because you are looking elsewhere.
I'm saying that there is a bunch of evidence that suggests he could be.
I am also saying that there is a bunch of people that can't bear the thought he might be and that those people's bias forces them to focus on minutiae on order that they can deny the existence of any other evidence that challenges their preconceived beleif.
I didn't believe he was, but neither did I conclude that he wasn't. I went and tried out hats, I found them to be very informative. If you cannot see the hats then I can only assume it is because you are looking elsewhere.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Imagine Lee De Forest had invented Radio as an anonymous designer/organiser, and then later he began to claim being the creator of Radio. Believers such as Freetrader, Richy-T et al. would attest him a nearly 100% probability of not being Radio man.
Religion - a system that works, lol!
Religion - a system that works, lol!
