It's pretty gratifying that the Kleiman v. Wright suit is forcing disciplined investigation into several of the "Cult of Craig" claims, such as allegations that he falsified documents.
This is the kind of investigation I have mentioned several times no one who hates Craig has been willing to do. They merely scan for something that looks "off," assume they have a smoking gun, post it to reddit, get massively upvoted, and decide that the fact that no one corrects them means they were right.
Now these claims are put to the test. Expert witnesses will be called if Ira Kleiman's high-powered lawyers think it's to their benefit. No technobabbling or vagueness or claims of 4D chess can get Craig out of having to pay up to the tune of billions if it turns out he lodged forged documents into evidence as some are claiming on Reddit now.
Then we can stop arguing about Craig Wright and get back down to business.
"Oh that's rich coming from you, Mr. Bingledack." People seem to have gotten the impression that I like defending CSW. You know what I actually like? Cutting the fasted path to the truth, and to Bitcoin's resurgence. I wouldn't care what anyone thought about CSW if it weren't for the fact that the shade thrown at him makes it near impossible to discuss his ideas objectively. If everyone could hate him and hate his communicate style but still read him without bias, I wouldn't need to say a thing about him.
Instead, while I have advanced my understanding of Bitcoin greatly over the past two years, many of my old allies here haven't been able to come along for the ride due to an understandable-yet-unreasonable prejudice against the guy who has been espousing and elucidating most of these ideas. This pains me greatly. I could present all of these concepts here myself, but I'm not an expert in every field and I don't have unlimited time especially when explaining something becomes like pulling teeth due to where it came from.
For this to work, it would be immensely helpful for many people here to be conversant with Craig's ideas, to wade through his papers not on a faultfinding mission but a utility-extraction mission, to investigate claims that are outside my fields, to debate things like network topology and the legal facets of Bitcoin adoption without it devolving into a discussion of personalities or an ultra-high inferential distance affair.
I would be happy reading the work of anyone, even if it were full of errors and insanity, as long as there were useful ideas to discover. But it seems most people are not. Thus, as deliciously ironic as it must feel to some, I find myself - in the interest of the fastest path to a Bitcoin renaissance - forced to first try to remove this giant bottleneck to intelligent debate.
A mini Library of Alexandria is effectively burned in the minds of many here because it comes stamped with a personality they don't like. This is the only time discussing people does make sense: when everyone is ignoring the Library of Alexandria because they think Alexandria was a git, there's good reason to explain why Alexandria actually had some things going for him (yes I know Alexander the Great didn't write the books).
