Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

drcraigwright.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#11

Post by jerf »

jgrahamc wrote: post #2

Don't need any more proof that transferring BTC from a block that Satoshi controlled. Don't need reams of explanation or blog posts or anything else.

And why not now? Or indeed, why not a month ago?

If the goal is to convince people that he is Satoshi, and he really was Satoshi, this would never be his best choice of action. Given that goal, what conceivable reason is there to delay this simple action?

The most probable conclusion is pretty simple. I'll cop to hedging a bit with "probable", but in the event that this claim turns out to be true, it would be fair to ask questions about why on Earth this was considered to be the correct way to prove the claim.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#12

Post by tacos »

tcoppi wrote: post #4

Watching this unfold is simply fascinating to me from a sociological point of view. The number of scammers, liars, and pure weirdos that have gravitated to Bitcoin is incredible. I am simultaneously entertained, and saddened that people like this are able to wield such power over the community.

It's reaching the point where you have to consider external motivations to damaging Bitcoin's credibility. The only thing keeping me out of full-on tinfoil hat mode is that this stuff just felt shady and douchebag riddled from day one.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#13

Post by blowski »

jerf wrote: post #11
jgrahamc wrote: post #2

Don't need any more proof that transferring BTC from a block that Satoshi controlled. Don't need reams of explanation or blog posts or anything else.

And why not now? Or indeed, why not a month ago? If the goal is to convince people that he is Satoshi, and he really was Satoshi, this would never be his best choice of action. Given that goal, what conceivable reason is there to delay this simple action? The most probable conclusion is pretty simple. I'll cop to hedging a bit with "probable", but in the event that this claim turns out to be true, it would be fair to…

Maybe, just maybe, he's enjoying dragging it out and watching all these doubters post their reasons why it's not him. Imagining this whole story a year from now, with Craig Wright incontrovertibly proved to be Satoshi, the way he's done it would give him maximum PR value.

Or he could be a lying douchebag who's assuming that he will be associated with Satoshi in the general public consciousness after the media gets bored of the story and expects to profit from that.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#14

Post by throwanem »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #8
throwanem wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He really hasn't. His ordinary proof has already been debunked, repeatedly and in detail, so now he's spinning a bunch of bullshit to convince the foolishly credulous they should trust him in spite of the plain facts of the matter.

I'm not sure. Gavin has high reputation, and he has not yet revoked his support for Craig's claim. Maybe there will come irrefutable cryptographic proof around the next days. Or maybe not. AAMOF, in yesterdays post, he talked about crypto, but he did not claim it to be proof for anything. Today he is announcing proof for the next days. We'll see...

I'm not sure why Andresen's reputation has anything to do with the presence or absence of irrefutable cryptographic proof.

In the event, such proof is not merely absent but has been shown to be falsified, which is both dispositive of bad faith on Wright's part, and totally in keeping with his own reputation. He's a con man. This is a con. What more do you need, a couple stone tablets and a mountaintop?

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#15

Post by ifdefdebug »

tunesmith wrote: post #9

This is a prime opportunity for skeptics to identify for themselves, ahead of time , the clear conditions where 1) If Wright meets them, they will accept he is Satoshi 2) If Wright doesn't, then they will not A great exercise in avoiding the moving of goalposts, by setting a clear expectation ahead of time.

If he's going to move Satoshi's coin, AND Gavin keeps up his support, then I will accept he is Satoshi.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#16

Post by alva »

If by some extremely small chance he is Satoshi And his identity was close to being revealed (I think his name was first lingering in the ether around August), this could be a truly beautiful sleight of hand.

Purposely release 'proof' you know could be quickly refuted. Get the papers covering you with lots of photos and unnecessary blurb about companies you have been involved in. Drag the whole ordeal out over a week or two. Would come across as a complete loony, attention seeker in the tech community no? Quickly forgotten about and dismissed as Satoshi for a long time.

Do note! I do not imagine this is the case, but wouldn't it be great if it was?

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#17

Post by kbenson »

> For some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation. This is the nature of belief and swimming against this current would be futile.

Regardless of whether his claims are true or not, this portion seems self evident. People have too much invested emotionally in the outcome of this, for some reason, to allow this to be settled easily. One only needs to look at some of the discussions regarding this on HN to see people pointing at a single piece of evidence that can be interpreted multiple ways to make absolutist claims about this subject.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#18

Post by captn3m0 »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #8
throwanem wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He really hasn't. His ordinary proof has already been debunked, repeatedly and in detail, so now he's spinning a bunch of bullshit to convince the foolishly credulous they should trust him in spite of the plain facts of the matter.

I'm not sure. Gavin has high reputation, and he has not yet revoked his support for Craig's claim. Maybe there will come irrefutable cryptographic proof around the next days. Or maybe not. AAMOF, in yesterdays post, he talked about crypto, but he did not claim it to be proof for anything. Today he is announcing proof for the next days. We'll see...

Do we have any explanation on why Gavin hasn't revoked his post yet? He seems to be tweeting supportive articles as well. Are we still going with the "account was hacked" theory?

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#19

Post by kbenson »

alva wrote: post #16

If by some extremely small chance he is Satoshi And his identity was close to being revealed (I think his name was first lingering in the ether around August), this could be a truly beautiful sleight of hand. Purposely release 'proof' you know could be quickly refuted. Get the papers covering you with lots of photos and unnecessary blurb about companies you have been involved in. Drag the whole ordeal out over a week…

The only thing greater would be if he actually was both a complete loony and all his claims were true. It would be interesting to have something as important and useful as Bitcoin have an origin such as that.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#20

Post by fapjacks »

This thing stinks exactly like when those two guys claimed to have shot and killed a bigfoot, and "within a few days" they were going to "prove it" once and for all. They ended up of course having a rubber costume in a freezer. This post has totally hammered it home for me. I have everything I need to know that this guy is a scamming compulsive liar.
Post reply on HN