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

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#21

Post by Bartweiss »

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.

I have the impression that basic goalposts are widely accepted.

If Wright can provide signatures or transactions for the original block, he will be accepted as someone special, if not necessarily Satoshi. If he can't, he certainly won't be accepted.

If he can do that, then it comes down to deciding how he came by those private keys. It's certainly good to pre-register standards, but it's also a really hard question; Wright gave no indication of what evidence types he'll be using, so it's hard to pre-judge every sort of evidence he might offer.

My one other expectation would be that he would explain why the "signature" that got him onto BBC wasn't what he claimed it was. If he is Satoshi, it's a damned odd thing to use a faked signature for his basic proof.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#22

Post by kbenson »

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.

That would bring far too much rationality and accountability to this subject and the people driving the discussion.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#24

Post by kbenson »

blowski wrote: post #13
jerf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bo…

> Maybe, just maybe, he's enjoying dragging it out and watching all these doubters post their reasons why it's not him.

I have to admit, it would be awesome to see this as an elaborate way to get send a "fuck you" to all the people that accused him of fraud initially, when he claims we was trying to just lay low and let it pass. It would be the most elaborate trolling ever carried out.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#25

Post by wbhart »

mbgaxyz wrote: post #3
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.

True, but possession of private keys does not prove identity. Having Gavin confirm that this is indeed the person he spoke with thoughout the years is also important. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next. Craig has certainly left us with a cliffhanger...

In his BBC interview he seemed to avoid directly saying that he was Satoshi or agreeing with the reporter that he was claiming to be him. When asked if he was Satoshi he skirted the issue by saying that he was one of the original people. So I'm not at all sure there is a single individual called Satoshi. We certainly know from his writing that Craig Wright is not the one who came up with the significant ideas behind bitcoin. He's not smart enough.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#26

Post by ultramancool »

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.

Just sign a message using the pubkey in the genesis block and I'll admit it. No questions asked.

Just like Charlie Lee did for Litecoin here: https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/727157971428331520 (he did it to show just how easy and provable it is)

Anything less and I have to question it or call bullshit. Current state is complete bullshit.

Moving coin from early blocks is not nearly as good. Bitcoin was publicized early on a few mailing lists so it'd be entirely possible he's just an early user trying to game himself up as the creator. Statistical evidence combined with moving early coin could be semi-convincing, but still not as simple and absolute as a single signature using the pubkey in the genesis block. Proving this is dead easy and that signature is the on/off bit for me.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#27

Post by Bartweiss »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #15
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.

It seems like this would settle it for most people. When people saw the claim "this is signed with Satoshi's key", they didn't say "that's not enough", they said "bullshit".

Moving the coin and giving an unambiguous explanation of his so-far confusing 'reveal' would do it for me.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#28

Post by Lxr »

The guy is clearly an attention seeker, he has provided literally zero proof he’s anyone noteworthy so let’s move on. He will likely continue to trickle these convoluted and increasingly desperate blog posts as people gradually forget about him.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#30

Post by sago »

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.

I'm a (non-expert) skeptic fascinated by this. My skepticism, personally would be met by two elements

a) A message identifying himself signed with a key from one of the original blocks.

b) Testimony of one of the early BTC people who interacted with him that he is the same person.

a alone would mean he could have otherwise acquired the keys, b makes this unlikely. b has been provided, but it is insufficient without a.

Post reply on HN