Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof • Hacker News Board

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#51

Post by TillE » Tue, May 03, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

captn3m0 wrote: post #18

ifdefdebug wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People who get scammed are usually reluctant to admit it, even to themselves. I expect he'll come around in the next few days if and when there's no public proof forthcoming from Wright.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#52

Post by woodman » Tue, May 03, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #17

> 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…

Given the context, a trustless cryptographic system, the phrases "self evident" and "the nature of belief" are really out of place. This could all be easily settled - no faith required.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#53

Post by bsder » Tue, May 03, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

tacos wrote: post #12

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.

The fact that coins could be "mined" was the problem from day 1. This created a pyramid scheme/gold rush system that tainted everything.

Of course, if you are holding a large chunk of the initial coins, this is exactly what you want. In addition, there are always lots of people willing to fall for pyramid schemes, so it's good to bootstrap adoption.

Once Bitcoin finishes being "mined out", we'll see if it has any value. I suspect that answer is "not".

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#54

Post by curiousgal » Tue, May 03, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #42

MBCook wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Satoshi is, for the purpose Bitcoin, dead. If there is no way to prove who Satoshi really was, what other term could we use?

> Then Satoshi is, for the purpose Bitcoin, dead. If there is no way to prove who Satoshi really was, what other term could we use? "Satoshi's identity is unknowable" would be a more accurate description of that scenario that "Satoshi is dead".

Well, speaking of dead, here's an interesting theory.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone...

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#55

Post by jamesdwilson » Tue, May 03, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #29

If he is lying, what does he gain by all this?

From a redditor:

"I posted this detailed analysis describing a likely motivation for Craig needing to "prove" he is Satoshi. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_... The short version is that he made fictional investments in a company by claiming to have transferred his personal "interest" in $29m of bitcoin to the target company. (I.e. no blockchain transfer, just a legal document claiming to transfer that amount of bitcoin.) He then claimed substantial cash R&D credits from those transactions. Australian taxation office (ATO) began investigating. He has paperwork showing the transactions, but knows that ATO might dig around and want to see verification that he truly owned $32m of bitcoin. To cover that, he claims he put all his bitcoin in a trust, where the trustee was another early bitcoiner. Unfortunately, that friend has now passed away, and the private keys are lost. In order for the BS to be even vaguely plausible, he needs to show that he originally had access to $32m of bitcoin. This is why he pretends to be Satoshi."

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#56

Post by kbenson » Tue, May 03, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

woodman wrote: post #52

kbenson wrote: post #17

> 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…

Given the context, a trustless cryptographic system, the phrases "self evident" and "the nature of belief" are really out of place. This could all be easily settled - no faith required.

Given that I was referring to the irrational behavior of the people involved in the discussion as a sociological event, and was not referring to the cryptographic system at all, I don't think they are out of place at all.

> This could all be easily settled - no faith required.

My point is that I think there will be some people, far more than we should be comfortable with, which at this point have invested themselves so much emotionally in the outcome, that no proof will be enough. There's always some possible explanation, no matter how outlandish.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#57

Post by randyrand » Tue, May 03, 2016, 10:28 PM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #29

If he is lying, what does he gain by all this?

Fun?

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#58

Post by hardlianotion » Tue, May 03, 2016, 10:47 PM UTC

jamesdwilson wrote: post #55

cylinder wrote: post #29

If he is lying, what does he gain by all this?

From a redditor: "I posted this detailed analysis describing a likely motivation for Craig needing to "prove" he is Satoshi. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_... The short version is that he made fictional investments in a company by claiming to have transferred his personal "interest" in $29m of bitcoin to the target company. (I.e. no blockchain transfer, just a legal document claiming to…

Doesn't seem that smart to preempt the investigation though. Seems better to lay low and submit "proofs" quietly to ATO and hope for the best...

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#59

Post by woodman » Wed, May 04, 2016, 12:38 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #56

woodman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the context, a trustless cryptographic system, the phrases "self evident" and "the nature of belief" are really out of place. This could all be easily settled - no faith required.

Given that I was referring to the irrational behavior of the people involved in the discussion as a sociological event, and was not referring to the cryptographic system at all, I don't think they are out of place at all. > This could all be easily settled - no faith required. My point is that I think there will be some people, far more than we should be comfortable with, which at this point have invested themselves…

> ...behavior of the people involved in the discussion...

It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind.

> There's always some possible explanation, no matter how outlandish.

You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost moving, that is a strict adherence to reason.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#60

Post by kbenson » Wed, May 04, 2016, 2:11 AM UTC

woodman wrote: post #59

kbenson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that I was referring to the irrational behavior of the people involved in the discussion as a sociological event, and was not referring to the cryptographic system at all, I don't think they are out of place at all. > This could all be easily settled - no faith required. My point is that I think there will be some people, far more than we should be comfortable with, which at this point have invested themselves…

> ...behavior of the people involved in the discussion... It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind. > There's always some possible explanation, no matter how outlandish. You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost m…

> It is the context of the "sociological event" that I refer to, not the discussion about the discussion that you seem to have in mind.

Then let me clarify my intent. That "for some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation." see,s self evident from my experience in seeing how people are treating this discussion, and the "evidence" being put out to support or discredit any specific claim, not just of Craig Wright, but of those just putting forth possible explanations for his reasoning for his actions, in cased presupposing him as both a fraud and as Satoshi. I think this has less to do with it being about a cryptographic system than it does with people really liking the mystery, and wanting to hold onto their belief in it.

> You are describing the satisfiability problem, where a lot of contrived problems are obviously impossible to satisfy. That isn't emotionally driven goalpost moving, that is a strict adherence to reason.

I wouldn't call the belief the moon landing was faked a strict adherence to reason, and I think the same underlying motivations are at play. This will play out, and the vast majority of people will come to the same belief, but I believe, through what I've witnessed so far, that there will be a core the refuses to let go of some of the more outlandish possibilities.