I’m Sorry • Hacker News Board

Re: I’m Sorry

#61

Post by sigmar » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:33 PM UTC

justsaysmthng wrote: post #48

I believe the guy is Satoshi. People were expecting the next Jesus Christ and now everyone's so disappointed that "Satoshi" is just an average geek with human weaknesses - not the messiah everyone expected. Had he started a Unicorn startup, nobody would have even thought to question it, but now that the myth of Satoshi has been blown to astronomic proportions, people refuse to believe that their guru is just a "simpl…

No one is discrediting him because he isn't good at coding or "just an average geek"

People are skeptical because this isn't the first time he claimed to be Satoshi [1], and that time he did it by back-dating posts. This time he did it with a demonstrably fake signing of Sartre text.

Why would the real Satoshi go to great lengths to create fake evidence?

Re: I’m Sorry

#62

Post by rankam » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:35 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #36

shanehoban wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a JPG, is there a hidden message encoded in it or something?

Given that the entire source of his main website is my first guess would be that he wanted to delete basically everything and leave a static message but didn't want to figure out how to do that minimally in HTML/etc. so he just did an image.

It looks like it was changed from an image to html within the last 5 minutes or so.

Re: I’m Sorry

#63

Post by ryao » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:37 PM UTC

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way that you are acting, you are acting exactly like he intended for you to act. There is simply insufficient public evidence to say whether he is or is not. He is in that pesky excluded middle that gives rise to pseudo-Boolean logic.

That being said, people should realize that the creator of Bitcoin does not want to be found and honor that.

Re: I’m Sorry

#64

Post by teraflop » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

spdustin wrote: post #17

Sounds like a suicide note from a distraught individual to me, leaving aside the lack of Satoshi's grammar. I do not know enough about his background to contact the police for a well-being check; does anyone here?

At face value, I would agree. But given that he's clearly lying about being Satoshi, and therefore also lying in this note, I figure it's likely that the "suicidal" tone was deliberately chosen. It's just another attempt to stir up controversy.

Re: I’m Sorry

#65

Post by TillE » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

mootothemax wrote: post #57

At this point, this is bordering on performance art. (For what it's worth, I'm torn on this note: on the one hand, it's deeply upsetting that someone is writing that they're feeling such torment; on the other hand, should it turn out to have been written insincerely, he's just made it a tonne more difficult for anyone else who does legitimately express feelings like this. No winners.)

Honestly, I'm shocked anyone is taking it seriously. Every shred of evidence (from the past few days, and from last year) suggests he's a con artist.

I certainly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it's laughable to think this guy is actually Satoshi, and therefore impossible to see this note as sincere.

Re: I’m Sorry

#66

Post by OliverSadie » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

Did anyone notice his pronunciation of "moniker" on the BBC piece? Needed a second or two to parse "monkier". Before seeing the weight of evidence both sides of the argument, this awkward language was my first whiff of BS. Just me?

Re: I’m Sorry

#67

Post by c22 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

noxToken wrote: post #58

I know what cryptocurrency is but I have hardly followed what goes on. I am somewhat familiar with the recent event involving Wright. Could someone tell me, in plain English, if there are any challenges in Wright divulging the information needed to verify that he is Satoshi?

There are only challenges if he doesn't have the key. If he has the key he should trivially be able to sign anything with it or decrypt anything encrypted to it.

Re: I’m Sorry

#68

Post by r618 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:41 PM UTC

bwahahahahaha

Re: I’m Sorry

#69

Post by dzdt » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #63

dzdt wrote: post #50

He had promised to do the impossible -- cryptographically prove he had access to early coins which he did not in fact have. He had carefully developed two scam-proofs of this. One scam proof was deployed on his blog where he claimed to sign a Sartre text with a key from bitcoin block 9. He carefully did not give the exact input text, only a supposed hash of the text. The hope was anyone trying to replicate would assu…

I had not cared that much about this, but his actions are exactly what I would have expected from bitcoin's creator. There are some guys who simply do not want to be found. The guy who created Bitcoin is one of them. Making things develop like this simultaneously repairs much of the damage to his anonymity while minimizing the damage to the two guys who put their reputations on the line for him. By acting the way tha…

So you expected the real Satoshi to keep his anonymity by announcing his identity to the world and then backing up the announcement with "proof" that is clearly false?

Re: I’m Sorry

#70

Post by mootothemax » Thu, May 05, 2016, 1:46 PM UTC

TillE wrote: post #65

mootothemax wrote: post #57

At this point, this is bordering on performance art. (For what it's worth, I'm torn on this note: on the one hand, it's deeply upsetting that someone is writing that they're feeling such torment; on the other hand, should it turn out to have been written insincerely, he's just made it a tonne more difficult for anyone else who does legitimately express feelings like this. No winners.)

Honestly, I'm shocked anyone is taking it seriously. Every shred of evidence (from the past few days, and from last year) suggests he's a con artist. I certainly believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it's laughable to think this guy is actually Satoshi, and therefore impossible to see this note as sincere.

Yeah, honestly I agree with you, I doubt any part of it is real.

I do feel uneasy about discounting a potential cry for help, though, however unlikely it may be.