181–189 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is perfectly parodied by: https://twitter.com/RealCraigWright/status/72752133741419315... (PS I tried to upvote you out of invisibility because while I think you are wrong the replies are valuable)
I think this is actually terrific: https://twitter.com/RealCraigWright/status/72824283201683865... I must find out who the real Real Craig Wright is at once. This is hilarious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His behavior has no affect on me. Why should I care? Even if your analogy is accurate, that guy at the bar doesn't affect me either. What is dangerous and does affect me, indirectly in this case, is the online mob behavior and bullying. That does real harm to people and to our society. For example, whoever the real Satoshi is, would they ever want to be subjected to this?
Bullying probable conmen is a reasonable way to try and discourage future conmen. Come 'round our town selling snake oil, and you get run out on a rail. It's disproportionate; that's the point. It's a sort of social control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is that there is no legitimate reason for Wright to not allow them to keep copies of the proof, aside from the reason that the hardware/software he provided was a tampered version and the proof would not actually work on any machine not provided by him.
I can think of a reason. If Gavin, for example, had both a new text and a signature that was demonstrably from Satoshi, then he could publish this and screw Craig's big reveal. I mean, if anyone is a reasonably credible Satoshi, it's Gavin. That, at least, would be a good reason to not give the signature to Gavin or Jon. However, the moment Craig failed to sign an unambiguously new text on his blog with a known Satos…
Yes, but the message that was (supposedly) signed contained words to the effect of "Craig Wright is Satoshi", or else his initials? How would Gavin be able to use that message to show that Gavin was Satoshi?
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…
As someone mostly in the dark about bitcoin and the community around it, why does this matter at all? Why do people care who created it at this stage, and if that person should come forth, what would the impact be? What could such a person realistically do?
I for one have a lot of respect for this satoshi, and if they ever reveal themselves I would like to find out more about them, purely because they sound quite interesting.
Earlier this week Craig wright came out with a wild claim with "proof" that actually worked against his favour if anything. Most people see this as a selfish act to try to claim fame and respect, while having the audacity to claim that he doesn't want that. This naturally puts him in a very dislikeable position, and I imagine many people wanted to see how he would attempt to worm his way out of this mess he has got himself in, knowing full well he couldn't produce the goods.
You're right that it "doesn't matter" but then at some level perhaps nothing does... It all comes down to subjective interest at the end of the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullying probable conmen is a reasonable way to try and discourage future conmen. Come 'round our town selling snake oil, and you get run out on a rail. It's disproportionate; that's the point. It's a sort of social control.
But the bullies often get it wrong. Vigilante justice is not justice at all, just abuse of random people.
In this case, it's nuts because everyone agrees on what the standard of evidence is, including him, and he's refused to provide it and acting hurt that people are sceptical. Many people gave him the benefit of the doubt when Gavin et al vouched for him; it's entirely his behavior afterwards that has turned people against him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wright has permanently damaged other people's reputations, and put substantial effort into impersonating another person. I don't know if "victim" is appropriate. At any rate, this conversation is about whether or not he is Satoshi. This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not. And as @lucozade put it, "he's given about as much reason to bel…
Says who? Who tried and convicted him? The accusations of an angry mob are not at all reliable. And guilty or not, who are we to hurt him? If what you say is true then there is no reason for people to act this way; they simply could forget him and move on. > This is cryptography, there is no need to convince people. There is either definitively absolute evidence, or there is not In theory, but unfortunately not alway…
This is not a court of law. People have a right to (and do!) form their own opinions without going through the courts. Calling something a scam does not require a legal judgment, AFAIK... unless you want to argue that it would be slander/libelous to do so. However, this would probably be a tough sell since saying "X is a scam" in everyday life would probably be interpreted (for legal purposes) as saying "It is my opinion that X is a scam" and opinions cannot be slander/libelous AFAIK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are supposed to care about privacy, yet people can't stop trying to find out who is the creator of bitcoins, even though this person clearly doesn't want that to be known. I think we are all naturally hypocritical beings or something.
Are people actively trying to find the creator of bitcoin? Personally I don't care enough to actively find out. If someone presented themselves, then I'll have a passing interest - a few articles, HN comments, etc., but I'm not going to change my day-to-day at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone mostly in the dark about bitcoin and the community around it, why does this matter at all? Why do people care who created it at this stage, and if that person should come forth, what would the impact be? What could such a person realistically do?
Don't underestimate curiosity. Whoever satoshi really is, he / they managed to release some truly ground breaking software, anonymously, and that software has never been broken, and millions if not billions of dollars rests upon that work. It all came from nowhere. I for one have a lot of respect for this satoshi, and if they ever reveal themselves I would like to find out more about them, purely because they sound q…
