Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto • Hacker News Board

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#191

Post by drawkbox » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 12:30 PM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #190

drawkbox wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fail to acknowledge again. We already agreed to disagree on that point. We are getting your take on things now. Answer these, let's get you on record: Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%? Do you think early bitcoin keys from 2008 will never be broken (disregarding tools and being found which is more likely)? Do you understand what diversion from the point is? Do you think Satoshi is…

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%? There is no evidence that it won't. If you have some, link it. I'm fascinated that you don't seem to understand what evidence is.

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence. There you have to go off of history, timeline, motive (large piles of money get things to happen) and more.

Glad you could go on record and show you are an absolutist not a probabilist. Even cryptography itself is probabilistic. There are no absolutes in time except change.

You also skipped these two questions:

- Do you understand what diversion from the point is?

- Do you think Satoshi is Nick Szabo?

We are so far deep in this distraction that we have run out of room to reply without it being a line of vertical text.

Let's agree to disagree. I'll let you have the last word on this diversion.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#192

Post by CyberDildonics » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #191

CyberDildonics wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%? There is no evidence that it won't. If you have some, link it. I'm fascinated that you don't seem to understand what evidence is.

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence. There you have to go off of history, timeline, motive (large piles of money get things to happen) and more. Glad you could go on record and show you are an absolutist not a probabilist. Even cryptography itself is probabilistic. There are no absolutes in time except change. You also skipped these…

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence.

We're at the heart of it now. You don't understand evidence and don't care. This is the same type of thinking that flat earth people have. There is no evidence of that either.

When what you believe is not based on any evidence at all and only emotions, that's called religion, not anything that exists in reality.

Here are people that understand trying to explain it.

https://old.reddit.com/r/cryptography/comments/13kl9ds/how_m...

https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bc0ojp/e...

What else do you believe that has no evidence for it and huge evidence against it? Big foot? Lockness monster? Aliens? Santa Clause? If you don't care about evidence anything is on the table, just make up what you want to be true.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#193

Post by drawkbox » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 12:17 AM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #192

drawkbox wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence. There you have to go off of history, timeline, motive (large piles of money get things to happen) and more. Glad you could go on record and show you are an absolutist not a probabilist. Even cryptography itself is probabilistic. There are no absolutes in time except change. You also skipped these…

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence. We're at the heart of it now. You don't understand evidence and don't care. This is the same type of thinking that flat earth people have. There is no evidence of that either. When what you believe is not based on any evidence at all and only emotions, that's called religion, not anything that ex…

Again with the ad hominems and strawman arguments in your shadowboxing diversion...

I knew you wouldn't answer. You fail to even acknowledge evidence, what do you know about it? Nothing. How do you think evidence comes about? Just shows up one day? It takes people researching it and events to happen. Your hypothesis is not even attempting to start to see evidence, never be an investigator with that vibe.

Our discussion on your diversion is done, I know where you stand.

- You like crypto consolidation, you won't even attempt to answer that one.

- You are diverting from the point so far it is laughable now.

- Nick Szabo thanks you.

Admit you are an absolutist not a probabalist. Absolutism to no change is more religious than probability. You sure do preach absolutism.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#194

Post by CyberDildonics » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 2:05 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #193

CyberDildonics wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence. We're at the heart of it now. You don't understand evidence and don't care. This is the same type of thinking that flat earth people have. There is no evidence of that either. When what you believe is not based on any evidence at all and only emotions, that's called religion, not anything that ex…

Again with the ad hominems and strawman arguments in your shadowboxing diversion... I knew you wouldn't answer. You fail to even acknowledge evidence, what do you know about it? Nothing. How do you think evidence comes about? Just shows up one day? It takes people researching it and events to happen. Your hypothesis is not even attempting to start to see evidence, never be an investigator with that vibe. Our discussi…

You fail to even acknowledge evidence,

You never gave any and you admitted that. That's why it's flat earth level thinking. When flat earthers gain understanding they are no longer flat earthers.

How do you think evidence comes about?

I linked you multiple discussions of people explaining why what you said is wrong, why don't you address those?

It's the same thing again:

Link any evidence that modern 256 bit encryption will be broken. Explain yourself. You haven't done anything except for repeating yourself and getting upset. You haven't given a single link.

Do you think people show up to court and just say that someone is guilty over and over or do you think they show information to explain why something is likely to be true.

All these replies and you haven't given a shred of evidence, do you realize this? Yes or no?