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

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#41

Post by MBCook »

curiousgal wrote: post #36
ultramancool wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publiciz…

What if, and this is a big IF, he is Satoshi and somehow "lost" that key? Heck what if the real Satoshi lost that key, how would he make us believe him if he were to step out of the shadows?

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?

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

MBCook wrote: post #41
curiousgal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if, and this is a big IF, he is Satoshi and somehow "lost" that key? Heck what if the real Satoshi lost that key, how would he make us believe him if he were to step out of the shadows?

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".

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#43

Post by verytrivial »

curiousgal wrote: post #36
ultramancool wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publiciz…

What if, and this is a big IF, he is Satoshi and somehow "lost" that key? Heck what if the real Satoshi lost that key, how would he make us believe him if he were to step out of the shadows?

Well, if the key has been destroyed, to a first approximation there is no Satoshi in my book. Identity has a specific meaning here, control of the private key. If he had that, but lost it, he will only gain mere celebrity at best and at worst infamy with these histrionics.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#44

Post by TillE »

narrator wrote: post #37
Lxr wrote: post #28

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.

This is reminding me of watching a free energy scam unfold. Lots of big announcements, pending big announcements, some half ass attempts at validation, some more news of tinkering and delay, etc, etc. He still can't come up with the signature or the excess energy.

Exactly. Everything about the way this has been handled raises the classic red flags of a scam, pseudoscientific or otherwise. The evasiveness, the obfuscation, the private controlled circumstances under which "proof" is provided.

He has a claim that would take five minutes to conclusively prove, but he keeps spinning it out.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#47

Post by [deleted] »

narrator wrote: post #37
Lxr wrote: post #28

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.

This is reminding me of watching a free energy scam unfold. Lots of big announcements, pending big announcements, some half ass attempts at validation, some more news of tinkering and delay, etc, etc. He still can't come up with the signature or the excess energy.

[deleted]

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#48

Post by Russell91 »

alva wrote: post #16

If by some extremely small chance he is Satoshi And his identity was close to being revealed (I think his name was first lingering in the ether around August), this could be a truly beautiful sleight of hand. Purposely release 'proof' you know could be quickly refuted. Get the papers covering you with lots of photos and unnecessary blurb about companies you have been involved in. Drag the whole ordeal out over a week…

Another interesting scenario is that Satoshi is working directly with Craig in order to lend his authority on the little/big-blockian debate to Craig. This would explain the mountain of evidence as well as Craig's apparent incompetence.

Of course this conspiracy has a low prior probability due to it's complexity, but it does explain why the inventor of bitcoin would be 1) taking of screenshots of buggy code in notepad, 2) using factorial notation to enumerate combinatorics of bitstrings, and 3) being so generally dislikable.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#49

Post by jonny_eh »

> For some there is no burden of proof high enough

later:

> You should be sceptical. You should question. I would.

So he's saying people are being too skeptical, and then he says people should be skeptical. This guy really has no idea what he's talking about. There's no way he's Satoshi, he reads like a con-artist.

Re: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

#50

Post by vanattab »

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?

>>Are we still going with the "account was hacked" theory?

No he has appeared in person and confirmed the story.

Post reply on HN