71–80 of 162 posts
Gizmodo now chiming in and saying Satoshi was 2 people, but basically confirming the Wired article on Dr. Wright. http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-frie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a very small amount of stylometric analysis would cast a lot of doubt on this theory. Satoshi's grammar is always perfect. His sentences are tight. He's clear and to the point. Wright rambles; his grammar is terrible; he seems to have no idea what a comma is for. Scanning his blog for a minute, he comes across as the kind of slightly dotty kook who would try to convince people he's Satoshi with this kind of "…
Not only grammar, but Wright's writings are full of typos and spelling errors, which occur at a remarkable rate, to the extent that he can't spell Silicon Valley! (he spelled it as "silicone valley"). I never once saw Satoshi make a spelling error. That said, the rest of the evidence is pretty compelling, isn't it? Satoshi did once say he wasn't all that good with words, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps this…
Your comparison indicates they're highly unlikely to be the same person. Come to think of it, Wrights words are one of the only things we can attribute to him and evaluate in this. The rest can be made up crap and probably is.
"As Wright told the Bitcoin Investor’s conference, he’s applying that second machine towards the mysterious task of 'modeling Bitcoin's scalability'[.]" If he is Nakamoto, I wonder if he's using this computing power to test strategies for divesting of the "nine-figure fortune" of coins which is assumed to be controlled by Nakamoto.
If he wants to unload the coins, it's pretty simple: make a series of transactions that are time-locked to happen at particular intervals. Because other market participants know the coins won't be unloaded at once, but at regular intervals, there is no panic event. The selling pressure (and more importantly, the knowledge of the selling pressure) would affect the price, but not in a catastrophic event.
I also think people regularly underestimate the role of ideology in what happens to those coins. Not everyone is so motivated by a fortune that they'd risk their wonderful creation. The fact that they haven't moved yet is compelling evidence, though obviously precludes nothing.
I wish people would respect satoshi's wish of anonymity. Having probably the only concentration of wealth over $100M not guarded by a full security detail, it could very well lead to not only his own harm, but perhaps his family members being kidnapped, etc. That is not even to mention the bilderberg/rothschild/etc. type of people that probably aren't big fans.
There are something like 5,000 families in the US worth more than $100M, the majority don't have private security, don't worry about kidnappings, and don't take any real actions to protect themselves from the Bilderbergs (?)
And they are the elites that make money on the system's corruption and schemes, some even attending Bilderberg. Why would they worry about elite get-togethers as a threat to their life if they're playing ball in a way that makes them money and power? Unlikely.
Gizmodo now chiming in and saying Satoshi was 2 people, but basically confirming the Wired article on Dr. Wright. http://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-frie...
Confirming it based on the same leaked information which can't entirely be corroborated.
While so much seems 'too good to be true' and potentially a plant, it is quite incredible that someone would put this all together after the fact to make a perfect fitting story. Either some ends won't meet, or we'll have the answer at long last.