821–830 of 905 posts
When did Satoshi make an appearance in 2015? I couldn't find the spot in the article where the author cites it. Everywhere I've read it states his last interactions were 2010, and his wallet hasn't been touched since then either. Based on everything I've read, I think Satoshi is Len Sassaman
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would it show? If he logged in to Santoshi's email account and sent an email to his personal account, the metadata would be in order, and we would learn little from it.
You have it backwards. The fact that he doesn't release the metadata is interesting. If he had released the metadata, it would be wholly uninteresting. I don't think the emails exist. What was published in court records, lacking metadata, could easily be forged. The metadata is harder to forge. Not impossible, but harder, especially long after the fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A major problem with the article is the author's inability to weigh the evidence: actual evidence, like presence/absence pattern, is buried whereas p-hacking stylometry (let me try another expert, this one didn't give me what I wanted! let me feed him the Satoshi/Adam Back tells that I'm already in love with!) is majority of the article. It also includes absolute garbage like the vistomail spoof email during the bloc…
I've had the fortune/misfortune to be directly or peripherally involved in nearly a dozen situations that made it to press and there isn't a single case where the story represented in the article wasn't blatantly misinterpreted from the facts. In nearly every case what was mentioned in the article was the complete opposite of what actually happened. Biggest/Most-egregious offenders were Vice and Vox Media but include…
See also, Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
Most reporting is garbage once you get into the details.
Secondly, as a technical person reading this written for a non-technical audience, it reads like the journalist wanted his high for most and nothing else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funny thing is that the author uses your exact logic when he finds evidence that goes against his hypothesis. He made posts that asked questions about things that Satoshi definitely would've known? Misdirection! Somebody else does it? Strong evidence against them!
Well not quite. The author uses that logic for Satoshi and Adam back in the early 2000s but not for present day misdirection. The misdirection play would make more sense in real time (eg 2008) vs randomly in the 2020s. Adam could have released the email metadata and that would have absolved him, but he didn’t.
What if he gives an metadata that doesn't reveal anything? Then, you'd argue that he did that metadata.
Adam is not Satoshi. In early days of Blockstream I remember him and Greg Maxwell spitballing ideas about Bitcoin, and he was clearly intellectually feeling out the constructions as novel concepts. I have spent my fair time with geeks, myself included, and this "shiny new thing" geek excitement is distinctive. And Adam is a typical nerd for whom guile does not come easy, if at all. I realize this is not a transferrab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They deliver what readers what.
That would imply that the readers are the customers.
Just like Knight Rider and Matlock had to deliver enough entertainment to keep you from switching channels and instead have you watch the next beer ad.
I can’t get past the fact that Hal Finney lived around the corner from someone called “ Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto” I know coincidences happen but that’s one hell of a coincidence
Yeah this one seems absolutely insane, how many Satoshi Nakamotos are there in the world? It's very plausible to see the name on a mailbox (or meet the person) and think "that'd be a cool handle." And it's so wildly improbable that someone else would make up exactly the name of a neighbor of one of a small clique of obscure internet cypherpunks. It's not like the name was "John Smith" or anything. But I don't know ho…
Indeed. Would anyone on the short list have known of this neighbor?