Quote from: Adrian-x on April 01, 2016, 05:30:20 PM

Gmaxwell R3KT - this criticism below seems reasonable and implies you have no clue how in PGP windows works, how about explaining this?

That document is a thoroughly confused rant written by some fraudster.

What the "paper" is pointing out is that although the hash preference list or "8 2 9 10 11" and the other metadata were not conceived of or implemented until a year after the claimed date (as I pointed out); it was possible, by a long series of complex manual commands to manually override the preferences and punch in whatever ones you wanted, even the 'future' ones.

You may note that it take great care to provide no citation to my actual comments, in fact it quotes me but uses an image for the text-- making it more difficult to even search for it. Allow me:

"The suspect keys claim to be October 2008; the commit was July 2009. So no, not without a time machine. It's possible that the settings could have been locally overridden to coincidentally the same defaults as now." https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsm1yo?context=2

-- so the whole theory that this "paper" writes for pages and pages as if it were some great concealment on my part is a possibility I explicitly pointed out.

The problem with it is that it requires the user to have executed a long series of complex commands to override the preferences and have to have guessed the exact selection and ordering of the preferences that wouldn't be written for a year-- when if they preferred a particular cypher they would more likely have taken the existing "2 8 3" and stuck their choice on the front. Not only that, but they would have had to have done so on the same day that they created a totally ordinary key and published it, yet this other key-- which looks exactly like one created with post-2009 software and entirely unlike the well known one-- was provided to no one for years, not placed on public key servers and until now and otherwise has no evidence of its prior existence. Come on, give me a break.

It's "possible", a fact a pointed out explicitly back then, but this possibility thoroughly fails Occam's razor-- especially on top of the evidence presented by others: Archive.org showed the subtle "hint dropping" added in blog entries was back-dated, added in 2013, SGI reported that the published letter on their letterhead was fake, the lack of cogent technical commentary from that party, etc.

Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising.