why would someone claim to be satoshi fully knowing he won't be able to prove it when the time comes
did he really think we'd take gavin's word " i verified his key " as irrefutable proof?
Adam, I have my own doubts about this use of indirect and flimsy evidence.. and it just seems so amazing that Gavin and Wright are conceiving the bitcoin community to be so gullible as to go along with this bullshit... You gotta wonder whether they sold some coins before they did this? (O.k. maybe I am going a bit far because short term profits are not necessarily in order for them still to have motivations to attempt to undermine bitcoin's current non XT and non Classic direction).
Surely, I can recognize and appreciate that the BTC market is going to react with some irrational exuberance, and accordingly, it could take some time to correct the market's downward movement on bad information; however, these lack of evidence claims gotta have an impact on Gavin's credibility.
I recall at one point within the last month or two that you (Adam) asserted that you "fully and completely" trust Gavin with leading the direction of bitcoin.
Are you have second thoughts about his credibility after this public display, drama and assertions based on a lack of evidence?The BBC has published a new story about our scepticism.
It quotes Gavin as saying:
"It is impossible to prove something like that 100%."
concerning the "proof" Wright showed him.
Bitcoin industry 'sceptical' of SatoshiIs he trying to cover his ass for if/when it gets out he got tricked?
Andreas M. Antonopoulos got invited to the "proof" part too, but turned it down because he was asked to sign a NDA. If Gavin signed one then what does it stop him talking about? How many of its clauses make him keep his mouth shut even if it turns out to be a scam?
See how Andreas M. Antonopoulos got contacted (
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hj1xu/why_i_declined_to_verify_sns_identity_two_weeks/ ) :
About two weeks ago I was contacted and asked to offer security advice for a project. I was asked to sign an NDA in order to discuss the project itself, something I am reluctant to do, in general. Once I received the NDA however, it became obvious that the project was related to verifying the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. I immediately declined the offer, declined to participate and declined to sign the NDA.
I'm sure many people will think I was wrong to decline the "opportunity" to verify SN's identity. From my perspective, the request for me to verify his/her/their identity is in itself an appeal to authority. It is replacing public cryptographic proof with endorsement by a third party. If SN wants to "prove" their identity, they don't need an "authority" to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner. To ask people in the space who have a reputation to stake that reputation and vouch for SN's identity raises many red flags in my mind.
I don't know if Craig Wright is SN. I don't care and I don't want to know.
As I have expressed many times in the past, I think the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto does not matter. More importantly I think it serves to distract from the fact that bitcoin is not controlled by anyone and is not a system of Appeal-to-Authority. Identifying the creator only serves to feed the appeal-to-authority crowd, as if SN is some kind of infallible prophet, or has any say over bitcoin's future.
Identity and authority are distractions from a system of mathematical proof that does not require trust. This is not a telenovela. Bitcoin is a neutral framework of trust that can bring financial empowerment to billions of people. It works because it doesn't depend on any authority. Not even Satoshi's.
Back to work.