Yeah..
.. it was me, what was not straight-on-topic now. But it was anyway close, and belonging really not somewhere else.
But its Dave himself, the thema, here.
It was getting said, that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will maybe never get revealed doubtfree.
The question is, what we look as doubtfree proof. We are now hot in the materia. We are now educated of the past days, and dispose about a sharp more competiency in this relation than some days before. All of us, because we were getting confronted with false proofs. Except some cracks, what were learning nothing new.
We learned, that there exists quasi-no proof, what is really conclusive, because everything is manipulateable. The signature, the early blocks. All is, if not manipulateable, then stealable. There exists no single proof, what is really conclusive. Correct me, if Im wrong. Im a Newbie of Bitcoin, the cryptographic interna are out of my competiency.
Its a problem, what needs to get disputed exhausting. We need to create clearness about.
If it is possible, we know, what we need - if not, we know, that we need to create another approach.
My purpose is to dispute this in another thread, because it isnt related to Dave. Me, I will not create it for reasons of absent competiency and because I have the impression, that this clear proof doesnt exist.
Its somehow similar to the God-proof. Many exist, noone is tenable scientifically really.
What leads some in the Atheism, some in the Agnosticism. But the most keep the belief not needing a proof. Some suspect, its conventional, its traditional, its for reasons of conformism only. Others say its the intuition. Thats not covered of the science, of course.
Dont worry, its not my intention to turn the thread into the religuous, the problem of the belief is that the dispute isnt possible reasonable. Whats the difference between the knowing, the meaning and the believing? The what we believe, we cannot proof exactly, thats why we cannot dispute it scientifically. Because we can only dispute scientifically what we know, the knowledge, nothing else. Okay, stop the unscientific now really. Dont challennge me, dont ask, I will not answer, its really offtopic.
.. it was me, what was not straight-on-topic now. But it was anyway close, and belonging really not somewhere else.
But its Dave himself, the thema, here.
It was getting said, that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will maybe never get revealed doubtfree.
The question is, what we look as doubtfree proof. We are now hot in the materia. We are now educated of the past days, and dispose about a sharp more competiency in this relation than some days before. All of us, because we were getting confronted with false proofs. Except some cracks, what were learning nothing new.
We learned, that there exists quasi-no proof, what is really conclusive, because everything is manipulateable. The signature, the early blocks. All is, if not manipulateable, then stealable. There exists no single proof, what is really conclusive. Correct me, if Im wrong. Im a Newbie of Bitcoin, the cryptographic interna are out of my competiency.
Its a problem, what needs to get disputed exhausting. We need to create clearness about.
If it is possible, we know, what we need - if not, we know, that we need to create another approach.
My purpose is to dispute this in another thread, because it isnt related to Dave. Me, I will not create it for reasons of absent competiency and because I have the impression, that this clear proof doesnt exist.
Its somehow similar to the God-proof. Many exist, noone is tenable scientifically really.
What leads some in the Atheism, some in the Agnosticism. But the most keep the belief not needing a proof. Some suspect, its conventional, its traditional, its for reasons of conformism only. Others say its the intuition. Thats not covered of the science, of course.
Dont worry, its not my intention to turn the thread into the religuous, the problem of the belief is that the dispute isnt possible reasonable. Whats the difference between the knowing, the meaning and the believing? The what we believe, we cannot proof exactly, thats why we cannot dispute it scientifically. Because we can only dispute scientifically what we know, the knowledge, nothing else. Okay, stop the unscientific now really. Dont challennge me, dont ask, I will not answer, its really offtopic.