I cannot understand how he has gotten so much traction and gone so far along
this "Real Satoshi" claim, who in their right mind was the first person to believe
his claims without asking the question which we are asking now and have been
asking for quite some time, "sign a message ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"
An excellent point.
Its amazing how blindly some people can be led down a winding path
Craig Wright is a professional liar. He can invent a new lie every day, so as to keep you running in circles debunking his wild claims. This simultaneously drains your time and energy, and misleads people who dont understand the deeper issues to wonder:
If hes so wrong, why does he have so much to say that people keep needing to argue with him? This facially absurd question rises from a mass-manipulators exploit of a well-known basic fallacy in human psychology.
hv_s attempts to divert and reframe this thread exemplified the same propaganda technique (among others). Look at the archival snapshots I took before deleting his posts; there is a reason why I archived before deleting. Lies must be kept on record for examination, without letting liars dominate and derail the conversation. Observe that besides some insults (
e.g., segshit), hv_ kept trying to lure people into an endless argument over issues that are both irrelevant to my OP, and unreasonable to even consider when Craig Wright has not produced a
cryptographic authentication of his claim to the identity of a cryptographic innovator who has known public keys.The answer to every statement he ever said about Satoshi's wallets or ownership
of same should have been "sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet ...and until such time as the message is signed you are treated as a fake"
This is called a threshold question. An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached.
Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.
Its important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else. Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooledand, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!
I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wrights handssee above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.
aoluain is correct: In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:
[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....
and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"
That last bit is, Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.