Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?
This is not a matter of opinion. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wrights claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresens 2016 verification of Faketoshi presents a compound question of factcompound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and cui bono?
So no, he shouldnt be able to have an opinion that Craig Wright might be Satoshior rather, his such opinion should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation were to opine that the Earth might be flat.
Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for yearsa grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.
So... You 100% believe that Satoshi endorsed the cryptographic competence of someone who does not know how to verify a forking digital signature!?
See also:
The Same Standard Applies to Me
Lets take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of Gavin Andresen out of the picture. And lets make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
| achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi verified a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his verification for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesnt even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
While I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and the conclusions.
Gavin should have been more careful - he fell for the ruse. As a result his reputation too has been tarnished.
But Gavin wouldn't have been appointed as Chief Scientist for his forensic or detective skills. It would have been because of his passion for the project, his programming and project management skills.
Someone who is honest themselves is more likely to be trusting of others. History shows very intelligent people fall for cults, cons and scams.
The definition of a con man is:
a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/con_manGavin was gullible, was used and was duped. As a result he gave traction to a hoax and lost a lot of respect from the community.
But I wouldn't go as far as to say that if I was in his position that I wouldn't have fallen for the tricks. Errors in logic are not always immediately detected.
Hindsight is great and when a situation is stage managed there is limited time to make a proper assessment. Not everyone figures out how a trick is performed in a magic show.
Even if you are an expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0CC99hVK8https://www.cryptologie.net/article/350/how-gavin-andresen-was-duped-into-believing-wright-is-satoshi/