Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 20, 2021, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on November 16, 2021, 04:08:57 PM

Bitcoin has shown itself to be very difficult to cover by the MSM.

It's the same really for any topic on which you are knowledgeable about. The article passes just fine to a lay person, but falls apart when read by someone with a bit of understanding of the topic at hand. You expect this kind of trash from small sites and bloggers with limited resources, but somewhere like the WSJ has enough money and resources to either hire a better writer or hire a fact checker. Hell, there are probably a few hundred users on this forum who could easily correct an article like that for a small sum.

It is unusual for newspapers to employ "fact-checkers" to check the accuracy of articles they publish. It is more common for reporters to consult with "experts", and cite the expert in their article. So instead of saying "blocks are found on average every 10 minutes", the article would say "according to o_e_l_e_o, who is a blockchain engineer for maga_bitcoin.com, blocks are found every 10 minutes on average". That way, even if the "expert" is wrong, the article would be correct as the source did in fact make the statement.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 20, 2021, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: PN7 on November 16, 2021, 02:40:10 PM

Selling his BSV will be insufficient to even come close.

Assuming he hasn't done so already. There have been multiple times where BSV has been artificially pumped to >$400 and then immediately dumped. The same pattern of activity has been seen multiple times on Bcash (I assume known fraudster CSW and Calvin Ayre both have/had some bags of that too). They may be technically inept, but they are not totally stupid, and may already have dumped thousands of coins in preparation.

Bitcoin is currently trading at roughly $49k. If CSW sold 21 million BSV for $400, he would have insufficient money to pay for satoshi's estimated 1 million bitcoin at current market rates.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on December 02, 2021, 10:40:11 AM

Quote from: vm1990 on December 01, 2021, 11:58:03 PM

hes NEVER publicly signed a signature from a know satoshi wallet that could simply be verified by anyone that wants to check.
i can fully buy and understand the fact hes lost the wallets most of us have been there at some point. but the big thing for me is satoshi has been around several times to say no this person isnt me. if DR wright is satoshi he could sign into his account on any platform and simply say see this is me.

Here's the thing though - proof of possession of a specific private key or knowledge of the login details to a specific account does not prove identity. It only proves ownership. It is a necessary prerequisite to discussing the claims of "X is Satoshi", but it is not sufficient proof by any means. As I said in my first post above, if you can sign a message then we will take you seriously enough to examine your claim that you are Satoshi, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Now look at all the provable lies CSW has told, all the silly tricks he has tried to pull to "prove" he is Satoshi which have been easily debunked, all the times he has been wrong on even some of the most basic technical aspects of bitcoin, all the times he has shown complete incompetence in terms of programming, coding, math, etc., all the plagiarism he has committed, and so on. Even if CSW could sign a message, the far more likely situation would be that he had somehow stumbled upon or stolen Satoshi's private keys.

We have mountains of proof that CSW is not Satoshi, and none of that would change based on the possession of a private key.

CSW has acted as if he is not Satoshi. He has also acted as if he is trying to fraudulently to claim to be Satoshi.

Based on the currently available evidence, I think it is fair to say that CSW is not satoshi. It is also very difficult to prove a negative, and without knowing who satoshi is, it is very difficult to prove that someone is not satoshi.

For example, I could claim to have been the person who created the private key associated with the address bc1qczdzkqld9cukpn5jc77zgyzfvjpn20em6m7h3c

To prove this claim, I might provide signed messages from bc1q7c06pn20mvz0wenkan99enxfc6l2kk9m5q3872 and the private key to bc1qhg8fmzpk8um0zx0vngy5pfaefp0da3j9t8alhg while claiming (while using flawed logic) that these addresses are connected. While providing this misleading evidence, it would very much look like I did not control the private key to bc1qczdzkqld9cukpn5jc77zgyzfvjpn20em6m7h3c, and it would be very reasonable to believe I didn't generate the private key to this address.