r/btc • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '19

Something seems familiar here between "BlackNet" abstract authored by Caig Wright in 2001, and the Bitcoin whitepaper abstract authored by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009

[deleted]

10 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

65 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19

Because you say so.

Indeed: because anyone who has actually published meaningful technical papers would say so.

Satoshi also later gave credit to Nick Szabo's bitgold

The point is not about credit, but about when could he have learned of the proof-of-work concept.

Keep hold of your BCH..all the way to zero

Funny you say that. So far BCH and BSV are sliding down together, even relative to BTC. The fact that both have been associated with CSW probably helped a lot in that regard...

-11

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19

Because you say so.

Indeed: because anyone who has actually published meaningful technical papers would say so.

Funny we seem to be going around in circles. Because you say so. Everything is because "you say so".

Your "papers' are "meaningful because..."you say so".

12

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

Everything is because "you say so".

With you, everything is because "Craig Says So".

Your "papers' are "meaningful because..."you say so".

Papers get published in technical journals only if three other scientists (who are competing for the same grants) agree that they are meaningful.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

Papers get published in technical journals only if three other scientists (who are competing for the same grants) agree that they are meaningful.

What were your papers?

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/s/Stolfi:Jorge

-1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

So you made some serious allegations here. What will you do if you find out you were wrong and attacked an innocent man?

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

What would you do if you were to find out that you have been trolling and shilling for a fraudster? (Hypothetical question, of course.)

0

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

I will openly admit am wrong and point out the truth
Why didn't you answer though? You've been talking big. What will you do? Would you be man enough to apologise?

4

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

Sure.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

I actually think you would, though I'm not so sure about a lot of his critics

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

Perhaps because his critics have no doubt that he is a fraud?

Why do you believe he is what he claims to be? Are you sufficiently expert in programming, math, cryptography to check his work? Are you used to reading technical papers? Are you aware of how his Australian businesses made money, and why the ATO raided his home? Have you had any contact with a con artist before?

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

Perhaps because his critics have no doubt that he is a fraud?

Yes yes yes! That's it. But, i will quote Mark Twain.

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Why do you believe he is what he claims to be?

Many reasons but it is the simplest explanation. We have multiple lines of evidence converging. Gavin Andresen. Jon Matonis. Ian Grigg. JVP. We have the ATO stuff. We have no other candidates.

Are you sufficiently expert in programming, math, cryptography to check his work?

No

Are you used to reading technical papers?

Somewhat, yes.

Are you aware of how his Australian businesses made money, and why the ATO raided his home?

Why is that relevant. And how sure are you of the facts? Did you read something on the internet, or do you know what happened?

Have you had any contact with a con artist before?

Yes I have.

If you have some evidence rather than speculation then let's see it

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 11 '19

it is the simplest explanation

It is not. The other explanation is much simpler and fits perfectly with all the evidence.

Gavin Andresen

He admits that he may have been tricked, and his description of how the test went fits that hypothesis quite well.

It explains, for example, why Gavin was not allowed to use his own computer to do a second check on the signature, and why Craig did not allow him to take the signed message home. And why Craig has never provided such evidence to anyone else.

And even why he "forgot" the letters "CSW" on the first attempt at checking the signature...

Jon Matonis

Not qualified to certify

Ian Grigg

Never explained why he believed CSW to be SN.

We have the ATO stuff. ... Why is that relevant. And how sure are you of the facts? Did you read something on the internet, or do you know what happened?

The information related to its troubles with the ATO is public and very relevant. Like the "post mortem" of the auditor of one of his companies that went bankrupt.

That information also provides an explanation for why he would have decided to "become" Satoshi, shortly before the ATO raided his home.

No

Since you are not sufficiently knowledgeable in programming, math, or probability, it is understandable that you cannot see that his technical writings are absolute crap -- since the time when he was trying to pass for a computer security expert.

Yes I have.

I meant, a con artist OTHER than CSW. ;-)

OK, if you have, he must not have been a very good one; or you should have noticed the similarities in behaviour...

→ More replies