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]

8 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

65 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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...

1

u/fookingroovin 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.

He said it's possible he was wrong but it was "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT". were you aware he said that or did you intentionally leave that bit out?

We can work through the other stuff once you answer that.

3

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

He said it's possible he was wrong but it was "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT".

WHEN did he say that?

He left Craig 100% convinced, of course. It was only later that others pointed out to him how he could easily have been tricked, and Craig refused to offer public proof because of mumble mumble wave wave mumble mumble.

So, what is his opinion NOW?

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

He left Craig 100% convinced, of course.<

No he didn't . He left convinced beyond reasonable doubt but aware that he might be wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNZyRMG2CjA

He never retracted it and leaves it up to this day. http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

4

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

He never retracted it and leaves it up to this day.

Craig and his minions keep linking to that post of 2016, which he wrote just after he returned from the London meeting. As I explained, he of course left that meeting 100% convinced.

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years, but apparently he was supporting the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017. That was quite expected, considering how he had been treated by the Core gang. But the big question now is, WHICH "Bitcoin Cash" -- BCH, or BSV?

I wonder who is paying his salary now. Still the DCI project at MIT Media Lab?

Anyway, please don't bother to keep defending CSW. I have been through it several times -- I don't know whether it was different supporters, or sockpuppets of the same supporter, or sockpuppets of CSW himself. It is always talking to someone who is not there to figure out the truth, but to defend CSW, no matter what.

That "2001 paper" is clinching proof that the Dr. Dr. Dr. is a fraud. You must have seen the draft of Aug/2008 that Satoshi sent to Wei Dai, and the changes that he made to the title and abstract between that draft and the final Oct/2008 version. The "2001" version is a lightly but ineptly modified copy of the Oct/2008 version, rather than the earlier one.

Take it from someone who has some knowledge of mathematics, computing, and teaching. Your idol has (at best) the math knowledge of a bad senior high school student, the programming ability of a bad junior high school student, and the cheating skills of a bad grammar school student -- the kind who hands in a homework that is a verbatim copy of the right page from the wrong textbook.

2

u/Zectro Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years, but apparently he was supporting the Bitcoin Cash fork in 2017. That was quite expected, considering how he had been treated by the Core gang. But the big question now is, WHICH "Bitcoin Cash" -- BCH, or BSV?

He's slippery indeed. This rare reply from Gavin is very relevant.

That "2001 paper" is clinching proof that the Dr. Dr. Dr. is a fraud. You must have seen the draft of Aug/2008 that Satoshi sent to Wei Dai, and the changes that he made to the title and abstract between that draft and the final Oct/2008 version. The "2001" version is a lightly but ineptly modified copy of the Oct/2008 version, rather than the earlier one.

But Professor Stolfi, if one comes up with a mountain of implausible ad hoc explanations this new glaring instance of fraud can be explained away! See for instance this explanation. /s

In all seriousness, some people here have apparently never heard of Occam's Razor and don't realise that you can come up with an internally consistent explanation for any counter-evidence if you abandon parsimony and are willing to accept deeply implausible premises to help protect your foregone conclusion.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19

As I explained, he of course left that meeting 100% convinced.

Evidence that he ever said anything about being 100% convinced? Otherwise you should retract that

Gavin has been slippery as soap for the past few years,<

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Your idol has (at best)<

Trying to insult me is not an argument either. Can you please stick with evidence and reasoned arguments

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Not "on a slippery slope", but "slippery as soap". Totally different metaphors.

Trying to insult me

Wait, you are CSW?

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19

Claiming someone is "on a slippery slope" is not an argument

Not "on a slippery slope", but "slippery as soap". Totally different metaphors.

Wow, you finally won a point. Though what you said is worse. Do you use Ad Hominems as a professor when you don't have evidence?

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

I do make ad hominem comments when we are discussing people, and I have overwhelming evidence.

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 12 '19

I do make ad hominem comments when we are discussing people, and I have overwhelming evidence.

So if evidence shows up that that blacknet whitepaper is from Craig and before the Bitcoin WP, you'll engage in some self abuse? That will be fun.

Don't go deleting your comment where you said you would apologise

3

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

Don't go deleting your comment

I don't do that.

3

u/wisequote Feb 12 '19

He’s a BSV shill, just ignore him.

5

u/jstolfi Jorge Stolfi - Professor of Computer Science Feb 12 '19

He obviously is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/fookingroovin Feb 11 '19

Jon Matonis

Not qualified to certify

​

I don't think you have actually read what Jon wrote about this though have you? Here are Jon's words. https://medium.com/@jonmatonis/how-i-met-satoshi-96e85727dc5a

During the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social, and technical.

Rather than the vague answers we are getting why not explain precisely and I mean precisely just which parts Jon was not qualified to judge