4 ms·

Let me try again. I chose my words carefully. What, precisely, did gwern do? Describe their actions as if your Reddit link didn't exist. Are you upset about

Let me try again. I chose my words carefully. What, precisely, did gwern do? Describe their actions as if your Reddit link didn't exist. Are you upset about the contents of that IRC transcript? Because gwern already said that had nothing to do with the investigation, and I believe them. They mention the Internet Archive as one way of verifying the authenticity of various internet posts / timestamps, for example. Perhaps what's going on here is that bitcoin enthusiasts are upset that Satoshi may have been identified. Listen, I believe in the principle of charity. I know you're smart, so there's something that I'm missing here. But you haven't described specific things that you believe should tank gwern's reputation. Again: What specifically are you upset with? Those signatures have nothing to do with the investigation. So I'd like to understand what else there is.

kanzure 11y ago
> I chose my words carefully. What, precisely, did gwern do? Describe their actions as if your Reddit link didn't exist. I also chose my words carefully. I pointed out that he was involved in making this accusation. He used faulty reasoning from poor misevidence to draw a conclusion that can bring tremendous harm to others. Article states his involvement, plus private correspondence of ~30 days of work on this article, plus I have known him for years and we talk about Satoshi speculation a bunch thus how I know that he has actually looked at the misevidence. I suppose the other issue is that he's from the "lesswrong" community which claims to be better at reasoning, but the only kind of reasoning that would be complicit with glossing over such substantially useless "evidence" is ... motivated reasoning. > Perhaps what's going on here is that bitcoin enthusiasts are upset that Satoshi may have been identified. Nah, I am just as curious as anyone else. I also know that finding Satoshi 4realz is going to bring tremendous danger to whoever that person was.
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  Yeah, good points. Thanks for your patience, and sorry that my replies were blunt. It's late, but there's really no excuse. Have a good evening.

kanzure 11y ago

> I chose my words carefully. What, precisely, did gwern do? Describe their actions as if your Reddit link didn't exist. I also chose my words carefully. I pointed out that he was involved in making this accusation. He used faulty reasoning from poor misevidence to draw a conclusion that can bring tremendous harm to others. Article states his involvement, plus private correspondence of ~30 days of work on this article, plus I have known him for years and we talk about Satoshi speculation a bunch thus how I know that he has actually looked at the misevidence. I suppose the other issue is that he's from the "lesswrong" community which claims to be better at reasoning, but the only kind of reasoning that would be complicit with glossing over such substantially useless "evidence" is ... motivated reasoning. > Perhaps what's going on here is that bitcoin enthusiasts are upset that Satoshi may have been identified. Nah, I am just as curious as anyone else. I also know that finding Satoshi 4realz is going to bring tremendous danger to whoever that person was.

sillysaurus3 11y ago
Yeah, good points. Thanks for your patience, and sorry that my replies were blunt. It's late, but there's really no excuse. Have a good evening.