4 ms·

So now that Satoshi has said he is not Craig Wright, can we take the other path of the Wired story, that "he's a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to bel

by aws_ls 11y ago

So now that Satoshi has said he is not Craig Wright, can we take the other path of the Wired story, that "he's a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did." Sad. Edit to add PS: Also what is Satoshi's original mail. I hope satoshi@vistomail.com is the original, ans satoshin was created later on, which was the non evidence kanzure was so unhappy about yesterday?

kanzure 11y ago
> Edit to add PS: Also what is Satoshi's original mail. I hope satoshi@vistomail.com is the original, ans satoshin was created later on, which was the non evidence kanzure was so unhappy about yesterday? I feel that in the interest of disclosure I should inform you that I am one of the moderators of the bitcoin-dev mailing list and I approved that email. I regret it already. (Email is trivially forged, it's off-topic, etc. To my credit, there's some nebulous moderation policy in effect, and hopefully we will get that cleared up very soon.) re: gwern stuff, i assume you are talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001
- aws_ls 11y ago
  Yes, same stuff. Thanks for your reply.
- maaku 11y ago
  I think rejecting it would have been the wrong action. On what grounds?
  - kanzure 11y ago
    > I think rejecting it would have been the wrong action. On what grounds? http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/12/10#l1449730961.0 http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/12/10#l144...
    - maaku 11y ago
      "i was told not to moderate for signal-to-noise" I am not a moderator, but that was my impression (and hope) for how the moderators would act. To determine what is signal and what is noise would be to inject subjectivity into the decision. There is nothing about this new email that I would consider on-topic. But under the circumstances I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list replies might be; watch out for them). And arguments could be made that using a communication medium other than the one Satoshi has traditionally used would be more disruptive, even if this email would be more on topic at bitcoin-discuss, due to the speculation that might ensue. It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a person's FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated. After passing that hurdle your emails are auto-approved until such time as a moderator choose to re-enable moderation. It is because we changed servers that the satoshi email address was considered a 'new' user. This is also the case of everyone else, including me. But I hope the irony of Satoshi being subject to moderation because he is a 'new' user is not lost? Anyway, the best reason for not moderating was that such a message had potential to keep people from getting hurt. I can only speculate that to be the reason Satoshi (if it is Satoshi) intervened at all. We don't know for sure, and it may even be low probability, but interfering with the distribution of that email could have gotten people hurt.
      - kanzure 11y ago
        > I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list replies might be; watch out for them) Already happened, but looks like the reject mailing list isn't configured correctly: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ > It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a person's FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated. Hard to moderate for signal-to-noise with that, eh? edit: for reference, this is also discussed over at https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_craig_wright_we_are_all_satoshi_satoshi/cxtv3hn https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_cr...
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  So how do you feel about this Satoshi message? Is there any chance it's real? Or just noise? No idea what to make of the situation anymore, or what to believe. I guess there's no way to know?
  - kanzure 11y ago
    100% absolutely noise, even if from Real Satoshi. The bitcoin-dev mailing list is for development chatter regarding the Bitcoin consensus protocol and associated technology. However, moderation policy is uh... well, the best way to describe it would be "confused" at the moment. If maaku thought it was on-topic, while Luke-Jr thought it should have been rejected, that's an excellent sign that the policy is insufficiently clear. I probably have rejected the email and asked 'em to send to bitcoin-discuss instead. But really the only way to get any hard evidence is a signed message from what everyone believes to be the actual Real Satoshi key... or possibly an early coinbase output, I guess.

by aws_ls 11y ago

kanzure 11y ago

> Edit to add PS: Also what is Satoshi's original mail. I hope satoshi@vistomail.com is the original, ans satoshin was created later on, which was the non evidence kanzure was so unhappy about yesterday? I feel that in the interest of disclosure I should inform you that I am one of the moderators of the bitcoin-dev mailing list and I approved that email. I regret it already. (Email is trivially forged, it's off-topic, etc. To my credit, there's some nebulous moderation policy in effect, and hopefully we will get that cleared up very soon.) re: gwern stuff, i assume you are talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001

aws_ls 11y ago
Yes, same stuff. Thanks for your reply.
maaku 11y ago
I think rejecting it would have been the wrong action. On what grounds?
- kanzure 11y ago
  > I think rejecting it would have been the wrong action. On what grounds? http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/12/10#l1449730961.0 http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/12/10#l144...
  - maaku 11y ago
    "i was told not to moderate for signal-to-noise" I am not a moderator, but that was my impression (and hope) for how the moderators would act. To determine what is signal and what is noise would be to inject subjectivity into the decision. There is nothing about this new email that I would consider on-topic. But under the circumstances I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list replies might be; watch out for them). And arguments could be made that using a communication medium other than the one Satoshi has traditionally used would be more disruptive, even if this email would be more on topic at bitcoin-discuss, due to the speculation that might ensue. It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a person's FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated. After passing that hurdle your emails are auto-approved until such time as a moderator choose to re-enable moderation. It is because we changed servers that the satoshi email address was considered a 'new' user. This is also the case of everyone else, including me. But I hope the irony of Satoshi being subject to moderation because he is a 'new' user is not lost? Anyway, the best reason for not moderating was that such a message had potential to keep people from getting hurt. I can only speculate that to be the reason Satoshi (if it is Satoshi) intervened at all. We don't know for sure, and it may even be low probability, but interfering with the distribution of that email could have gotten people hurt.
    - kanzure 11y ago
      > I wouldn't consider it disruptive either (on-list replies might be; watch out for them) Already happened, but looks like the reject mailing list isn't configured correctly: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ > It is also worth pointing out that the system of moderation is that a person's FIRST post to the mailing list is moderated. Hard to moderate for signal-to-noise with that, eh? edit: for reference, this is also discussed over at https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_craig_wright_we_are_all_satoshi_satoshi/cxtv3hn https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_cr...
sillysaurus3 11y ago
So how do you feel about this Satoshi message? Is there any chance it's real? Or just noise? No idea what to make of the situation anymore, or what to believe. I guess there's no way to know?
- kanzure 11y ago
  100% absolutely noise, even if from Real Satoshi. The bitcoin-dev mailing list is for development chatter regarding the Bitcoin consensus protocol and associated technology. However, moderation policy is uh... well, the best way to describe it would be "confused" at the moment. If maaku thought it was on-topic, while Luke-Jr thought it should have been rejected, that's an excellent sign that the policy is insufficiently clear. I probably have rejected the email and asked 'em to send to bitcoin-discuss instead. But really the only way to get any hard evidence is a signed message from what everyone believes to be the actual Real Satoshi key... or possibly an early coinbase output, I guess.