4 ms·

This is a prime opportunity for skeptics to identify for themselves, ahead of time, the clear conditions where 1) If Wright meets them, they will accept he is

This is a prime opportunity for skeptics to identify for themselves, ahead of time, the clear conditions where 1) If Wright meets them, they will accept he is Satoshi 2) If Wright doesn't, then they will not A great exercise in avoiding the moving of goalposts, by setting a clear expectation ahead of time.

ifdefdebug 11y ago
If he's going to move Satoshi's coin, AND Gavin keeps up his support, then I will accept he is Satoshi.
- Bartweiss 11y ago
  It seems like this would settle it for most people. When people saw the claim "this is signed with Satoshi's key", they didn't say "that's not enough", they said "bullshit". Moving the coin and giving an unambiguous explanation of his so-far confusing 'reveal' would do it for me.
Bartweiss 11y ago
I have the impression that basic goalposts are widely accepted. If Wright can provide signatures or transactions for the original block, he will be accepted as someone special, if not necessarily Satoshi. If he can't, he certainly won't be accepted. If he can do that, then it comes down to deciding how he came by those private keys. It's certainly good to pre-register standards, but it's also a really hard question; Wright gave no indication of what evidence types he'll be using, so it's hard to pre-judge every sort of evidence he might offer. My one other expectation would be that he would explain why the "signature" that got him onto BBC wasn't what he claimed it was. If he is Satoshi, it's a damned odd thing to use a faked signature for his basic proof.
kbenson 11y ago
That would bring far too much rationality and accountability to this subject and the people driving the discussion.
ultramancool 11y ago
Just sign a message using the pubkey in the genesis block and I'll admit it. No questions asked. Just like Charlie Lee did for Litecoin here: https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/727157971428331520 https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/727157971428331520 (he did it to show just how easy and provable it is) Anything less and I have to question it or call bullshit. Current state is complete bullshit. Moving coin from early blocks is not nearly as good. Bitcoin was publicized early on a few mailing lists so it'd be entirely possible he's just an early user trying to game himself up as the creator. Statistical evidence combined with moving early coin could be semi-convincing, but still not as simple and absolute as a single signature using the pubkey in the genesis block. Proving this is dead easy and that signature is the on/off bit for me.
- curiousgal 11y ago
  What if, and this is a big IF, he is Satoshi and somehow "lost" that key? Heck what if the real Satoshi lost that key, how would he make us believe him if he were to step out of the shadows?
  - MBCook 11y ago
    Then Satoshi is, for the purpose Bitcoin, dead. If there is no way to prove who Satoshi really was, what other term could we use?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Then Satoshi is, for the purpose Bitcoin, dead. If there is no way to prove who Satoshi really was, what other term could we use? "Satoshi's identity is unknowable" would be a more accurate description of that scenario that "Satoshi is dead".
      - curiousgal 11y ago
        Well, speaking of dead, here's an interesting theory. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone_rule_out_kleiman_wrights_dead_friend/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone...
sago 11y ago
I'm a (non-expert) skeptic fascinated by this. My skepticism, personally would be met by two elements a) A message identifying himself signed with a key from one of the original blocks. b) Testimony of one of the early BTC people who interacted with him that he is the same person. a alone would mean he could have otherwise acquired the keys, b makes this unlikely. b has been provided, but it is insufficient without a.

ifdefdebug 11y ago

If he's going to move Satoshi's coin, AND Gavin keeps up his support, then I will accept he is Satoshi.

Bartweiss 11y ago
It seems like this would settle it for most people. When people saw the claim "this is signed with Satoshi's key", they didn't say "that's not enough", they said "bullshit". Moving the coin and giving an unambiguous explanation of his so-far confusing 'reveal' would do it for me.

Bartweiss 11y ago

I have the impression that basic goalposts are widely accepted. If Wright can provide signatures or transactions for the original block, he will be accepted as someone special, if not necessarily Satoshi. If he can't, he certainly won't be accepted. If he can do that, then it comes down to deciding how he came by those private keys. It's certainly good to pre-register standards, but it's also a really hard question; Wright gave no indication of what evidence types he'll be using, so it's hard to pre-judge every sort of evidence he might offer. My one other expectation would be that he would explain why the "signature" that got him onto BBC wasn't what he claimed it was. If he is Satoshi, it's a damned odd thing to use a faked signature for his basic proof.

kbenson 11y ago

That would bring far too much rationality and accountability to this subject and the people driving the discussion.

ultramancool 11y ago

Just sign a message using the pubkey in the genesis block and I'll admit it. No questions asked. Just like Charlie Lee did for Litecoin here: https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/727157971428331520 https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/727157971428331520 (he did it to show just how easy and provable it is) Anything less and I have to question it or call bullshit. Current state is complete bullshit. Moving coin from early blocks is not nearly as good. Bitcoin was publicized early on a few mailing lists so it'd be entirely possible he's just an early user trying to game himself up as the creator. Statistical evidence combined with moving early coin could be semi-convincing, but still not as simple and absolute as a single signature using the pubkey in the genesis block. Proving this is dead easy and that signature is the on/off bit for me.

curiousgal 11y ago
What if, and this is a big IF, he is Satoshi and somehow "lost" that key? Heck what if the real Satoshi lost that key, how would he make us believe him if he were to step out of the shadows?
- MBCook 11y ago
  Then Satoshi is, for the purpose Bitcoin, dead. If there is no way to prove who Satoshi really was, what other term could we use?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Then Satoshi is, for the purpose Bitcoin, dead. If there is no way to prove who Satoshi really was, what other term could we use? "Satoshi's identity is unknowable" would be a more accurate description of that scenario that "Satoshi is dead".
    - curiousgal 11y ago
      Well, speaking of dead, here's an interesting theory. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone_rule_out_kleiman_wrights_dead_friend/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hnbli/did_someone...

sago 11y ago

I'm a (non-expert) skeptic fascinated by this. My skepticism, personally would be met by two elements a) A message identifying himself signed with a key from one of the original blocks. b) Testimony of one of the early BTC people who interacted with him that he is the same person. a alone would mean he could have otherwise acquired the keys, b makes this unlikely. b has been provided, but it is insufficient without a.