4 ms·
Is Craig Satoshi? Maybe. To say that he definitely is is to be an idiot. But to say that he certainly isn't is equally dumb. If it's a con, it's a pretty good c
by qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Is Craig Satoshi? Maybe. To say that he definitely is is to be an idiot. But to say that he certainly isn't is equally dumb. If it's a con, it's a pretty good con. If it's not, than this story is accurate. But the people who are saying a complicated a complicated situation is as black and white as "sign the block or fuck off, you're not Satoshi" isn't thinking. In a world of lifeless robots, it would be that simple. But it's not, and we don't. A man who has the identity may not want to prove it. But a con artist would do the same.
- um_ya 10y agoNo, it really is that simple. He showed an interest in saying he is Satoshi, but didn't prove it. He's not "trying to hide his identity", he's trying to hide that he isn't Satoshi.
- Falcon9 10y agoHe showed an interest in not proving he is Satoshi as well, and didn't prove it. This isn't a negative you can prove (certainly not in the way you're saying.)
- chucksmash 10y ago> To say that he definitely is is to be an idiot. But to say that he certainly isn't is equally dumb. This is a false equivalency. Just because there are two options (ignoring "I don't know/I don't care/Satoshi who?") doesn't mean they are equally valid. The only way your statement makes sense to me given what has transpired is if you are saying that at a philosophical level nothing can be known with certainty and therefore to be certain of anything is to be wrong. That's a good way to get excused from a jury but not a great way of making sense of the world.