3 ms·

"Circumstantial" does not mean "weak". Circumstantial evidence is often strong enough and compelling enough to determine court cases. Circumstantial evidence i

by bena 7y ago

"Circumstantial" does not mean "weak". Circumstantial evidence is often strong enough and compelling enough to determine court cases. Circumstantial evidence is often better than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence: Stuff like DNA, fingerprints Direct evidence: Bob's memory of the event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence But please, continue using "the evidence is circumstantial" as if it means that it's not good enough.

N_trglctc_joe 7y ago
This is a really good point. Direct evidence of Satoshi's identity can only be in the form of someone claiming to be him, and that just wouldn't be credible. Circumstantial evidence is all we're going to get; even somebody spending Satoshi's BTC wouldn't be direct evidence since, as the article points out, someone else could have obtained (and be in the process of cracking) his hard drives.
- bena 7y ago
  People just way too often ape legal procedural shows where people will exclaim that "all this evidence is circumstantial" as if that's an actual problem. You can say that about most evidence. Even the classic "smoking gun" metaphor is an example of circumstantial evidence. It's just a way for people to dismiss a claim without actually having to argue against a claim. If the evidence is tenuous or weak, explain why. For instance, the fact that Solotshi is similar to Satoshi. That's just dumb. If you're going to pick a pseudonym to hide your identity for the long term, you don't pick one that's just a variation of your name. However, if every other piece of evidence was much better, then dude just picked a bad pseudonym. And we also have to consider that a lot of weak signals can become a strong signal. Like the name thing is what I'd call an extremely weak signal. But if there's an overwhelming flood of such weak signals, then it starts looking much more likely.
michaelterryio 7y ago
Yes! And eye witness testimony is often terrible. It's disappointing that circumstantial evidence gets such a bad rap. Very unlikely things happen all the time. But beyond a certain level of unlikeliness, combined with a strong motive, it has to be enough. And of course in practice everyone gets this because cases are decided every day by this implicit understanding. Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk. -- Henry David Thoreau

by bena 7y ago

N_trglctc_joe 7y ago

This is a really good point. Direct evidence of Satoshi's identity can only be in the form of someone claiming to be him, and that just wouldn't be credible. Circumstantial evidence is all we're going to get; even somebody spending Satoshi's BTC wouldn't be direct evidence since, as the article points out, someone else could have obtained (and be in the process of cracking) his hard drives.

bena 7y ago
People just way too often ape legal procedural shows where people will exclaim that "all this evidence is circumstantial" as if that's an actual problem. You can say that about most evidence. Even the classic "smoking gun" metaphor is an example of circumstantial evidence. It's just a way for people to dismiss a claim without actually having to argue against a claim. If the evidence is tenuous or weak, explain why. For instance, the fact that Solotshi is similar to Satoshi. That's just dumb. If you're going to pick a pseudonym to hide your identity for the long term, you don't pick one that's just a variation of your name. However, if every other piece of evidence was much better, then dude just picked a bad pseudonym. And we also have to consider that a lot of weak signals can become a strong signal. Like the name thing is what I'd call an extremely weak signal. But if there's an overwhelming flood of such weak signals, then it starts looking much more likely.

michaelterryio 7y ago

Yes! And eye witness testimony is often terrible. It's disappointing that circumstantial evidence gets such a bad rap. Very unlikely things happen all the time. But beyond a certain level of unlikeliness, combined with a strong motive, it has to be enough. And of course in practice everyone gets this because cases are decided every day by this implicit understanding. Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk. -- Henry David Thoreau