4 ms·
Satoshi wrote the bitcoin whitepaper, a nine-page document: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf can't you test Wright's claim by j
by thrwaway6542 7y ago
Satoshi wrote the bitcoin whitepaper, a nine-page document:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
can't you test Wright's claim by just saying "walk us through how you wrote this paper. the thought process, how it came to fruition. what was on your mind. you included a number of references, where did you get these? just, the whole process, etc."
presumably wright would hem and haw and not say anything.
--
EDIT: I'm puzzled by the downvotes. I've been accused of not writing something myself, and it's easy to defend by just showing my work, drafts, etc. anyone who's ever written anything can speak really easily, maybe after a quick glance to look at it again. talking about the creative process is a pretty solid defense of authorship in my opinion.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoYou can test Wright just by going through his Twitter account (now suspended) and seeing his incompetence in plain sight. Or go through Satoshi's old mailing list posts to see how reasonable, humble, technical, and well-spoken he was. And then read anything Wright has ever written.
- thrwaway6542 7y agoyou're right, but it's not "hard" evidence. asking someone to work you through the process of a technical paper they had written is more of a technical question.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoSounds like something Wright could bullshit on the spot. He's had years of practice basically doing what you suggest. You're just asking for yet more theatrics, not anything technical.
- bdcravens 7y agoHe would likely technobabble his way through. It's a ten-year old document; that's enough time for anyone to construct a reasonable narrative.
- thrwaway6542 7y agoIn my opinion it is easy to tell that. In any 9-page paper (very short) of such magnitude, there is a lot he would have left out at the time, but can still easily remember today. you can't really reconstruct that.
- bdcravens 7y agoMore importantly, how can an attorney/judge make the same deductions?
- thrwaway6542 7y agookay, you've got me. They can't. But this is a blog post "I don't think craig wright is satoshi" based on circumstantial evidence, and I don't really like using circumstantial evidence like this. People's writing styles could be totally different in two different contexts. so I proposed a "hard" test, like a technical interview type of test. (Walk us how you wrote this). That is a good way to weed out bullshitters who are passing off someone else's work as their own, in a technical interview for example.
- bdcravens 7y agoI would agree. Craig would never agree to such a test. He, and his followers, cling to the copyright granted on the whitepaper as some kind of established proof (which even the copyright office has said it isn't)
- comicjk 7y agoIf you think a false Satoshi would hem and haw and not say anything, you don't know how con artists work. Some people have the skill of lying fluently. If Wright isn't Satoshi, then clearly he is one of those people. Therefore this test would not distinguish anything.
- thrwaway6542 7y agoI mean not say anything substantial. It's a "hard" technical question, in that it's quite a technical paper. 9 pages is quite short, so there is a lot he would have left out, for example, though it was on his mind. The real Satoshi could talk about these easily.
- ksaj 7y agoThe lack of humming and hawwing isn't nearly as convincing as the lack of demonstrable knowledge that should be expected of the real Satoshi.