4 ms·

I apologize for not being clear enough. "has anyone heard of Kleiman? Legit question." By this I mean what substantive proof exists that Kleiman was interested

I apologize for not being clear enough. "has anyone heard of Kleiman? Legit question." By this I mean what substantive proof exists that Kleiman was interested with the underlying technologies that bitcoin incorporates? > He was getting interviewed by US TV stations so he had some reputation in the security industry. The field is pretty vast. This is like saying because I've made websites, I can somehow fix your laptop. (I probably could but I couldn't come up with a solution fast and well thought out.) Satoshi was clearly meticulous about this, if you've read enough of their posts, it's clear as day. > And btw who heard of Jeff Bezos before Amazon? Nobody. A lot of top talent is in hedge funds. So, I'm sure many people were looking. It is fair to say I choose a weak logical argument but the point is still valid (hopefully the added clarity to my intent pushes us deeper into our actual points). > You can not judge somebody just by looking at their past. People change and evolve. Sure, this applies if we're trying to gauge someone's character but this doesn't apply in the expertise required to be Satoshi. Terry Tao (expert mathematician) isn't going to just randomly come up with the next bulletproof SHA function. It's out of his scope. Bitcoin is out of the scope of Kleiman's skillset. I have seen zero evidence to the contrary, other than a false narrative (perpetuated by 'news') that him and CSW created Bitcoin. Even the court has thrown out numerous dated evidence [1,2]. Being a computer forensics specialist doesn't easily port to creating a blend of PGP, Hashcash, eCash, bitgold, etc. Satoshi was an expert at this stuff. What evidence shows that Kleiman did anything? Even in the Kleiman/CSW court cases, there isn't evidence that's been produced by either party. That's the court of law. Please don't avoid this point, no evidence exists to tie Kleiman even to the ideas of digital cash. I haven't seen any and I looked into it heavily, maintaining an open mind. I got no dog in the fight, just a sizable curiosity to this mysterious character. [1] - https://decrypt.co/21995/us-judge-throws-out-craig-wrights-latest-excuse https://decrypt.co/21995/us-judge-throws-out-craig-wrights-l... [2] - http://blockchaingrade.org/experts-dissect-craig-wrights-satoshi-testimony-and-court-documents http://blockchaingrade.org/experts-dissect-craig-wrights-sat...

mrkramer 6y ago
Like Gavin Andresen said Satoshi wasn't a cryptographer. First reference in Bitcoin Whitepaper is "W. Dai, b-money". But Satoshi never heard of it, Adam Back suggested to Satoshi to read it and he decided to reference it in Bitcoin Whitepaper. "I suggested Satoshi should look into B-Money, which he didn’t seem to know about at that time, and this is how I think B-Money was added to the paper."[1] Satoshi said to Wei Dai "I was very interested to read your b-money page. I’m getting ready to release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system. Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site."[2] Satoshi seemed to be very good C++ programmer who had interests in electronic cash and cryptography but not a cryptographer. Look and hear what Gavin said in his presentation: https://youtu.be/rQ3e1Pzu7iI?t=766 https://youtu.be/rQ3e1Pzu7iI?t=766 [1]https://cointelegraph.com/news/adam-back-on-satoshi-emails-privacy-concerns-and-bitcoins-early-days https://cointelegraph.com/news/adam-back-on-satoshi-emails-p... [2]https://nakamotostudies.org/emails/satoshi-and-wei-dai-correspondence/ https://nakamotostudies.org/emails/satoshi-and-wei-dai-corre...
- heimatau 6y ago
  When I said 'no proof exists', I didn't mean 'no proof of authority'. I mean no document exists. Assuming Satoshi 'covered ones tracks' is a straw-man because then you open up the possibility to anyone being Satoshi, not an exclusive person. Please understand that many people talked with Satoshi through email as well. Those emails are mostly private. When someone points to an authority, the entire argument is a straw-man, even with someone very relevant to the discussion. > Satoshi seemed to be very good C++ programmer who had interests in electronic cash and cryptography but not a cryptographer. What physical circumstantial evidence exists that is shows Kleiman was good at anything you've described or was even interested in these during 2008 or earlier (heck, I can't find anything prior to 2013)? What about any interest into any digital cash/gold attempts? The argument you're giving is fairly persistent in the crypto community. I'm not entirely sure why, except intellectual laziness. The irony here is 'proof of authority' argument...is an absolute contradiction to what bitcoin's primary function is (trustless 3rd party system). Why are people lifting up a 3rd party and not the code/evidence? An opinion (no matter how relevant) isn't what we're looking for, we are looking for evidence. Did scientific reasoning leave everyone? (edited for grammar)

mrkramer 6y ago

Like Gavin Andresen said Satoshi wasn't a cryptographer. First reference in Bitcoin Whitepaper is "W. Dai, b-money". But Satoshi never heard of it, Adam Back suggested to Satoshi to read it and he decided to reference it in Bitcoin Whitepaper. "I suggested Satoshi should look into B-Money, which he didn’t seem to know about at that time, and this is how I think B-Money was added to the paper."[1] Satoshi said to Wei Dai "I was very interested to read your b-money page. I’m getting ready to release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system. Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site."[2] Satoshi seemed to be very good C++ programmer who had interests in electronic cash and cryptography but not a cryptographer. Look and hear what Gavin said in his presentation: https://youtu.be/rQ3e1Pzu7iI?t=766 https://youtu.be/rQ3e1Pzu7iI?t=766 [1]https://cointelegraph.com/news/adam-back-on-satoshi-emails-privacy-concerns-and-bitcoins-early-days https://cointelegraph.com/news/adam-back-on-satoshi-emails-p... [2]https://nakamotostudies.org/emails/satoshi-and-wei-dai-correspondence/ https://nakamotostudies.org/emails/satoshi-and-wei-dai-corre...

heimatau 6y ago
When I said 'no proof exists', I didn't mean 'no proof of authority'. I mean no document exists. Assuming Satoshi 'covered ones tracks' is a straw-man because then you open up the possibility to anyone being Satoshi, not an exclusive person. Please understand that many people talked with Satoshi through email as well. Those emails are mostly private. When someone points to an authority, the entire argument is a straw-man, even with someone very relevant to the discussion. > Satoshi seemed to be very good C++ programmer who had interests in electronic cash and cryptography but not a cryptographer. What physical circumstantial evidence exists that is shows Kleiman was good at anything you've described or was even interested in these during 2008 or earlier (heck, I can't find anything prior to 2013)? What about any interest into any digital cash/gold attempts? The argument you're giving is fairly persistent in the crypto community. I'm not entirely sure why, except intellectual laziness. The irony here is 'proof of authority' argument...is an absolute contradiction to what bitcoin's primary function is (trustless 3rd party system). Why are people lifting up a 3rd party and not the code/evidence? An opinion (no matter how relevant) isn't what we're looking for, we are looking for evidence. Did scientific reasoning leave everyone? (edited for grammar)