3 ms·

I'll just stick with my "innocent until proven guilty" opinion. Taking the most outlandish route possible to smear someones name seems rather unhealthy for ever

by toolz 4y ago

I'll just stick with my "innocent until proven guilty" opinion. Taking the most outlandish route possible to smear someones name seems rather unhealthy for everyone. There's no precedence for someone pulling off a huge digital scam and failing to cash out because they forgot their password. Could it happen? Sure, there aren't many things outside of the realm of possibilities when you're tasked with proving a negative. Lucky for us, that isn't the responsibility placed on most anyone in social situations and definitely not for criminal accusations in court.

shkkmo 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "the most outlandish route possible to smear someones name". I fail to see why me asserting that not spending the coins isn't strong evidence about Satoshi's motivations is some how a smear or trying to assign guilt? The entire conversation started because someone pointed out that just because Satoshi said something doesn't mean it has to be true (although they made that point in a rude way.) The vibe I am getting from your responses is: 'satoshi is a saint, everything he said has to be true, and any attempt to point out that we have little evidence about Satoshi's character is a baseless smear.' I am sure that is an inaccurate and unfair characterization of what you are trying to see, so please correct me as to where I have it wrong.
- toolz 4y ago
  I see your interpretation now, my apologies. When I read "scheme" I understood that to be slander and mean satoshi had malicious intentions. If you understand scheme to simply be a benign way of suggesting his plan was wrong then it de-escalates this entire conversation. I thought you were defending the a comment claiming satoshi was being malicious. I would've done better to search for a more charitable interpretation.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Persono, I think that Satoshi was an idealist but not a saint and the reasons that the funds have not been accessed are not due to altruism. If Satoshi did stretch the truth or lie in that quote, I would be inclinded to view it as motivated by ideolatry rather than greed. However, any speculation as to motives is fairly pointless given the lack of information.

by toolz 4y ago

shkkmo 4y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "the most outlandish route possible to smear someones name". I fail to see why me asserting that not spending the coins isn't strong evidence about Satoshi's motivations is some how a smear or trying to assign guilt? The entire conversation started because someone pointed out that just because Satoshi said something doesn't mean it has to be true (although they made that point in a rude way.) The vibe I am getting from your responses is: 'satoshi is a saint, everything he said has to be true, and any attempt to point out that we have little evidence about Satoshi's character is a baseless smear.' I am sure that is an inaccurate and unfair characterization of what you are trying to see, so please correct me as to where I have it wrong.

toolz 4y ago
I see your interpretation now, my apologies. When I read "scheme" I understood that to be slander and mean satoshi had malicious intentions. If you understand scheme to simply be a benign way of suggesting his plan was wrong then it de-escalates this entire conversation. I thought you were defending the a comment claiming satoshi was being malicious. I would've done better to search for a more charitable interpretation.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Persono, I think that Satoshi was an idealist but not a saint and the reasons that the funds have not been accessed are not due to altruism. If Satoshi did stretch the truth or lie in that quote, I would be inclinded to view it as motivated by ideolatry rather than greed. However, any speculation as to motives is fairly pointless given the lack of information.