4 ms·

Peter Todd is downplaying the accusation on Twitter by retweeting and discussing this tweet: https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1843788557925921052 https://x.c

by sigmar 2y ago

Peter Todd is downplaying the accusation on Twitter by retweeting and discussing this tweet: https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1843788557925921052 https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1843788557925921052 To my reading, the bitcointalk reply only makes sense as a snarky comment (ie Todd isn't Satoshi). and the fact it was 1.5 hours after the Satoshi post also suggests it wasn't the same person making a quick correction.

runjake 2y ago
If it was Satoshi making a correction, he could’ve just edited his original post because bitcointalk allowed for post edits even back then.
- nullc 2y ago
  Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could have just abandoned the account and certainly not later had it renamed to his legal name!
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    That’s actually a really good point if true. In my mind all anyone has to do to prove they aren’t Satoshi is prove what they were doing on 2009-01-10 and had no possibility of using an IP from somewhere around Van Nuys California. https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-california/ https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-cal...
    - alchemist1e9 2y ago
      It turns out one can view this as actually incriminating not exculpatory as petertodd and nullc are promoting. https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063.html https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063... Hal Finney and others interacted with Peter Todd as “retep” for more than a decade before the bitcointalk account and post. They would have immediately recognized him.
  - petertodd 2y ago
    Excellent point!
  - amai 2y ago
    'retep' for peter backwards? That is kind a lame.
    - nullc 2y ago
      hey now, it took me most of a decade to figure out that retep was peter backwards! but also, it's not particularly identifying as there are a lot of peter's in and around bitcoin.

by sigmar 2y ago

runjake 2y ago

If it was Satoshi making a correction, he could’ve just edited his original post because bitcointalk allowed for post edits even back then.

nullc 2y ago
Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could have just abandoned the account and certainly not later had it renamed to his legal name!
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  That’s actually a really good point if true. In my mind all anyone has to do to prove they aren’t Satoshi is prove what they were doing on 2009-01-10 and had no possibility of using an IP from somewhere around Van Nuys California. https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-california/ https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-cal...
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    It turns out one can view this as actually incriminating not exculpatory as petertodd and nullc are promoting. https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063.html https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063... Hal Finney and others interacted with Peter Todd as “retep” for more than a decade before the bitcointalk account and post. They would have immediately recognized him.
- petertodd 2y ago
  Excellent point!
- amai 2y ago
  'retep' for peter backwards? That is kind a lame.
  - nullc 2y ago
    hey now, it took me most of a decade to figure out that retep was peter backwards! but also, it's not particularly identifying as there are a lot of peter's in and around bitcoin.