3 ms·
The funny thing is that the author uses your exact logic when he finds evidence that goes against his hypothesis. He made posts that asked questions about thing
by idopmstuff 6mo ago
The funny thing is that the author uses your exact logic when he finds evidence that goes against his hypothesis. He made posts that asked questions about things that Satoshi definitely would've known? Misdirection! Somebody else does it? Strong evidence against them!
- dmix 6mo agoThis is why I stopped reading these Bitcoin creator stories. It's usually more about the journalist and their 'process' than the story.
- ufmace 6mo agoThe interesting thing to me is, it seems likely that whichever individual or small group actually is Satoshi must have planted at least a few misdirection false flags like that at some point. But how in the world would you ever tell which ones are that sort of misdirection and which are real?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- surianfb 6mo agoWell not quite. The author uses that logic for Satoshi and Adam back in the early 2000s but not for present day misdirection. The misdirection play would make more sense in real time (eg 2008) vs randomly in the 2020s. Adam could have released the email metadata and that would have absolved him, but he didn’t.
- orsenthil 6mo ago> Adam could have released the email metadata and that would have absolved him, but he didn’t. What if he gives an metadata that doesn't reveal anything? Then, you'd argue that he did that metadata.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]