4 ms·

Occam's Razor tells us to go to the simplest of arguments. Given that the details of the article are circumstantial, it's pretty simple that the journalist is

Occam's Razor tells us to go to the simplest of arguments. Given that the details of the article are circumstantial, it's pretty simple that the journalist is wrong and this Satoshi is acting vague for personal gain. However, I give you Hanlon's Razor on this. It's more likely that this Satoshi flubbed his words when speaking about bitcoin rather than intentionally mislead the journalist.

argumentum 13y ago
> Satoshi is acting vague for personal gain. Exactly this. Everyone here assumes that there are only negative consequences of being identified (or misidentified) as Satoshi. That may even be true, but Icarus didn't know the Sun (fame in this case) would burn him.
mpyne 13y ago
Satoshi's response wasn't vague though. It was detailed. * I'm not working on this * Anymore (i.e., I was before) * It's been turned over to other people (i.e. there were other parties involved in this work) * They are in charge of it now (i.e. there was a project to be in charge of, and Satoshi had been the one in charge) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he did used to have a connection). That's not a vague set of facts about something which this libertarian, privacy-minded genius just happened to be mistaken with. It's a detailed accounting, one which is "the exception that proves the rule". By listing what is not true he is definitely implying what is true.
- argumentum 13y ago
  If it was "detailed", you wouldn't need to (put everything that you think in parentheses). Let me re-paranthesize your quote: * I'm not working on this * Anymore (he never worked on it) * It's been turned over to other people (this is a public project with dozens of people involved, publicly) * They are in charge of it now (yes, they (as in the publicly acknowledged open source project) are in charge of it now) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he never had a connection). > he is definitely implying what is true What evidence do you have that any of his "implications" are worthy of truthfulness? (or that he's a "genius")? What other "genius" level work has he produced? Or something even close to what would normally be considered "genius". Even the obscure professor (Yitang Zhang) who came up with the first resolution of the twin prime conjecture was an "obscure" university professor. I'm not saying that credentials are the only valid proof of capability. The Wright brothers had no degree. But they had decades of documentation of their efforts before they succeeded.
- masmullin 13y ago
  * I'm not working on this Anymore (i.e., I used to run a small mining rig, but it doesn't payoff anymore). * It's been turned over to other people(i.e., I sold my graphics cards) * They are in charge of it now (i.e., The people that own the graphics cards may still be mining. I dont know) * I no longer have any connection (i.e., It was some guys from Craigslist. I dont remember their number). See how detailed that is?

argumentum 13y ago

> Satoshi is acting vague for personal gain. Exactly this. Everyone here assumes that there are only negative consequences of being identified (or misidentified) as Satoshi. That may even be true, but Icarus didn't know the Sun (fame in this case) would burn him.

mpyne 13y ago

Satoshi's response wasn't vague though. It was detailed. * I'm not working on this * Anymore (i.e., I was before) * It's been turned over to other people (i.e. there were other parties involved in this work) * They are in charge of it now (i.e. there was a project to be in charge of, and Satoshi had been the one in charge) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he did used to have a connection). That's not a vague set of facts about something which this libertarian, privacy-minded genius just happened to be mistaken with. It's a detailed accounting, one which is "the exception that proves the rule". By listing what is not true he is definitely implying what is true.

argumentum 13y ago
If it was "detailed", you wouldn't need to (put everything that you think in parentheses). Let me re-paranthesize your quote: * I'm not working on this * Anymore (he never worked on it) * It's been turned over to other people (this is a public project with dozens of people involved, publicly) * They are in charge of it now (yes, they (as in the publicly acknowledged open source project) are in charge of it now) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he never had a connection). > he is definitely implying what is true What evidence do you have that any of his "implications" are worthy of truthfulness? (or that he's a "genius")? What other "genius" level work has he produced? Or something even close to what would normally be considered "genius". Even the obscure professor (Yitang Zhang) who came up with the first resolution of the twin prime conjecture was an "obscure" university professor. I'm not saying that credentials are the only valid proof of capability. The Wright brothers had no degree. But they had decades of documentation of their efforts before they succeeded.
masmullin 13y ago
* I'm not working on this Anymore (i.e., I used to run a small mining rig, but it doesn't payoff anymore). * It's been turned over to other people(i.e., I sold my graphics cards) * They are in charge of it now (i.e., The people that own the graphics cards may still be mining. I dont know) * I no longer have any connection (i.e., It was some guys from Craigslist. I dont remember their number). See how detailed that is?