BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!

[Gleb Gamow]

can you see it? two spaces after a sentence already. not beetween two words. a habbit of both of them.

...

...

...

Not to dis your assessment but there are other "punks" who utilize two spaces after a full stop. When I first started online at the end of the 90's, I thought it weird to see only one space since I was taught two spaces in high school typing during the late 70's, so I opted to use two spaces, but soon foregone the practice because I felt that one space looked prettier (yes, that word best describes my feelings then and now), where two spaces came across to me as (seriously, I can't explain it, but I know I wasn't fond of it any longer).

but then SN grew up in the times of typewriters if he have this habit. and adam too.

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/how-many-spaces-after-a-period

EDIT: you're right it proves nothing! to much people have this bad habit.

I've been staying out of this thread for days, but one person learning to type with two spaces in the 70's and not seeing that online in the 90's doesn' t mean it wasn't taught anymore.  One could just as easily argue that it has to do with the decline of the education system or ineptitude/laziness of the masses.  Moreover, here are some random points that are potentially relevant to this thread and/or argument:

In the later half of the 90s, I lived in a time zone that some people indicate they think Satoshi lived in during the creation of Bitcoin.

I took a "keyboarding" class in the later half of the 90s.  This classroom had new computers in it and was actually a "typewriting" class just a couple years earlier.  There, I was taught to put two spaces after a period.

I ALWAYS put two spaces after periods (unless they are the end of a paragraph, of course).

I have been annoyed for at least a decade at the way some web applications (forums, social media apps, webmail platforms, etc.) REMOVE my double space after periods.

Some forms even remove carriage returns.

FWIW, at least Bierka and Nalyot no longer have to hear that damn bell during every carriage return.

[1714185374]

1714185374

[1714185374]

1714185374

[1714185374]

1714185374

[freshman777]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

[cjmoles]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

How much?  Escrow?  Odds?  Standards of proof?  Let's talk numbers!  I'll be your huckleberry!  You know where to reach me.  SMILE

[freshman777]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

How much?  Escrow?  Odds?  Standards of proof?  Let's talk numbers!  I'll be your huckleberry!  You know where to reach me.  SMILE

I said if I had to, was forced to make a bet. Luckily I am not, I'll wait for proof

[maokoto]

Hope it does not matter much if he is him or not. Although Bitcoin would lose much mistery if he is lol

[GreenBits]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

I concur, but something about this (lack of the right keys) makes me think he isn't the real McCoy. Which raises serious questions about his motivations.

Also, he just put a price on his head. This is the biggest red flag, why step forward now?

[ebliever]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

When I was on this forum about as long as you are now, the Dorian Nakamoto story broke, and I naively gave pretty much the same opinion. You'll learn to be a good bit more hard-nosed about this after a few more "Satoshi sightings."

If he's Satoshi, he's laying an awful lot of evidence out there against himself with his fraudulent May 2 blog post, the back-dated PGP scandal in December, refusal to simply provide a public proof like Charles Lee did as an example, and so forth. I think there's a chance he might have some sort of ill-defined relationship to the real Satoshi (the Kleiman angle), which would be remarkable itself. But I still think the simplest answer is that he tricked Andresen and Matonis, and beyond their vouching for him there is simply no evidence in his favor.

[OmegaStarScream]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

For someone who created something revolutionary I'd say he is a retard honestly , I also didn't buy that "I don't want fame , I don't want money" crap ... If he don't want fame then why showing in front of camera in the first place ?

[freshman777]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

I concur, but something about this (lack of the right keys) makes me think he isn't the real McCoy. Which raises serious questions about his motivations.

Also, he just put a price on his head. This is the biggest red flag, why step forward now?

We don't know if he lacks the right keys, we know that he's good at making puzzles. Satoshi was like this, or I imagine him to be that, Bitcoin is a big joke on this world and Satoshi should act funny

[freshman777]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

When I was on this forum about as long as you are now, the Dorian Nakamoto story broke, and I naively gave pretty much the same opinion. You'll learn to be a good bit more hard-nosed about this after a few more "Satoshi sightings."

If he's Satoshi, he's laying an awful lot of evidence out there against himself with his fraudulent May 2 blog post, the back-dated PGP scandal in December, refusal to simply provide a public proof like Charles Lee did as an example, and so forth. I think there's a chance he might have some sort of ill-defined relationship to the real Satoshi (the Kleiman angle), which would be remarkable itself. But I still think the simplest answer is that he tricked Andresen and Matonis, and beyond their vouching for him there is simply no evidence in his favor.

I remember Dorian Nakamoto story, I dismissed him as a Satoshi candidate at once. This time, I feel, is different.

So many things do not add up and have actually proved to be falsified or backdated with CSW.

How about they were intentionally falsified by him to disprove he is Satoshi when he was alleged to be him after the emails hack?

[cjmoles]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

When I was on this forum about as long as you are now, the Dorian Nakamoto story broke, and I naively gave pretty much the same opinion. You'll learn to be a good bit more hard-nosed about this after a few more "Satoshi sightings."

If he's Satoshi, he's laying an awful lot of evidence out there against himself with his fraudulent May 2 blog post, the back-dated PGP scandal in December, refusal to simply provide a public proof like Charles Lee did as an example, and so forth. I think there's a chance he might have some sort of ill-defined relationship to the real Satoshi (the Kleiman angle), which would be remarkable itself. But I still think the simplest answer is that he tricked Andresen and Matonis, and beyond their vouching for him there is simply no evidence in his favor.

I remember Dorian Nakamoto story, I dismissed him as a Satoshi candidate at once. This time, I feel, is different.

What characteristic is your conviction based on?  See, there's this human element involved here with Gavin and Matonis that is relying on unsound logic....The Appeal to Authority argument is a textbook fallacy.  Both of those humans are subject to manipulation....If they wanted to believe then their perceptions would have distorted their perception and therefore their interpretation of the evidence....Intuition should have no say here....the proof is in the ledger!

[freshman777]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

When I was on this forum about as long as you are now, the Dorian Nakamoto story broke, and I naively gave pretty much the same opinion. You'll learn to be a good bit more hard-nosed about this after a few more "Satoshi sightings."

If he's Satoshi, he's laying an awful lot of evidence out there against himself with his fraudulent May 2 blog post, the back-dated PGP scandal in December, refusal to simply provide a public proof like Charles Lee did as an example, and so forth. I think there's a chance he might have some sort of ill-defined relationship to the real Satoshi (the Kleiman angle), which would be remarkable itself. But I still think the simplest answer is that he tricked Andresen and Matonis, and beyond their vouching for him there is simply no evidence in his favor.

I remember Dorian Nakamoto story, I dismissed him as a Satoshi candidate at once. This time, I feel, is different.

What characteristic is your conviction based on?  See, there's this human element involved here with Gavin and Matonis that is relying on unsound logic....The Appeal to Authority argument is a textbook fallacy.  Both of those humans are subject to manipulation....If they wanted to believe then their perceptions would have distorted their perception and therefore their interpretation of the evidence....Intuition should have no say here....the proof is in the ledger!

I did not say I'm convinced or believe. I'll believe proof, a recently signed message or moving of coins, using a key from early blocks. All I have stated is the personality of Craig Wright fits my imagination of who Satoshi should be, what he should act like and what knowledge he should have to create something like Bitcoin. Some bitcoiners imagine him to be perfect in every way, which I think is utter crap, idolization, religion. I am not here for religion.

[cjmoles]

Craig Wright is a good fit to pass for Satoshi, with the right skill-set and a mysterious twist in his personality to be the creator of Bitcoin. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet he is Satoshi.

When I was on this forum about as long as you are now, the Dorian Nakamoto story broke, and I naively gave pretty much the same opinion. You'll learn to be a good bit more hard-nosed about this after a few more "Satoshi sightings."

If he's Satoshi, he's laying an awful lot of evidence out there against himself with his fraudulent May 2 blog post, the back-dated PGP scandal in December, refusal to simply provide a public proof like Charles Lee did as an example, and so forth. I think there's a chance he might have some sort of ill-defined relationship to the real Satoshi (the Kleiman angle), which would be remarkable itself. But I still think the simplest answer is that he tricked Andresen and Matonis, and beyond their vouching for him there is simply no evidence in his favor.

I remember Dorian Nakamoto story, I dismissed him as a Satoshi candidate at once. This time, I feel, is different.

What characteristic is your conviction based on?  See, there's this human element involved here with Gavin and Matonis that is relying on unsound logic....The Appeal to Authority argument is a textbook fallacy.  Both of those humans are subject to manipulation....If they wanted to believe then their perceptions would have distorted their perception and therefore their interpretation of the evidence....Intuition should have no say here....the proof is in the ledger!

I did not say I'm convinced or believe. I'll believe proof, a recently signed message or moving of coins, using a key from early blocks. All I have stated is the personality of Craig Wright fits my imagination of who Satoshi should be, what he should act like and what knowledge he should have to create something like Bitcoin. Some bitcoiners imagine him to be perfect in every way, which I think is utter crap, idolization, religion. I am not here for religion.

Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong.  Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher.  He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail.  At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.

[louisLavery]

Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?

[freshman777]

Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong.  Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher.  He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail.  At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.

Your thinking is logical if we are to believe his intention has always been to come off as Satoshi which I don't think is the case. My thinking he didn't wish to be known as Satoshi in 2015 and falsified evidence to instill doubt to be dismissed as a Satoshi candidate by the sharp minds of the community. This legacy is coming to haunt him now that he changed his mind, but doesn't make him less of a personality to be the great Satoshi if he presents proof. I understand this revelation may not be what more Satoshi-pious bitcoiners among us like to hear, they expect a messiah like figure and here we have a fallible guy. I understand how this can shake the belief system

[cjmoles]

Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?

I think there's a bigger picture.  Bitcoin has a pretty robust network and I believe it could overcome any type of market correction.  The solutions to implementing an "electronic cash system which is fully peer to peer, with no trusted third party" is something that will be written about in history books.  The person who sent that first email containing that concept will be honored with a permanent position in the history of mankind....it's transcendental!  The real question is: to whom does that honor belong?  And, what standard of proof are we going to accept by which to bestow that honor?

[yefi]

I remember Dorian Nakamoto story, I dismissed him as a Satoshi candidate at once. This time, I feel, is different.

Can't argue with truthiness.

[cjmoles]

Oh, okay....I was just thinking that if you were contemplating a wager then your conviction must be pretty strong.  Having an open mind and not letting personal bias cloud your interpretation is commendable....However, I think that Craig Wright provided more evidence against his claim than for it, and now the burden of proof for him is set a little higher.  He lacks credibility; therefore, his proofs will have to be scrutinized in much more detail.  At this point, I seriously doubt that he will be able to overcome that level of scrutiny.

Your thinking is logical if we are to believe his intention has always been to come off as Satoshi which I don't think is the case. My thinking he didn't wish to be known as Satoshi in 2015 and falsified evidence to instill doubt to be dismissed as a Satoshi candidate by the sharp minds of the community. This legacy is coming to haunt him now that he changed his mind, but doesn't make him less of a personality to be the great Satoshi if he presents proof. I understand this revelation may not be what more Satoshi-pious bitcoiners among us like to hear, they expect a messiah like figure and here we have a fallible guy. I understand how this can shake the belief system

Well, see.  That's the question....what standard of proof will be accepted?  A one private key transaction published on the ledger?....two keys?....three keys?  All that will prove is that he somehow attained some of the private keys to Satoshi NaKamoto's stake in the project.  It could not prove that he is, in fact, Satoshi Nakamoto.  That's where the human element comes into play and the quality of his character becomes significant.  That's where his character will be considered and vouched for by those who had a private personal relationship with him.  And, at this point, his character has come into question.

[Almagro]

I suggest core don't get too distracted by this, there is an ongoing effort to make bitcoin centralized and it is becoming more and more obvious.

[Donu]

Isn't all that matters is if coins in Satoshi's wallets begin to move? That'd be a bit of a shock to the bitcoin market but would it be fatal?

We should all be worried :0

Only joking, I don't think we should be panic, its all good.