Comment by jsmthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsmthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As a complete outside observer entirely disconnected from Bitcoin, I had a thought that the way in which it's being done is intentional. I like the possibility that this guy actually is Nakamoto, and he did it in a very suspicious way to draw all the people out of the woodwork who will yell about it on blogs and knee-jerk revoke commit access (lol) and accuse people of things and so on, then he'll offer the incontrovertible proof everybody is after.

The entire Bitcoin community practically shit itself when this news dropped and everybody tripped over themselves to deny it's the truth. People are, at length, ascribing more difficult computer science problems such as subverting cryptography itself to this guy in an aim to conclusively say that he could not possibly have invented Bitcoin. (So he didn't do something really cryptographically cool, and your theory is that he can compromise cryptography to prove that he did something cryptographically cool. Huh.) Some of the theories involve like three MITM attacks on services and extensive planning with million-to-one odds. Some of the theories describe things that are impossible. It is absolutely hilarious to watch people rail against this for something that, let's be honest, they can't possibly know. (Including OP, who is oddly authoritative without hedging in a quite-libelous world.)

Imagine if it's true. God, that'll be awesome. If I were coming out as Satoshi Nakamoto, that's how I'd do it. Let the frothers froth to lose credibility, then checkmate them a couple days later.

Again, no stock in this, don't care, just an amusing thought. I will say, watching the community tear itself apart over the block size and now this reinforces for me that I never want to run software with a community. Ever. Bitcoin's community is terrifying in a number of ways (no disrespect, just an outside observation). Another angle on that is that if this guy actually is Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin community has done a pretty good job of kicking their beloved founder in the teeth. I really want it to be true to see the pieces of that picked up.

This'll be a good third act of the Bitcoin movie, by the way, and I look forward to the stinging Sorkin dialogue.

There's evidence of deliberate deception, alongside a suspicious lack of evidence about what transpired out of view of the public. So there are grounds to believe this guy is full of shit.

To play devil's advocate, this guy might be adept at deception because he's deceived people regarding his pseudonym for many years. (Just a thought.)

I don't know, Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise, you don't know, we all don't know. I choose the fun explanations and wait to see if I'm right, with the completely reasonable position that I, nor anybody else, cannot possibly know if the theory is correct with the data available.

The alternative is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards, which most folks seem to be doing. Who cares? Seriously, why does it matter? He is or he isn't. Wait and see.

To me, Gavin Andresen's position on this is the fly in the grand conspiracy ointment, and it's funny how all of the theories involve Andresen being incompetent or compromised to work around that problem. I saw people start referring to the possibility that one of the highest folks in Bitcoin is autistic and easily fooled by a con man, and I was just laying in bed last night reading it and shaking my head. This thread is doing it, too, discussing a person they've never met and how he's lost his senses or accepted payment to lie.

Giant mess. John upthread is right.

No one is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards. You do a disservice to your argument when that sort of caricature has to be the only alternative to your arguably gullible "prove a negative" attitude towards this.

Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise

While you claim that you have no stake or position in this, your other post borders on the bizarre, with you seemingly completely misunderstanding the arguments made and then, having carefully constructed an absurd strawman, you confidently knock it down.

Anyone can be tricked by a con man with no shame. This includes very smart people. Anyone who controls the hardware and the network can render virtually any proof useless without moving outside of their control (which is extremely easy to do), and it can be a fun parlour trick. In this case we have someone with a long history of casual trickery (if not fraud) who, while under an impending cloud of peril, and with months to contrive a magic trick, convinced a single person.

What's the point in putting out blatantly fraudulent evidence (and that's what he put out) if he's actually the creator? If he's the creator and wants to be recognized, he puts out real evidence. If he's the creator and doesn't want to be recognized, he says nothing and is never heard from. If he's not the creator, we get this flim-flammery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com