Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously?. By CSW
Aug 30, 2021
The really big thing that all the people who hate me don’t want to start asking is why Satoshi has not come out anonymously and signed a block or done something else that would discredit me if I am not Satoshi.
There is never any evidence or logical reason put forth. The entirety of the attacks against me are based on ad hominem and other logical fallacies. When I demonstrate errors in their arguments, we move into special pleading. They move the goalposts and avoids creating exceptions for when their claims are demonstrated to be false. When they talk about anything I’ve said, they make it into a strawman, which is a form of misrepresenting someone else’s argument to make it easier to attack.
They continually beg to create circular arguments about decentralisation that include an appeal to (false) authority based on the premise that Satoshi must be a cypherpunk. Yet, no evidence was ever presented that Satoshi is a cypherpunk. Rather, they make easily debunked claims and then create a fallacy of composition and division where the creative assumption that what is true about one part of bitcoin must apply to all parts of bitcoin. That is, there is a component used in digital signature algorithms that also applies to cryptography, so therefore, it must be encrypted. But, such an assumption is false. For example, hashing is also used in managing databases, as are digital signature algorithms without these being encrypted.
The attacks against me being Satoshi form no true Scotsman arguments. If you say that I did something, I can’t be at or can’t be something because that’s not what a true believer would do.
The ad hominem attack also leads to the genetic attack. In this, the crypto-anarchists claim that because I’m bad (in their worldview), my arguments must be bad (for everybody). Yet, there is a reason why the genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy. Whilst I am not the character they want to make me into, the source of an argument isn’t a valid attack against an argument. So, for example, to say but Hitler was a vegetarian, so, therefore, vegetarians are wrong is not a good argument. Even the argument of personal incredulity is irrelevant because just because you don’t understand something does not make it false.
Even the move to appeal to emotion is itself a fallacy. This, in part, is used with a Tu quoque so that they can neglect to make an argument at all.
So very simple for them, they can claim that Satoshi might be dead. But, that claim comes with counter-attacks. It assumes that Satoshi has no family, nobody who cared for him, and that person was an isolated individual who left no evidence or people in that individual’s life who could know anything about bitcoin. They will claim Hal Finney, but there’s a problem with Hal Finney that can be easily demonstrated in court. Hal Finney wasn’t able to post throughout much of 2010. This was when I was most active as Satoshi online publicly. At times when direct updates were being made, Hal Finney was in an NMRi machine which precludes using a computer, of course.
Another all sorts of other claims of this sort, and all of those are easy to be discredited. But before you even get there, the assumption has a logical contradiction. They are assuming that somebody such as Hal Finney that is creating an evidence trail that can be used in collecting improving the proof of evidence over time as its extended, would also want to lie to their family. And this is a key point. Hiding that level of involvement in creating bitcoin from your family and all of the motions of how it was created and what you own is in fact a form of lying.
So the claim about Satoshi being hidden begs the question of why Satoshi doesn’t do anything if I’m not Satoshi. If you think about it momentarily, all Satoshi would need to do to discredit me under the code is law mantra is to start sending messages using the original bitcoin keys and prove that the PGP key wasn’t changed in 2011 and find some form of evidence linking it earlier. Show my claim that the Genesis block doesn’t have a key to be false, for instance.
The alternative claim could even be made that if Satoshi did exist and wasn’t me, Satoshi clearly supports what I’m doing. Of course, this will be cherry-picked and taken out of context because I am Satoshi, but this could be altered to read differently without the full phrase that I’m saying in the sentence.
So, if the claim being made by those who oppose me that I’m not Satoshi was, in fact, true, and the second claim that Satoshi also does not believe in having bitcoin under the law is also true; why doesn’t Satoshi or Satoshi’s family or Satoshi’s friends or somebody in Satoshi’s life come forth and simply state how I am doing wrong.
This is a question for them, and they go to court. But, you see, courts don’t work by social media. There is no proof of social media (PoSM) in an English court.
The claim that bitcoin can allow anonymity and that you can use taught to hide your transactions must itself be taken into account when we consider the claim that Satoshi is afraid of posting using the Genesis block (which doesn’t have a key, but they argue does) with a so-called signed message. If they are correct, logically, Satoshi (me) would be able to easily and completely anonymously send out a message discrediting me.
Why is there no message?
Ironically, they’re arguing that Satoshi isn’t me but supports what I’m doing. If you think about it logically for two minutes, you will start to understand that if I’m not Satoshi, then Satoshi completely supports me. You will come to understand that if I’m not Satoshi, Satoshi agrees with my using the courts to discredit the cypherpunk mantra that “code is law” and to redistribute BTC using a legal process.
Satoshi can sign is not something that works in court. To form a signature, you need to have an identity before creating a signature. So, Satoshi consigned doesn’t work in a court of law. To use a digital signature algorithm for signing requires that you prove that you have held the key and have identified prior to the time that you are starting to have first obtained it.
That is, in 2008, I would have needed to legally notarise a document categorically proving my identity to be able to sign using one of the early keys now. Possession doesn’t give you the ability to assume identity. Moreover, a digital signature algorithm doesn’t create a digital signature until after the key is registered. Moreover, even if the key is registered you can only create a digital signature after the time that it was first registered.
The most significant thing to remember is that the case is not being tried on Twitter or other social media; it is tried in a court of law. Logic and not social media claims matter.
like copyright, and other person can go to court and contest ownership
@B… They say Satoshi could be dead, but as I said, this comes with counterarguments in itself. Satoshi must then be an unknown individual without family.
Satoshi must be completely secretive and have no evidence. There cannot be any computers. There cannot be any other information that Satoshi left. You are not thinking this through adequately when you make that statement. Remember, this will be in a court of law. It is no good simply saying that anymore. If Satoshi died, there would be computers and other records.
You start getting into a ridiculous situation. You start saying that Satoshi was this loner that never had any interaction with people. Even going down that rabbit hole lead you to problems.
You cannot trace a digital signature algorithm by its use. If Satoshi isn’t me he would still know this.
Not that you might be able to but you cannot it is impossible it is infeasible it is undoable.
I truly don’t care about the diehards
they will be removed from every form of social media they get to use right now
after a court case, if Twitter doesn’t actively start removing these people… That won’t be a Twitter
There are many ways of sending to the Blockchain that remain completely anonymous and private.
So, that isn’t an option. You could for instance email through a seeries of emailers over TOR
So, you’re making the claim that Satoshi doesn’t have the capability to do this when making that claim.
That in itself discredit your other claims that that person has ever Satoshi.
so you have aagain introduced a contradiction
Why Satoshi has not come out anonymously?. By CSW
Aug 30, 2021