5 ms·

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 you

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.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
You mean convinced at least five people and three editors, and the fact that I know that should indicate that I am pretty familiar with the course of events despite your suggestion otherwise. I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush, because what I said basically presents no argument. I actually take pains to illustrate, and reillustrate in a followup, that I have no idea. It's pretty difficult to build a straw man if you readily admit that you have no idea. Kinda undermines the alleged straw man. My sole position is that the Bitcoin community very often reacts perplexingly to external stimulus, and that when I opened the Bitcoin client in 2009 and accidentally mined a block and got 50 BTC, I should have kept it instead of wiping the machine. And that people would most likely tear me apart for trying to have a little fun with the situation. (Which is happening, and I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care.) Edit: I can't reply any more, but suffice to say your last comment is probably the funniest you've made yet, in that you made it personal and hilariously so. Please continue to tell me how much I care, how gullible and absurd and foolish and wishfully-heroic I am for concocting an amusing, to me, theory for something that completely doesn't matter, and keep on dragging this thread beyond the pale of uncivilness. You're only proving my point about Bitcoin threads on HN and beyond. I already pointed out I'm having fun with my theory. You missed that and are apparently waiting for me to make it Serious, which I will continue to stubbornly refuse to do. Sorry. You'll have to Be Serious about Bitcoin with someone else, both because Hacker News won't let me continue this and also because I'm getting actual work done while this thread goes on. I will respond to this with a bit of Serious, though: > Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. I spent the first several years of my working life in journalism, and happen to know folks at two of the publications that ran with this. One of them, in particular, vetted this story far more than you'd think before betting the masthead on it after the Goodman debacle and yes, I have inside information on that which I am not going to share out of respect to a friend. I think it's quite easy to dismiss the media as incompetent and chasing views, but you should really think hard about that assertion. Bitcoin is double-confirmation territory these days for most newsrooms precisely due to Goodman. And don't worry, GQ puzzles me just as much as you.
- osweiller 10y ago
  I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush You've plied this valiant contrarian noise in virtually all of your comments on this. I'm personally a critic of Bitcoin. I most certainly am not in the "community". Yet the evidence that we have leans overwhelmingly towards "con man". I honestly believe someone would have to have a serious bias to ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are being had. Your claim that anyone thinks he's "subverting cryptography" immediately cast your comment as hysterical. No one has seriously argued this. You mean convinced at least five people and three editors He convinced one or two people. Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. Do you really think they provide evidence of anything? I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care Your rhetoric betrays that you actually do care. Very much. And each time you claim that it's some heroic stand that is only be squelched by the bitcoin insiders, it makes you look a little more foolish. To your substantial edits: you're trying entirely too much to tell everyone how little you care. To quote Shakespeare, the lady (or man) doth protest too much.
- mfukar 10y ago
  I don't see the sort of vetting you claim has happened. Wright's proof is fraudulent (https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/ https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not...), people proved this in less than a day. Your journalist friends were either deceived, or ran the story in hope of getting pageviews..

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

You mean convinced at least five people and three editors, and the fact that I know that should indicate that I am pretty familiar with the course of events despite your suggestion otherwise. I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush, because what I said basically presents no argument. I actually take pains to illustrate, and reillustrate in a followup, that I have no idea. It's pretty difficult to build a straw man if you readily admit that you have no idea. Kinda undermines the alleged straw man. My sole position is that the Bitcoin community very often reacts perplexingly to external stimulus, and that when I opened the Bitcoin client in 2009 and accidentally mined a block and got 50 BTC, I should have kept it instead of wiping the machine. And that people would most likely tear me apart for trying to have a little fun with the situation. (Which is happening, and I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care.) Edit: I can't reply any more, but suffice to say your last comment is probably the funniest you've made yet, in that you made it personal and hilariously so. Please continue to tell me how much I care, how gullible and absurd and foolish and wishfully-heroic I am for concocting an amusing, to me, theory for something that completely doesn't matter, and keep on dragging this thread beyond the pale of uncivilness. You're only proving my point about Bitcoin threads on HN and beyond. I already pointed out I'm having fun with my theory. You missed that and are apparently waiting for me to make it Serious, which I will continue to stubbornly refuse to do. Sorry. You'll have to Be Serious about Bitcoin with someone else, both because Hacker News won't let me continue this and also because I'm getting actual work done while this thread goes on. I will respond to this with a bit of Serious, though: > Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. I spent the first several years of my working life in journalism, and happen to know folks at two of the publications that ran with this. One of them, in particular, vetted this story far more than you'd think before betting the masthead on it after the Goodman debacle and yes, I have inside information on that which I am not going to share out of respect to a friend. I think it's quite easy to dismiss the media as incompetent and chasing views, but you should really think hard about that assertion. Bitcoin is double-confirmation territory these days for most newsrooms precisely due to Goodman. And don't worry, GQ puzzles me just as much as you.

osweiller 10y ago
I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush You've plied this valiant contrarian noise in virtually all of your comments on this. I'm personally a critic of Bitcoin. I most certainly am not in the "community". Yet the evidence that we have leans overwhelmingly towards "con man". I honestly believe someone would have to have a serious bias to ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are being had. Your claim that anyone thinks he's "subverting cryptography" immediately cast your comment as hysterical. No one has seriously argued this. You mean convinced at least five people and three editors He convinced one or two people. Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. Do you really think they provide evidence of anything? I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care Your rhetoric betrays that you actually do care. Very much. And each time you claim that it's some heroic stand that is only be squelched by the bitcoin insiders, it makes you look a little more foolish. To your substantial edits: you're trying entirely too much to tell everyone how little you care. To quote Shakespeare, the lady (or man) doth protest too much.
mfukar 10y ago
I don't see the sort of vetting you claim has happened. Wright's proof is fraudulent (https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/ https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not...), people proved this in less than a day. Your journalist friends were either deceived, or ran the story in hope of getting pageviews..