I'm not reading the portion of this post that doesn't apply to me. I have things to do.
So, your reply begins with a fit of narcissism.
Protip: The world does not revolve around you. None of my post was about you, personally—a screen name “nutildah” on an Internet forum. Your supposition that I care about that is lamentably mistaken. And if you consider Reputation squabbles to be impliedly more important “things to do” than stopping Faketoshi, then your priorities are—different than mine.
I have things to do, myself. One of my top priorities is to fight back against malicious attacks on Bitcoin: The Bitcoin that gives us
freedom.
Two days ago, for
the Anastasia thread, I began writing an essay on how that thread may be the beginning of the most important thing that I have yet done in my life! Greg Maxwell was right when
he urged last month that the community can do better in protecting Bitcoin from malicious attacks by liars and scammers. He inspired me. “
Merited by nullius (20)”
If I can do my part to lead by example, and to arm others with stronger arguments and more powerful strategies, then that will achieve a result far bigger than me, far more important than me as an individual. My glory thus will be only and exactly what I have done for a cause that has brought inestimable value to the lives of millions, and should in the future free billions.
It is certainly a cause more important than your petty little ego, nutildah.
And it is much bigger than Gavin Andresen, for all he may style himself as a big-shot. Bitcoin is the cause. For me to
call out Gavin as he deserves is only the effect.
What? No you goof. I'm not "excusing" Gavin -- [...] How do you twist this into me making excuses for Gavin?
Now,
you are equivocating—quite dishonestly, at that. The
substantial effect of your post was to defend and excuse Gavin. It was
minimization.
Whether you consciously intended this is objectively irrelevant to the Gavin question,
because this is not about you. (It is relevant to your own reputation; but see above for my own opinion of your personal importance.)
I'm simply relaying his _actual words_, which are _less_ favorable for BSV than BSV shills would have us believe.
You did not
simply do that. In the context of the discussion, the
substantial effect of blandly parroting his equivocation with some moderate negativity about “the narrative”, without further comment, was to
minimize and excuse what he did wrong. And my inference as to your intent to defend Gavin was in fact correct, as you later make unequivocal:
Truth be told, Gavin did far more for bitcoin than you and I ever have and ever will so if the man wants to have an opinion, let him have it.
Traitors are the worst of enemies; and treason is oft called the one crime that is truly unforgivable. Marcus Junius Brutus surely did much for Rome; but he will be forever be cursed,
damnatio memoriae, as a vile wretch who murdered Caesar.
E tu, Gavin?Men who have fought and bled on the battlefield for their countries have had their medals stripped and their monuments demolished, and been
hanged (even drawn and quartered) as the worst of criminals—after they turned traitor. Even if never caught and hanged, they have always been damned in history.
Reductio ad absurdum, would you argue that Benedict Arnold should be praised by Americans for all he had done for their country? He was a great general—George Washington’s most-trusted man, who could have been as famous and beloved as Washington himself! Surely, he did as much for America as Gavin did for Bitcoin.
As much.Don’t lecture me about what Gavin has done for Bitcoin, in reply to my condemnation of what he has done
against Bitcoin. Your praise of Gavin, and the grounds of that praise, only make him worse.
Gavin has done massive actual harm: Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi “verification”, Btrash shilling... You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?
If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.
How terribly rude of you—and quite behind the times on the latest Bitcoiner slang. Here, let me help you: Let us learn from a boor who, in the big picture, has done a little bit
less to damage Bitcoin than Gavin has overall.
Go fork yourself, nutildah.Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?
This is not a matter of “opinion”. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of
fact. Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of
fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many
factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”
So no, he
shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should
absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.Moreover,
in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.
So... You “100% believe” that Satoshi endorsed the cryptographic competence of someone who does not know how to verify a forking digital signature!?
See also:
The Same Standard Applies to MeLet’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following
endorsement of my technical competence:
| achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities:
Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam,
or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person
not accuse me of lying, and
not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
and knowing what you already know about
my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.
It is indeed puzzling why you, of all people, would step up to minimize the single act by the self-styled “Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist” which instantly gave Faketoshi mass-credibility in the mass-media. As I have said repeatedly in various ways (including on Gavin’s trust page), Gavin created a monster—
and not as an isolated act, but as part of his years-long pattern of the odious so-called “Bitcoin Foundation”, backstabbing Core with XT, later on shilling Btrash... How many times need I repeat myself? Are you paying attention?Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.
That is shortsightedness and a shallow view of the situation. You do not understand what I am doing; for I think strategically, as you evidently do not. That is not my problem, and is certainly no reason for
you to condescend to
me.
ELI5 for you: The Faketoshi scam is a tower of lies that stands on a foundation of lies. Although
thanks in large part to Gavin, it has grown far bigger than Gavin’s “verification”, I am dynamiting a key piece of the foundation. I also aim to provide a salutary object example of what happens to the reputations of people who betray their own principles. That would be beneficial to Bitcoin, which
will fail if it is not protected by people with high principles.
I am a Core supporter—as an effect, not a cause. If Core were to betray the principles that they have consistently,
courageously upheld for a decade, then I would repudiate and condemn them. Same with Blockstream: I admire them be
cause they do great work for an important
cause, be
cause they employ people with technical skill that far exceeds mine for that
cause—not because they are big-shots. Gavin “shit all over” the magnificent work of such people for years. I aim to dish it back to him; and if you don’t like it, then I will duly file your opinions in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
P.S., if you wish to deserve a less contemptuous response, please consider not making a fool of yourself by condescending to me when you are wrong. You presumed to dish it out against a better chef;
bon appétit.
