What's clear is that either way he was telling people to ignore Craig, yet a lot of BSVites just didn't seem to get that portion of the message, for whatever reason...
Because it's extremely weak. It's not too dissimilar from the language roger ver used ("it's not important, he should have his privacy") when he was in full on belief mode, and paling around with Wright. It sounds agnostic. How common are 'master scammers'?
This was probably not his intent, but it's the effect. It's just too uncommon for people to be that mealy-mouthed unless they're trying to hedge, and trying to hedge is in fact a really strong signal.
Consider, if instead the situation were that virtually every bitcoin tech expert (eliminating the potentially for personal corruption, and mitigating individual virtually) were saying that kind of "well maybe but it's not important"-- I think if I were a non-tech expert I'd view that as a farly strong signal that at a minimum the possibility hasn't been contradicted.
... and yet it has been. The big lie about Wright isn't about him being Satoshi it's that his claims of being Satoshi have even the slightest air of credibility. Once a vicitims accepts that false position, start ignoring the good info and start swallowing the firehose of bad info and down the rabbit hole they go.
Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat.
This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine.
There are a number of early Bitcoiners (and Bitcoin businesses) who view the whole decentralization thing as a regulatory dodge and childish security theatre. They believe things like in the long run Bitcoin would be regulated by as 'serious organization' like the ITU (lol) and that mining would go away or be relegated to a secondary role. That Bitcoin's purpose is basically just a launching pad to create a big trustworthy centralized asset to unify the money of the world. I've heard more than a few say these things explicitly.
From that perspective, anything that stood in the way of the hockey-stick projections on transaction volume was a strike against that vision of success. From there, most other things follow logically.
So essentially, the question is why is bitcoin valuable in the first place? Is it for the reasons Satoshi gave explicitly?--
money that can't be overridden by political whim, even if well motivated? Or is it because of some real politik regulatory dodge reason? If you believe the latter then cranking growth as fast as possible at any and all cost while cozying up to spooks sounds like a reasonable strategy. This alternative view even comes pre-made with a ready explanation you can use to dismiss people who disagree with you-- they're childish and don't understand how the world works.
It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post
If you believe the dates provided by Hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date. Especially if you're going to believe that there is some conspiracy of state actors to take out Bitcoin you probably should be pretty skeptical of any instances of "hey guies! I tots got dis email 5 years ago and didn't mention it till now!".