person who wrote the Bitcoin protocol would know how to sign a message that would be acceptable to all. The fact that he done that behind closed doors with someone who has had ties with people
that wanted to deliberately sabotage Bitcoin... speaks for itself. {Mike Hearn}
If I were a philosopher i'd ask, "what is a name?"
I mean look at that word... Sur-name. What is that? Why is it necessary for a human being to have a first name, and a surname? Sure, you'd like to separate one person from another. Understandable. But, the queen of england doesn't have a surname... her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary... their family name is Saxe coburg gotha - publicly, Winsdor. There is no Sur-name - at least when you're not a serf of one form or another.
Serfs are trained to cherish the tools of their oppressors. Interesting.
I apologise for the incorrect spelling, never will i mispell a person's sur-name again. Forgive me
Again he signed a message live.. captured by the bbc, who craig assumed to be the most respectable medium to broadcast this revelation with. Obviously not the case. The bbc edited this out of their broadcast in order to properly execute their spin
The guardian picked up the ball and ran with it, publicly calling the man a liar
These are traits of character assassination.
Michael Jackson owned 50% of the recorded music publishing arm of Sony the corporation - Sony/ATV. This is one man, owning 50% of an arm of a multi national conglomerate. There was obviously a good character clause in his contract (an exit strategy for Sony), violation of which would lead to the forced selling of his portion of the company. Hence why his character was publicly assassinated continuously. Still he wouldn't sell. So, "let's try the old drug overdose chestnut."
The media is a powerful tool
I'm just saying, if most people here are opposed to government coercion and abuse, then we should all be a bit wiser than to jump when they tell us to
Apology accepted... in any way, I was a bit anal on the Surname because I want to stop further confusion in other people's reference to him. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1463230.new#new
Your point is taken, and I agree.. We should give the guy a fair chance to prove himself and then decide if he is a fraudster or the real deal. I too was a bit quick on the trigger, when other people
started to doubt his honesty. The best way to do this, would be for people with sound technical knowledge to meet with him and then giving him a chance to prove himself. The one-on-one thing with
Gavin behind closed doors was a bit dodgy. Do a sort of Peer review with developers and then they can decide if there are any proof in this. If he can sign a message in the Genesis block... it would
make this option obsolete and we can just move forward. Him being a early adopter, makes signing early blocks as proof so much more complex.