Do we even need to analyze it? Even quick glance at text written by Satoshi and faketoshi is enough to tell it belongs to different people.
But at very least it'll make the proof thicker.
Yes we do and thicker 'proof' is continually required ...
These BSV asshats are constantly making unsubstantiated claims through 'fake news' outfits ... mixing (some) historical facts with total and utter fiction ... trying to change and/or to create a new historical narrative to fit with the BSV 'commercial' agenda ... it's despicable ...
- hxxps://coingeek.com/bitcoin-white-paper-day/
- hxxps://youtu.be/36MRO2izj6I?t=387
Quote CSW, 6:29
"... I didn't put a lot of detail in any section of the Bitcoin white paper ... "and continues to speak 'technobabble' in regards to Digital Signatures, without being able to provide any cryptographically valid proof, to-date, whatsoever. Oh the irony! Funny how he seems to always be asking 'others' to do the 'work' for him. Word has it, he can't even code.
They are continuing with legal actions and legal threats against the original Bitcoin (BTC) community ...
- hxxps://coingeek.com/wright-victorious-peter-mccormack-abandons-libel-defence/
...
"Self-Proclaimed Satoshi Craig Wright Files US Copyright Registrations for BTC White Paper" ...-
https://cointelegraph.com/news/self-proclaimed-satoshi-craig-wright-files-us-copyright-registrations-for-btc-white-paperExcerpt:
"Registering a copyright is just filing a form. The Copyright Office does not investigate the validity of the claim; they just register it. Unfortunately there is no official way to challenge a registration. If there are competing claims, the Office will just register all of them."...
"... "including the original Bitcoin whitepaper"
@CopyrightOffice might be interested in this. Craig Wright filed a false claim on the Bitcoin whitepaper over there last year." ..."-
https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1323155680161923074 ...
IMHO, where possible, this entire industry must boycott everything and anything BSV. The same applies to BCH and to every other Bitcoin chain fork.
The real satoshi did not want Bitcoin forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
You can read every post that the real satoshi wrote on this forum (which is where some of the text based analysis in the OP is from) here;
-
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/satoshi-3...
*Satire*The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - The Final Duel (1966 HD)-
https://youtu.be/aJCSNIl2Pls