[edited out]
......I have repeatedly indicated that the chance seems unlikely, but there is no proof per se that CSW is not satoshi. Given the evidence we have at this time, that would be tantamount to disproving a negative. That ain't how logic works.
Your statement here, jbreher, borders on crazytalk.
There is absolutely no burden for anyone to prove that CSW is NOT Satoshi.
Never said there was. If you want to claim that it is FACT, however, you should be prepared to back that claim up with solid evidence. Some would say that CSW's falsified evidence is proof of non-satoshi. I say it is merely evidence supporting such a conclusion. I can think of at least one strong reason why satoshi would like to sow doubt about his existence.
So, no. Neither postulate has been proven.
The burden is 100% (or at least fucking close to 100%) upon CSW to prove that he is satoshi, if that is what he intends to claim (or continue to claim).
I do not disagree with you here.
Furthermore, decent and reasonable means of attempting proof through signing of a known satoshi block have been outlined many times, and CSW fails and/or refuses to even attempt the most reasonable acceptable means to accomplish such identification verification.
Do you think he would not have known without such an outline? CSW seems to have a puzzling grasp of things about Bitcoin that he knows, and other things that he thinks he knows but seem to be false anyhow. However, I'm pretty certain he was always aware of the possibility of signing something with one of satoshi's strongly conjecturable keys to be pretty damned solid evidence for the claim.
