[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.
The burden does not shift to the person calling CSW out as bullshit, merely because such person is emphatic about it. The burden still rests with CSW to support his claim with both facts and logic.
CSW started making the claim first, and people are asserting quite strongly and absolutley that CSW has failed to substantiate his claim to being satoshi.. so fucking what, they have no burden to establish that CSW is not satoshi... and they are in the right to be asserting absolutely that CSW is NOT satoshi because he has failed/refused to meet his evidentiary and logical burden(s) of proof and persuasion.
Some would say that CSW's falsified evidence is proof of non-satoshi.
Yep.. falsifying evidence does not help CSW's case or claim to be satoshi... and I don't give a shit whether the logic is being used badly to claim that he is not... the burden is still on CSW to support his claim.. and he has not, and his lying and falsifying does not help his case.
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.
It does not work like that jbreher... You are attempting to make false equivalencies by continuing to suggest that someone other than CSW bears some kind of burden, and they do not.
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.
So, the case should be closed, then. NO more need to argue or debate about this particular topic, right?
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?
Seems to be a distraction to be attempting to give CSW credit for "knowing stuff" that only satoshi or someone close to satoshi would hav known.
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.
To me, seems like a BIG so what?
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.
Yes. He likely is smart enough to know what would be the most convincing way to incontrovertibly put the matter to rest. His failure to do that does not necessarily substantiate that he is purposefully holding back evidence in order to keep matters suspenseful. He just got caught with his pants down on some of these matters, and bit off more than he can chew... and the most logical presentation is that CSW still wants to attempt to claim that he is satoshi, but he is just NOT able to do it... because he is NOT satoshi.. We should not be wasting our brainpower in continuing to attempt exploration of such a topic because it is resolved... CSW ≠ satoshi.
