Thanks for those clips, yefi.
In my humble bumble opinion, those kinds of appearances would not rule out Kleiman from being Satoshi. Kleinman was characterized as both a recluse and also someone who kept people out of some of his personal matters. Appearing on TV is not inconsistent with being a recluse, especially when the commentary was subject matter specific (and not about Kleinman himself).
I don't find either of those appearances nor his previous employment as a law enforcement person to be inconsistent with a person like satoshi who likely spent a considerable amount of time considering cryptography and ways to make a digital currency from such.
He strikes me as being exactly what's on the tin, a computer forensic expert. No more, no less. As I know well, looks can be deceiving however.
Anyway, I see he
gave a webinar. Looking at the slides, he used American spelling, e.g., organizing,
which you can compare with Satoshi's. There were a couple of punctuation errors as well, including the use of a
quotation mark for an apostrophe. Notice the single spacing after full stops as well.
Yes... exactly... You cannot strictly go by looks or hunch, but you do have to start somewhere, and as you seem to suggest, some pieces of evidence are more convincing than others.
In some of my earlier posts, I have expressed considerable skepticism (is this like Stolfi view of bitcoin's long term success?) regarding Wright's being Satoshi... Not only is it Wright's mannerisms, but his whole apparent business mind approach to things, his experiences, his apparent bad motives, his seeming to try to hard, his coming off as a phoney and a scammer, and just too many logical and internal inconsistencies to have any confidence that Wright is in fact Satoshi... Wright seems to want it and not want it and want it and not want it and what the fuck?
In my earlier response to you however, I was not really arguing either way regarding Kleiman, except to suggest that either news appearance (as a "computer forensic expert") and some of his other background is not inconsistent with being Satoshi..... and yeah, some of the additional evidence that you point in the above post would give further doubts to Keiman as Satoshi, even though not conclusive.... but pieces of evidence to add to the mix of inferences.
short of some religious fanaticism. I mean it'd shake his hand and thank him for creating BTC and all but am i really the only asshole who only really cares if someone has private keys to Satoshi's stash?
