/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>52912616
>any cryptographer keeps his keys safe.
Logical fallacy.

>therefore, satoshi keeps his keys safe.
Logical fallacy.

>anyone could have copied theys
Correct. Or they could be lost, sold, given away, stolen, or simply stored away in a vault that is never meant to be opened. Or he has been told or threatened not to spend them. Or made a deal with governments not to spend or touch. Or have made a vow or a contract not touch them. Many possibilities.

>so key ownership does not prove identity.
Correct. Key ownership is not related to the claim of who created the system.

>but not owning the key immediately means you aren't satoshi.
Wrong. Logical fallacy.

>that's just basic logic
You are terrible at logic.

>so the first thing you have to show if you want people to believe that you are satoshi is that you have the key.
Wrong. What you have to show is unparalleled and unique knowledge of the system you have created. Knowledge that the creator is expected to have.

>>21500863
Interesting that you are in BSV so you passed a critical thinking filter, but still don't have the intelligence to figure out how obvious it is that Craig is Satoshi. As soon as you look past the surface level talking points, it's blindingly obvious.

>>19234843
We know Craig is Satoshi not because he said it, but because it's the only possible conclusion (and the obvious one) once all the evidence is examined.

Satoshi wanted digital cash - so does Craig Wright
Satoshi wanted scaling on chain - so does Craig Wright
Satoshi wanted big server farms - so does Craig Wright
Satoshi wanted micropayment capability - so does Craig Wright
Satoshi wanted instant payments - so does Craig Wright
Satoshi wanted a protocol set in stone - so does Craig Wright
Satoshi wanted Gavin to carry the torch of Bitcoin forward - Gavin testified that Craig Wright was definitely the person behind Satoshi

Did it click yet? 1+1 = 2

Logic is a wonderful thing