[jere]

Nice writeup. I know people say not to focus on Wright's writing style, but he sure doesn't sound like someone extremely knowledgeable about bitcoin or cryptography. He sounds like he's writing an undergraduate paper. Given enough time, anyone can cobble together enough references to describe something accurately. But that doesn't read anything like https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

It fails the sniff test for me.

[aab0]

If you look past the glow of history and the greatness of the underlying idea, the Bitcoin whitepaper itself reads like an undergraduate paper. The original abstract had flagrant spelling errors, and the discussion and C implementation of the Poisson distribution will raise eyebrows among any statisticians or data scientists, who would either not bother to give any proof as trivial or would provide a one-liner in R.

[jere]

Good to know. I'm willing to accept that Satoshi was not a statistician or a great writer (or even a great programmer) and yet he was still able to succinctly describe a problem few people in the world even knew existed at the time.

Wright, on the other hand, spends 5 paragraphs giving a repetitive and incorrect summary of hash functions, specifically SHA-256.

I don't know how anyone in the world can look at that and think these are the same person or even colleagues.

[LA_Banker]

What's interesting is that, given enough practice, one could convincingly mimic Satoshi's writing style as some ancillary (unimpeachable tech proof aside) evidence of validity. It seems Wright hasn't even gone that far.