[clemensley]

You are stating a popular opinion, but it's one that I do not share.

> Most of his proof has been systematically proven to be forged or unverified.

If someone fails to prove A that does not mean that (not A) is true

> You're confusing hate with lack of trust.

You are right, hate is a very strong word that I should not have used in this context.

> It's very much playing itself out in front of you. "Innocent" isn't the same thing as lack of accusation. In the court of public opinion: He's accused of making fraudulent claims. He defends himself. His arguments are shown to be invalid.

I'm really not that interested in what the court of public opinion thinks, I'm more interested in the truth. The truth is that I don't know if he is Satoshi or not, neither do you or anybody else here. Yet everybody is assuming that without question. The word fraud occurs 21 times in this threat, in almost all cases without qualification. I would expect more from the HN community.

[bdcravens]

Have you spent any amount of time reviewing the claims against his "proof"? We're talking about purchasing backdated companies(ie, the Tulip Trust), referencing products that didn't exist at the time they were allegedly used, sharing PDFs with obvious edits, etc.

Here's a good analysis of Craig's own testimony from last week and the inconsistencies:

https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/07/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-3...

> I'm more interested in the truth

The only way he is telling the truth is if an enormous number of claims is a massive conspiracy theory.

> The truth is that I don't know if he is Satoshi or not

You don't know I'm not Satoshi. I don't have to prove it:

> If someone fails to prove A that does not mean that (not A) is true

> I would expect more from the HN community.

True. We do have a habit of hero worship (ie Jobs, Musk, etc) so perhaps we should similarly believe Wright just because he said to.

[Kaveren]

you're very gullible to not take a side here. the idea that the same man responsible for something quite libertarian (pseudononymous distributed currency) would sue someone for saying he isn't satoshi in a court of law is insanity.

not to mention satoshi himself wished people wouldn't obsess over who he is, and rather think more about the larger team of people behind bitcoin's development, according to a post of his.

fraudulent proof is proof of fraud. you have to play mental mind games to believe there's a case for him being satoshi. all it takes is 30 seconds of basic logical thinking.

people who believe he could be satoshi are the reason the cryptocurrency community is so awful.