[sprovoost]

If Amazon wanted more detailed proof, they could just ask for that. There's no limit to how pedantic one can be in evaluating evidence. Maybe they need a physical wet signature from a specific bureaucrat at the US copyright office, sent by courier. Without knowing what constitutes evidence in their eyes, there's simply too many permutations of things they might want to see. I tried a few of those permutations and then gave up.

> The whitepaper is not in the nov08 distribution or the bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz,

How do you know this? The original link in Satoshi's email points to a file that no longer exists and afaik he didn't publish a checksum. So maybe it WAS in there. But is that what the Amazon robot was worried about? Probably not...

Also, unless you were on the mailinglist yourself at the time, you can't even know that the email archive is real.

[pushcx]

It's not even that the evidence isn't good enough, or that the archive appears inauthentic, it's that the evidence you've supplied doesn't even attempt to support your claim. Nothing in the archive you linked implies the whitepaper is under MIT.

(And: if you think this archive may be inauthentic, perhaps you should've chosen another for your evidence.)

[sprovoost]

Ah, I see your point.

Here's a January 6, 2009 snapshot from the Way Back Machine. This was before he publicly released the code. The entire project is MIT licensed and only contained one file: the whitepaper. https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/http://sourceforg...

I should have linked to that.

> if you think this archive may be inauthentic

I don't think it's inauthentic. I'm saying Amazon could think it's inauthentic, and not tell me.