{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:18:02PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e To avoid such discussions.\n\u003e \n\u003e You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the\n\u003e message is unauthentic.  This is not the case.\n\u003e \n\u003e Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed\n\u003e that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was\n\u003e unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or\n\u003e apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.\n\n\u003csnip\u003e\n\n\u003e A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core\n\u003e messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from\n\u003e authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the\n\u003e founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of\n\u003e argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own\n\u003e act?\n\nSomething I only recently realised is that Satoshi's apparent policy(1)\nof never making any cryptographically secure signatures to link together\nhis posts - or indeed any communication at all - fits well with the\navoidance of creating a central authority figure. Currently every single\nthing Satoshi ever apparently wrote can only be linked together by\ntrusting third parties - email archives could have been hacked,\nbitcointalk might have fake messages, etc. Obviously in practice we have\nreasonable assurance that the same person or group was behind most of\nthe messages we now consider to be \"from Satoshi\", but ultimately\nstrictly speaking we can only take each message individually, for the\narguments contained within.\n\nAs you've often said, the biggest achievement by Satoshi in the creation\nof Bitcoin was to create a system where the identity of the creator is a\nmere historical footnote. We can probably go further, and state that\nwhile doing so, Satoshi quite counter-intuitively took steps to avoid\neven creating a pseudoanonymous identity.\n\n\n1) \"Does anyone have anything at all signed by Satoshi's PGP key?\",\n   Peter Todd, Sept 13, 2014, Bitcoin-development mailing list,\n   http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-September/006606.html\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/129d0f20/attachment.sig\u003e"}