{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e To avoid such discussions.\n\nYou seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the\nmessage is unauthentic.  This is not the case.\n\nContrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed\nthat might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was\nunauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or\napparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.\n\nThe headers on the message check out.  The mail server in question is\nalso not an open relay.  At the moment the only reason I have to doubt\nthe authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much\nair silence, but that isn't especially strong.\n\nIn the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.\nAnd on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively\ndirected than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list.  I\ncertainly do not see a reason to hide it.\n\nA focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core\nmessages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from\nauthority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the\nfounder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of\nargument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own\nact?\n\nThis whole tangest is a waste of time.  If you believe the message is\nunauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is\nauthentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If\nit's not don't. Then move on with life."}