rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > To avoid such discussions. You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the message is unauthentic. This is not the case. Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key. The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much air silence, but that isn't especially strong. In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content. And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I certainly do not see a reason to hide it. A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own act? This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If it's not don't. Then move on with life.