Great doco, well worth the watch, very plausible theory. The most convincing yet.

Exactly! This guy is small fry, nevermind all the insider trading that happens the rest of the time.

Very good article, good arguments.

Bitcoin’s ‘physicality’ exists in the tens of thousands of nodes around the world that verify my private keys let me access my bitcoin. Those keys are tangible in the form of a cold wallet which I can secure myself. And the bitcoin itself behaves like a physical bearer instrument. That is far more tangible to me than the dollars sitting in my bank account. Money in a bank not only is less tangible but it barely exists in the first place. We just trust that it exists. Good thing bitcoin doesn’t require trust then. Shame normies still believe you need a trusted central authority to regulate money. It’s a very hard idea for them to let go of.

Good ep Jack. Enjoying the meat chat. If you want new ideas I think your bitcoin history and Satoshi stuff is good content.

MM was making the news about the storm all week. I do think it’s better to have everyone prepared rather than not at all but seems odd that government can’t seem to align their forecasts with everything else.

You’d think an intelligent journalist would make the connection that in order to understand (and potentially uncover) a pseudonymous developer who’s only interactions with the world were within the context of Bitcoin, would make the effort to understand Bitcoin. I would argue that a failure to understand Bitcoin is a failure to understand Satoshi. I don’t think he would have come to half of the conclusions that he did had he known what Bitcoin actually is.

Way over hyped. Stilll, better to be prepared than not.

Poor journalism, weak arguments, John doesn’t understand Bitcoin or Satoshi.

The reporter basically decided from the start that he thought it was Adam and then set out to prove it. Weak evidence, clearly doesn’t understand Bitcoin or Satoshi.

Just listened to The Daily podcast unmasking Satoshi. It feels to me that John (the writer) had a very early theory based on a flawed documentary that is Satoshi. Instead of setting out to unmask Satoshi, he set out to prove his own hypothesis that Adam is Satoshi. He based his 99% certainty on things like the use of hyphenations, grammatical inaccuracies and what sounds like ‘gut feelings’. Hardly a smoking gun. John has clearly spent little time trying to understand Bitcoin or indeed Satoshi. I laughed when he said early on that he thought it was in the public interest to unmask Satoshi. And he suggests that Adam is hesitant to admit his identity to avoid a wrench attack. They barely talk about the importance to the network of decentralisation or how Satoshi was always pushing attention away from himself and onto the community. At this point anyone who understands Bitcoin understands that it doesn’t matter who Satoshi was and unmasking him doesn’t provide any benefit. If people spent more time understanding Bitcoin rather than solving a mystery they would find themselves much better off.

Hopefully it’s being ‘blown’ out of proportion, but better to be safe than sorry. (Pun intended)