Can you also see how useless such a claim is to someone like me? How can I cite you in conversations or decisions in the future? If no one can use the information you provide in any meaningful way, what is the point of sharing the information in the first place?
>Can you also see how useless such a claim is to someone like me?
If despite a preponderance of supporting public evidence(both of satoshi hack and the GMX direct object reference bug), you assume that everyone is lying, you'll have a very hard time in life.
> How can I cite you in conversations or decisions in the future?
I don't know, nor do I particularly care. Evaluating the information and fact checking is something that you need to do, I can't possibly fact check myself for you.
>If no one can use the information you provide in any meaningful way, what is the point of sharing the information in the first place?
If you actually cared about the information, I'd imagine that you'd be trying to verify it instead of writing this post.
Literally nothing you said in this comment is true.
1. There is not a preponderance of public evidence supporting your claim.
2. I am not assuming you're lying, I'm simply pointing out what you've said is useless.
3. You can fact check yourself, in fact many people do it to themselves every day.
4. Probing the source of information for verification is precisely what I am doing right now.
If you don't care about people believing what you wrote, then you didn't write it to convey information. Maybe you wrote it to feel good about yourself?
>1. There is not a preponderance of public evidence supporting your claim.
There is unquestionably a preponderance of public evidence regarding satoshis email compromise.
>2. I am not assuming you're lying, I'm simply pointing out what you've said is useless.
If you assume that I am lying, it is.
>3. You can fact check yourself, in fact many people do it to themselves every day.
I think you should read that part of my comment again.
>4. Probing the source of information for verification is precisely what I am doing right now.
That's fair, but I think you're taking the wrong approach. There's just not much I could realistically do to prove this.
However, I'd suggest contacting Roger Ver. They may be able to shed some light on the topic, and probably (unlike me) wouldn't have a problem with incriminating others.
> If you don't care about people believing what you wrote, then you didn't write it to convey information
I do care about people believing what I wrote, but if you assume that I am being intentionally deceitful there's not much I can do to convince you. What proof could I possibly post that couldn't be forged? My entire life isn't recorded in a blockchain.
I honestly don't believe your reaction here is particularly reasonable, it would be if my comment had contained something that was difficult to believe for one reason or the other, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>Maybe you wrote it to feel good about yourself?
I wrote it to confirm what TazeTSchnitzel seemed to be implying.
OK that's fair enough, and no offense intended. If I see someone with <10K karma, no name or link in their profile, and I don't recognise the handle, then I take everything they say with a pinch of salt.
I can't very well cite sources as I'd normally be the one being cited.