Craig Wright has cryptographically signed privately for many prominent people as Satoshi Nakamoto the creator of Bitcoin using the private key from Block 1 the very first mined Bitcoin block. But Craig has not yet signed publicly which has caused a lot of criticism from haters of him and his design for Bitcoin. More accurately they fear him and Bitcoin, and that fear manifests as hate.
If Craig had signed publicly as Satoshi, most of the haters would likely not have simply turned into supporters due to such an event. Instead they would've likely said that the key is not proof and was obtained some other way and they would push that narrative. By not signing Craig has forced the haters to commit to a different narrative of oh "he can't sign", pretending that it was some magician trick done on the brand new laptop that Gavin Andresen was convinced was not tampered with. The only way BSV-haters can commit to such a narrative is to also commit to the narrative of "signing is undeniable proof". Both narratives go hand-in-hand you can't really have one without the other without some serious mental gymnastics.
Its interesting to analyze the logic and game theoretics around this. Craig has refused to sign publicly for years now, leading to an accumulating effect where the haters continuously buy into and grow this narrative. By allowing this narrative to inflate by refusing to sign, it detracts away from the future narrative of "he stole the key" because they have already committed to the narrative that "signing is undeniable proof" as explained in the paragraph above. They have bought so hard into the "he can't sign" narrative that the "he stole the key or obtained it some other way" narrative will later look pretty silly. The haters will no longer be able to deny he is Satoshi without displaying a huge logical inconsistency which will make them look stupid to any outside observers.
No comments:
Post a Comment