sahil50

- Capability

- Motivation

- Linguistics

- Physical location

This is the most robust consilience of evidence of Satoshi anywhere on the internet.

Musk also proficient in C++, among other things

https://medium.com/p/4120f36da702

You have previously posted about Wolfram's New Kind of Science. So I think you understand what it means to have original thoughts and go against the status quo.

The evidence pointing to Elon being Satoshi spans every important dimension of identifying someone. Capability, motivation, linguistics, physical location. This is the most robust consilience of evidence of Satoshi anywhere on the internet.

This is a proposal. You are welcome to propose another candidates. Now it up to open-minded people to rank all proposals by likelihood of being true.

Also "bloody"

"Writing a description for this thing for general audiences is bloody hard."

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre...

"Bloody hell, I’m going to have to write a blog. Can’t fit this into tweets."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/943887056492564480

This claim hinges on highly specific evidence of capability, motivation, location, and unusual shared linguistic quirks.

For newcomers to this thread, reread my posts, and if you have open-ended questions, I'd be willing to answer.

There was little incentive to take credit when he's juggling SpaceX and Tesla.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30131095

This might change when there is sufficient public will asking him to take credit.

False! C++ proficiency. Location in Van Nuys, Los Angeles. Are hard evidence.

Hacker News crowd, get smarter!

You guys are like clueless about so much of life!

Change this by taking the perspective of people who simultaneously build things and coordinate people!

The meta-talk is not how to make progress. Engage with the actual points. The actual points in the Medium post and the Google Doc.

Musk might deny it for basically every year from 2008 up to when Bitcoin reached some level of success, for the integrity of the currency, and to avoid entanglement with aggressive regulators who don't understand the possibilities for good (see the fate of the E-gold founder) (luckily the atmosphere has changed with Vitalik Buterin publicly inventing Ethereum and Billy Markus publicly inventing Dogecoin). Let's say that from 2008-2013 (2013 is the release date of Dogecoin) there was sufficient reason to deny.

Then onwards, Musk might continue denying because priorities are SpaceX and Tesla. This reason might essentially continue on to the present. So this explains the range 2013-2022.

Now in the present, what can change the situation is sufficient public knowledge that Musk invented Bitcoin and sufficient public will that asks Musk to take credit, with the understanding that taking credit for Bitcoin will unify the positive perception of Satoshi with Musk, and accelerate time to civ on Mars.

The evidence is now beyond reasonable doubt that Musk invented Bitcoin. Capability. Motivation. Linguistics. Plus the extraordinarily specific commonalities. C++ proficiency. Location in Van Nuys, Los Angeles. Fulfilling the Exact Paypal Dream.

For a quick rebuttal of the other candidates, Nick Szabo doesn't seem to code in C++, Len Sassaman was sincerely dismissive of Bitcoin, Hal Finney was not playing games emailing himself, and Craig Wright is what you say he is.

... or proof that he designed the Bitcoin logo!

Sufficient public will asking Musk to take credit is what matters. Not sufficient public will to move coins lol. Sufficient public will asking Musk to take credit.

Full comparison

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n-G_PUU25wjCwBfPjAbp77_r...

Full comparison

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n-G_PUU25wjCwBfPjAbp77_r...

Hahaha

Perhaps Musk will choose to take credit when there is sufficient public will to credit him, and when it is clear that taking credit for the invention will accelerate time to civ on Mars.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n-G_PUU25wjCwBfPjAbp77_r...

https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-cal...

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Aelonjet%20van%20nuys&src...

https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/management/musks-2018-1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRszZH7Fvaw&ab_channel=LAXSP...

As an example of how the cold dark matter (CDM) establishment behaves, http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/fanmail2014.html

I hope the HackerNews crowd reads this and takes this seriously.

Many thanks.

fine, then call me an "amateur cosmologist"

Indeed. More detail here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29915004

Perhaps the "dark matter" of a galaxy is the rest of the galaxies of the universe.

Because you care about tone, which is a good thing, please read about how Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa have been treated by cold dark matter (CDM) establishment.

"stupid" is in reference to the invisible blobs of noninteracting kludge.

"lost" is what I would say the people pumping it are.

Intelligent and good people have followed the advice above, and the result has been more error and harm.

Therefore, learning from their experience, the one thing that works is accurately calling the status quo's invisible blobs of noninteracting kludge as what it is.

It's actually a simpler concern. Literally, what is that account?

Like what is it? Something that has no activity on HackerNews for 15 months, then first thing it says is rude and false.

Great pull quote.

For people new to the Tully-Fisher relation, the essence of it is that at galactic scale, gravity is not like v^2/r = GM/r^2.

It's more like v^2/r ~ sqrt(GM/r^2), so v^4 ~ M

- I already agree it is a debate. It has been a debate for 40 years ever since Moti Milgrom first proposed modified gravity (MOND).

- I already was not surprised by the HackerNews crowd responding with hostility.

- I am pointing the HackerNews crowd to people who have studied this at a high level for a lifetime. Moti Milgrom. Stacy McGaugh. Pavel Kroupa.

- This article is actually a blow to bad journalism. This article is also an opportunity to call out that what "cold dark matter" is, is actually bad machine learning, where academics forcefit a new blob of invisible, noninteracting matter for every galaxy, which gives cold dark matter (CDM) no predictive power. Contrast with modified gravity (MOND), which models acceleration as sqrt(GM/R^2 * cH/(2pi)), which has predictive power.

The root observation is that galaxies and galaxy clusters are moving faster than expected, and holding together more strongly than expected.

fyi, I started my comment with fyi. The point being that the premise of the article is overblown.

McGaugh says the same here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-b....