pull down to refresh
All of them are available in order, including their sources, on SatoshiTimeline.com
I think people would enjoy a video from you on this topic, have fun exploring.
Why not add them directly in the article? Why add additional steps for verifying the sources?
Why are you not mentioning original sources.
How can anyone be sure you did not temper the emails?
This article on our rules of engagement might be useful
https://satoshitimes.com/rules.html
Dude, the 1st thing in the article should be explaining why you think the emails are authentic.
I asked you a very simple question about your claims in your piece.
Really dont understand why you can't answer directly.
We have a policy of protecting and putting our sources first before our readers. For more private communications see our contact page.
What policy, you share new information, and when I ask you to prove its true you say tell me you have a policy.
Makes no sense to hide the sources.
Do you understand that when you make claims about such events, its your responsibility to prove what you are claiming.
The reason that lawsuit exists in the 1st place is because some guy tried to take advantage of old writings, and convince judges to misinterpret them.
How can we know you did not alter the contents of the emails and then you will use this in court in some years to prove you are satoshi or something.
Very bad journalism, when you refuse to allow others to verify your claims.
What policy
See our page here for details https://satoshitimes.com/rules.html
Makes no sense to hide the sources.
You've been guided to the sources multiple times.
Do you understand that when you make claims about such events, its your responsibility to prove what you are claiming.
You are free to debunk any of our factual claims on your blog.
deleted by author
I really don't understand why the author does not include the source of the emails.
I mean this is the exact kinda of thing that requires proof.
At the end of the day what is the official source from where these emails came?
It is confirmed on the UK judiciary website, they were used in court, but how can we be sure these are the emails in question?
Also the fact that its written by AI and has cringe expressions does not help with trustworthiness.