pull down to refresh
246 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 3 Jan \ parent \ on: Bitcoin: anyone anywhere or everyone always? bitcoin
That's what makes it theory I guess. The take that Satoshi being some anon individual is treated as fact because it's not falsifiable, reality is that Satoshi being an NSA op is just as likely (where I say it's more likely)... we may never know and even if we thought we did there's still no objective truth. If Satoshi did reveal themselves, how could we know for sure that wasn't itself a psyop?
Same goes with incentive theory, whether or not it was an executed plan or happened organically doesn't matter, what we have is clear evidence now that the government with the world reserve currency is being taken over by people that recognize it's ability to help save the US (or at least are paying lip service to this effect publicly).
I guess it comes down whether you prefer to believe in conspiracies, or coincidences?
This is a great question, I reserve the right to come back and resurrect this thread after an epiphany... but off the cuff I think it'd have to be a "rat poison" event like we agree is possible (squash). That would still reinforce my theory it's an intel op though, just a dark one rather than a white hat one.
The problem is, even if "Satoshi" revealed themselves and signed with their keys etc as proof... we still couldn't falsify the op theory. That Satoshir could be an actor/agent within the op, just as politicians and CEO are agents for the apparatus.
I suppose NSA/GCHQ etc could just publicly break the encryption or exploit backdoored chips and start sweeping exchange cold wallets for funsies, thus destroying the ledger, but even that still doesn't mean they didn't create it... it's just a different type of rat poison event.
I guess I just follow the evidence, but have to be content with the fact that evidence is not proof, because ultimately there's no objective truth at this scale.
This is a great question, I reserve the right to come back and resurrect this thread after an epiphany.
Please do, would be interested in evolution of the idea.
I guess I just follow the evidence, but have to be content with the fact that evidence is not proof, because ultimately there's no objective truth at this scale.
Yeah, and I suppose it's immaterial anyway -- if the theory is true, it would suggest a certain underlying buffer against 'catastrophe', but that doesn't mean that the catastrophe must actually be averted in practice, since catastrophe can unfold in many ways, even when people are trying to prevent it. (Nor does it mean that if the theory wasn't true, that catastrophe couldn't also be averted. You can just get lucky.)
It does make an evocative explanation, in any event. Will be a good lens to have access to in the days ahead.
reply