For show notes (including Peter Todd's thoughts on this episode), transcript, and more, see behavior-podcast.com/is-peter-todd-bitcoins-creator-a-talk-about-his-behavior-and-language/
He's happy to continue sowing confusion for precisely the reason he states. Mr. Backs reactions are far more interesting, that of the other man who watches his beloved with the man she married.
Zach, you are not off base here with your instinct at all. If Todd was correcting Satoshi, he would have responded, “The inputs and outputs can’t match exactly because ..[reasoning].” You use the phrase, “Of course, to be specific” when you are clarifying what you meant earlier. Satoshi commented on this problem around midnight, continued working on it for another hour and a half and then realized he had made a mistake in his original post. He was under the wrong login and therefore, could not find the edit button on his post, so he made another post to correct himself, not realizing he was posting as Todd. This is pretty damning and definitely not off based. Also, remember that most Bitcoin experts such as your guest here own and hold bitcoin and would never want Satoshi’s identity discovered no matter how much evidence you show them. The bitcoin holders would prefer to assume Satoshi, who holds a million bitcoins worth almost $70 billion, is dead and will never get to sell those coins , and this assumption helps bitcoin stay more valuable.
Do you want it or not, HBO guy pointed at hints nobody pointed before. Todd's post indeed looks like a Satoshi's slip comment posted from a wrong account and wasn't deleted because it would look even more suspicious.
Yes, it can look like that. But I think it's important to see that there are other interpretations. And that coincidences can happen. You might like some of the thoughts/ideas I added in the show notes: behavior-podcast.com/is-peter-todd-bitcoins-creator-a-talk-about-his-behavior-and-language/
Zach, you are not off base here at all. If Todd was correcting Satoshi, he would have responded, “The inputs and outputs can’t match exactly because ..[reasoning].” You use the phrase, “Of course, to be specific” when you are clarifying what you meant earlier. Satoshi commented on this problem around midnight, continued working on it for another hour and a half and then realized he had made a mistake in his original post. He was under the wrong login and therefore, could not find the edit button on his post, so he made another post to correct himself, not realizing he was posting as Todd. This is pretty damning and definitely not off based. Also, remember that most Bitcoin experts such as your guest here own and hold bitcoin and would never want Satoshi’s identity discovered no matter how much evidence you show them. The bitcoin holders would prefer to assume Satoshi, who holds a million bitcoins worth almost $70 billion, is dead and will never get to sell those coins , and this assumption helps bitcoin stay more valuable.
I do think the language is unusual, and I'm surprised more people haven't commented on the specific language (although maybe they have and I just haven't seen it). That said, I do think sometimes people do use unusual/rare language; basically, coincidences do happen, with language as with everything, so I don't want to make the mistake of reading too much into it. I still would love to see someone do a large sample analysis of forum posts to see how often such language is used and when it's used. Would be interesting and I would think quite easy.
As a contrarian he is very selective. He is empathically not John Dillion (without doubt) despite it being a fun troll. Why selectively troll on one conspiracy and not the other?
A 'conspiracy' is a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful. You just mean 'theory'. Otherwise, what do you consider to be the conspiracy here, please? 🕊️
I'm pretty convinced Peter is Satoshi. He was asked about when RBF was first proposed during a panel at Bitcoin Amsterdam in 2023 and he intentionally deflected and didn't answer the question.
Because he knew he faced resistance from those of us who support Satoshi's vision, so he did not want to draw attention to the fact that he played a large roll in changing and sabotaging the protocol.
Could you go into a little more detail about what happened and what the interpretation is? And I'm curious if you think there might be other explanations for that?
@@PeopleWhoReadPeoplepodcastYeah there was a big debate at the time over raising the blocksize limit on Bitcoin like Satoshi said to do in his quotes. BTC Core refused to do it, and the chain was becoming crippled with high fees and congestion and it was a huge problem. So many services had to stop accepting Bitcoin because BTC Core broke the system. Anyone who complained got banned and censored off the main discussion platforms like Reddit or Github. Transactions would also get stuck due to the full blocks for possibly weeks. I have had a transaction stuck for 3 weeks before being confirmed. Part of Core's response to fix the high fee problems and the stuck transactions was RBF which they touted as a technical marvel. But many of us disagreed. Todd knows he was changing the protocol away from Satoshi's original vision, and he seems to know he is guilty and he seems to know Dr. Wright is Satoshi which he mentioned at the end of the HBO series hiding the truth in plain view. If you want to learn more then read my Medium articles (crypto-rebel) and follow the hundreds of links and sources. BTC is a fake Bitcoin that was hijacked and BSV is the real Bitcoin and Dr. Wright is Satoshi.
For show notes (including Peter Todd's thoughts on this episode), transcript, and more, see behavior-podcast.com/is-peter-todd-bitcoins-creator-a-talk-about-his-behavior-and-language/
Love how you own your truth and how your impressions and ideas evolve
Thank you Beth! I appreciate it. Always learning, that's for sure.
He's happy to continue sowing confusion for precisely the reason he states. Mr. Backs reactions are far more interesting, that of the other man who watches his beloved with the man she married.
Zach, you are not off base here with your instinct at all. If Todd was correcting Satoshi, he would have responded, “The inputs and outputs can’t match exactly because ..[reasoning].” You use the phrase, “Of course, to be specific” when you are clarifying what you meant earlier. Satoshi commented on this problem around midnight, continued working on it for another hour and a half and then realized he had made a mistake in his original post. He was under the wrong login and therefore, could not find the edit button on his post, so he made another post to correct himself, not realizing he was posting as Todd. This is pretty damning and definitely not off based.
Also, remember that most Bitcoin experts such as your guest here own and hold bitcoin and would never want Satoshi’s identity discovered no matter how much evidence you show them. The bitcoin holders would prefer to assume Satoshi, who holds a million bitcoins worth almost $70 billion, is dead and will never get to sell those coins , and this assumption helps bitcoin stay more valuable.
There were several tells in his responses & with the totality of all the info, I do believe Peter Todd is Satoshi Nakamoto
What tells did you see? Be curious to hear.
He isn't.
Do you want it or not, HBO guy pointed at hints nobody pointed before. Todd's post indeed looks like a Satoshi's slip comment posted from a wrong account and wasn't deleted because it would look even more suspicious.
Yes, it can look like that. But I think it's important to see that there are other interpretations. And that coincidences can happen. You might like some of the thoughts/ideas I added in the show notes: behavior-podcast.com/is-peter-todd-bitcoins-creator-a-talk-about-his-behavior-and-language/
And this guy has now gone into hiding according to a report on Wired. Oh dear!
Zach, you are not off base here at all. If Todd was correcting Satoshi, he would have responded, “The inputs and outputs can’t match exactly because ..[reasoning].” You use the phrase, “Of course, to be specific” when you are clarifying what you meant earlier. Satoshi commented on this problem around midnight, continued working on it for another hour and a half and then realized he had made a mistake in his original post. He was under the wrong login and therefore, could not find the edit button on his post, so he made another post to correct himself, not realizing he was posting as Todd. This is pretty damning and definitely not off based.
Also, remember that most Bitcoin experts such as your guest here own and hold bitcoin and would never want Satoshi’s identity discovered no matter how much evidence you show them. The bitcoin holders would prefer to assume Satoshi, who holds a million bitcoins worth almost $70 billion, is dead and will never get to sell those coins , and this assumption helps bitcoin stay more valuable.
I do think the language is unusual, and I'm surprised more people haven't commented on the specific language (although maybe they have and I just haven't seen it). That said, I do think sometimes people do use unusual/rare language; basically, coincidences do happen, with language as with everything, so I don't want to make the mistake of reading too much into it. I still would love to see someone do a large sample analysis of forum posts to see how often such language is used and when it's used. Would be interesting and I would think quite easy.
As a contrarian he is very selective. He is empathically not John Dillion (without doubt) despite it being a fun troll. Why selectively troll on one conspiracy and not the other?
A 'conspiracy' is a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful. You just mean 'theory'. Otherwise, what do you consider to be the conspiracy here, please? 🕊️
I'm pretty convinced Peter is Satoshi. He was asked about when RBF was first proposed during a panel at Bitcoin Amsterdam in 2023 and he intentionally deflected and didn't answer the question.
That's not proof lol
Because he knew he faced resistance from those of us who support Satoshi's vision, so he did not want to draw attention to the fact that he played a large roll in changing and sabotaging the protocol.
Could you go into a little more detail about what happened and what the interpretation is? And I'm curious if you think there might be other explanations for that?
@@PeopleWhoReadPeoplepodcastYeah there was a big debate at the time over raising the blocksize limit on Bitcoin like Satoshi said to do in his quotes. BTC Core refused to do it, and the chain was becoming crippled with high fees and congestion and it was a huge problem. So many services had to stop accepting Bitcoin because BTC Core broke the system. Anyone who complained got banned and censored off the main discussion platforms like Reddit or Github. Transactions would also get stuck due to the full blocks for possibly weeks. I have had a transaction stuck for 3 weeks before being confirmed. Part of Core's response to fix the high fee problems and the stuck transactions was RBF which they touted as a technical marvel. But many of us disagreed. Todd knows he was changing the protocol away from Satoshi's original vision, and he seems to know he is guilty and he seems to know Dr. Wright is Satoshi which he mentioned at the end of the HBO series hiding the truth in plain view. If you want to learn more then read my Medium articles (crypto-rebel) and follow the hundreds of links and sources. BTC is a fake Bitcoin that was hijacked and BSV is the real Bitcoin and Dr. Wright is Satoshi.