Assume N independent attestation factors, each factor having an attestation value measured to be 1/10 random probability (that is, given the credibility of the attestation itself, and if the subject matter satisfies the attestation, there would be only 1/10 of a chance for the subject matter to be false), then the subject matter that satisfies all N attestation factors has a probability P of being untrue as follows:
P= 10^-N.
P=10^-10 when N=10, which is one in 10 billion.
In real life, it is hard to have attestations that are truly completely (100%) independent, therefore the probability (of being false) P would be greater than the above estimate. But even if you increase the above probability by 1000 times, it is still only 10^-7, which is one in 10 million.
And remember the highest 5-Sigma standard of proving a fundamental physics discovery is 3×10^-7 (one in several million), at which level no reasonable mind could doubt.
In the case of proving that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, there are at least 10 such independent attestation factors, and many of these attestation factors have an attestation value higher than that equivalent to a 1/10 random probability (that is, given the credibility of the attestation itself, and when the attestation is applied alone, it results in less than 1/10 of a chance that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto).
Lol why doesn't he just send some sats then? Seems like a reasonable request. I mean Satoshi has forum posts about telling others they're shit out of luck if they don't back up their keys and they "just made a donation to the rest of the Bitcoin community". He wouldn't have a convoluted explanation as to why he can't send a transaction with those keys in the network.
Jonathan Butler
And then use that long convoluted explanation to try to sue to get developers to give him access to the BTC those lost keys have locked up.
Ryan Nelson
I did Bayesian & frequentist statistics as part of my PhD, and I can say that after this post, the posterior probability of OP being a fag is 99.999999999999999999999999999%.
Jaxson Moore
fpbp second best post of the thread
Wyatt Smith
>bsvjeets now try to come up with "mathematical proof" to cope with how much of a scammer creg is >the irony is that cryptographic proof / signing would be far more convincing mathematical proof lmao all fields
He doesn't need to, everyone already knows he is satoj.
Connor Davis
The pineapple...........
Jaxon Roberts
the only proof anyone needs is for him to move his coins. he won't because he isn't satoshi.
Adrian Perez
lol the math behind him is all brainlet super easy stuff.
Jackson Gray
/thread
Noah Morales
On what basis do you assume the probability of someone's claim being wrong is only 10%, on what basis do you assume there is any independence at all?
Wright did exactly the same "key signing" proof for each person, so they're not independent at all: Instead you're asking if Wright could perform a convincing looking signing demonstration under conditions he specifies. If he could perform one, he could perform 10 under substantially identical conditions.
