> This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it.

not in this instance

> not in this instance

not really. why does it matter that this message is authentic? that 2x _really_ isn't going to happen? it can still happen, and it doesn't matter who posts what online.

Jeff Garzik was the only author of btc1, the primary 2x implementation. For it to survive for any length of time, someone needs to step up and take over code maintainership.

"Who posts what online" is exactly what determines whether or not 2x happens.

This is effectively the announcement of discontinuation of software, and anything relating to that is usually signed. For example, Bitcoin Core release notes are signed when sent out via email, the binaries are reproducibly built and signed many times, and most git commits are signed by their author (and all merge commits are): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master

I am torn between "This is somewhat tautological" and "This (the second sentence) is plain wrong, and the current situation is a perfect example why."

Do you have a citation for your understanding? Seems plausible but this is the first time I've ever heard this part of the mythology. I'm especially interested because Craig S. Wright went on and on about how uncomfortable it made him to sign a message with an alleged Satoshi key. I wonder if he created this story.

Satoshi was in favor of digitally signing Bitcoin transactions to provide non-repudiation as an underpinning of Bitcoin ownership.

> it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it.

That statement actually favors the signing of this textual message, since digital signatures provide integrity control in addition to non-repudiation of origin.

Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case.

Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. You can agree or post a response to argue a point. If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? And if it is from "Satoshi Nakomoto", how naive would you be to actually trust that?

Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures. Even a signed message can be fake, it could be a lie or it could be written under duress. The only solution is to not trust signatures.

> Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case.

That doesn't matter, because people can independently look at the design of the crypto. Your point about authentic in this context is meaningless.

> Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary.

That's exactly why you sign a message, to judge the veracity of the contents according to a trust anchor.

> If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed?

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of signing messages. You don't sign to check stupidity, but to assert that important yet unsigned messages can be repudiated from the party believed to be the origin.

Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures.

That's WHY you sign messages. It isn't a reason not to sign messages. You are confusing authentication of origin with identity of sender.

> You don't sign to check stupidity

Right, you use your brain to check for stupidity, and once that check is complete, identity, authenticity and consistency of the message does not matter.

Bitcoin is a trust-less protocol, you cannot and should not trust any node, miner, developer, any online or offline post. Trust is not a thing in the Bitcoin world, and the tradition of not signing communications is generally rooted in this concept.

Trust in digital signatures is 100% of how Bitcoin works, and other nodes, miners, and developers are definitely trusted.

We know who satoshi is. We can't prove it, of course and we respect him enough to leave him be in peace, given what he has done (and the fact that the current team is stronger than him.) He doesn't like the attention he gets even now when only some of us have worked it out.

Please feel free not to believe me-- you shouldn't, I could be shilling for Craig Wright (ironically the one person who has proven that he isn't Satoshi) ....

At this point Satoshi is a principle and a philosophy and bitcoin needs to survive without him.

The person who used that alias would be offended at the idea that the direction of bitcoin should be determined by him.

What you are saying is, reputations are irrelevant.

In this case you can get all sorts of sybil attacks to manipulate consensus by sheer numbers, including fake news and so forth.

Imagine HN without reputations or limits on spoof accounts.

So if I send a faked message from this guy saying "we changed out minds, fork now" it's not going to be an issue at all?

Ridiculous.