This email was made public by journalist and can be found in a pdf of lots of emails from Satoshi to Hal Finney spanning 10-24 Jan 2009.
I’m not making any claim whether these are or are not authentic.
https://t.co/0AxWJVEkqH
Today someone showed me an INCREDIBLE piece of evidence that #CraigWright is Satoshi.
This image, sourced from metanet-icu was shared with me.
It appears to be one of Satoshi’s earliest emails to Hal Finney, screen grabbed by Craig when he wrote it.
This email was made public by journalist and can be found in a pdf of lots of emails from Satoshi to Hal Finney spanning 10-24 Jan 2009.
I’m not making any claim whether these are or are not authentic.
https://t.co/0AxWJVEkqH
So the earliest this screenshot could have been made was March 2017.
https://t.co/RRaVRZ84es
Anonymousspeech allows a maximum of 50000 characters in an email and has a counter of spare chars at the bottom.
This email has 48932 chars left.
The problem is if the body of the email has 48932 chars left, then the contents is only 1068 characters long.
Here is the full email. It is 1136 chars.
And, consistent with this, the “characters left” box in anonymousspeech says there are 48864 characters left when I copy and paste this into the email client.
This is 68 characters more than in the metanet-icu screenshot.
Below is what the text now looks like.
But even this cutting only got me down to 1119 characters—still 51 too many.
How to explain this?
Here is a screenshot of the email as it appears in the pdf available on the Wall Street Journal website. As you can see the email crosses over a page boundary.
Now imagine a scenario where the text in the anonymousspeech email box had not been quoted from hitting “reply” and then typed.
What if text had been copied and pasted from the WSJ pdf?
So, now imagine the copier continued to “tidy” the quoted text after the first line ending in “and”, they removed the spaces before “>”…
In my text editor it looks like this:
Yes, you guessed it, exactly 1068. Exactly the number of characters that the metanet-icu screenshot of the anonymousspeech “characters left” box says are in the email.
Very simply, that this supposed screenshot of one of Satoshi’s earliest emails in the middle of being written, sourced from metanet-icu… this seemingly INCREDIBLE piece of evidence that Craig is Satoshi really is…
*IN*—(as in not)—credible.
And I would be very interested to know if it has been submitted in any lawsuits involving #CraigWright, @hodlonaut, or @PeterMcCormack
https://t.co/Ni2shvUYBS
2009 does not have "Other services" menu to start with.
— Juha Ronkainen\u26a1\ufe0f (@jronkain) February 2, 2021
Unchecked.
https://t.co/qFM3rXhF1Q
Any idea what browser was supposed to have been used for doing this screenshot? As far as I recall, spell-checker with curly red underlining was not exactly a default feature of the browsers back in those days...
— Jesper (@J_B_N_P) February 2, 2021
More from Law
This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”
Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Witness explaining that on electronic ballots (QR code ballots), it's impossible to determine voter intent. The machine decides the intent, whereas, with paper ballots, a human can double-check the ballot. https://t.co/kkhamio2Je
— The Election Wizard (@Wizard_Predicts) December 30, 2020
Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”
Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
