I really hope, You do not have a degree in math and logic.
If you state something false or nonsense, You have to counter with FACTS and arguments that make sense.
The fact You dislike the claim, does not mean it is false.
It is clear to me, some like You, do prefer to do politics, public relation to undermine my work or
promote their own vision.
You state there are grammatical errors in the tweets @realsatoshin. But You do not quote them.
There are a lot of tweets in that account. As there are at moments typo.
Hey, thanks for joining us.
I can perfectly understand that perhaps the white paper was professionally edited and proofread by a native English speaker, but its highly doubtful that every single post on this forum and email he ever sent was as well. Even non-public emails sent to the likes of Gavin Andresen contain perfect or near-perfect English.
Satoshi never capitalized "you" unless it was the first word in a sentence. He also put 2 spaces in between his sentences:
That means a lot coming from you, Hal. Thanks.
I just pulled up this post as an example, his English is flawless, not one error or anything potentially confusing about it:
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.
If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.
I don't have to point out all of your errors because they are consistent, speak for themselves, and can be independently verified by anybody.
Having said all that, at least we are in agreement that CSW is not Satoshi.
And by the way, you have magnificent hair. I have to admit I'm a bit jealous.
