Don't be fooled by the next Faketoshi the system / some larpers are trying to float.

"Introduced" to the public on Reddit by disposable proxy low karma new account Current-Injury-5447 on r/AMA thread:

https://np.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1h2h07v/i_am_satoshi_nakamotos_bodyguard_the_creator_of/

Caught my attention via this post in r/btc here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/1h2mr8j/thoughts/

As I noted in that thread, the AMA post was [removed] by r/AMA moderators after comments doubting the story started multiplying.

This was the reason displayed on the post:

Your post was removed because it is most likely or is a fake story. If this is incorrect, you can message the mods through modmail to get the post approved.

The post seems to since have been restored, without a public comment by the mods that I could find.

Why am I making this long post? Because the AMA contained an announcement of a further release of info around Xmas. They will keep pushing something. Real Satoshi if alive would not publish some new tech under the Satoshi identity without real signature proof, if he wanted to take a stance against all existing blockchain tech.

Let's have a brief look at the AMA narrative:

This one's story one ticks all the Tony Stark patriotic boxes.

Lone inventor, genius, disappointed with all of crypto but still working on the thing which should replace it all.

Disagrees with original Satoshi on:

• open source needed
• blockchain is no longer the answer, but some yet unreleased miracle tech which isn't going to be open source
• "Changing the block size made sense on the technical level but would kill public confidence in the network once the public understood anything could be changed" - the second portion of this btw is a long time Core narrative

Further

• claims that SN left a signed Twitter message which hasn't been seen by many, but when challenged to link to it, refuses to do so
• grants that "the Satoshi 'email' during the block wars that tipped things in favor of small blocks wasn’t me" - as if we didn't know it was fake from the incomplete email headers
• claims BCH made an "ethically poor choice" in allegedly "doubling the supply to legacy wallets and transactions instead of creating a new genesis block and new supply" - doesn't discuss how a new supply would be problematic because disenfranchises existing holders instead of acting like a share split
• claims "one faction lost the block size wars" and big blockers should've "accepted that decision and let it go" -- while there was no clear "decision" when BCH split - and a permissionless blockchain cannot be stopped once it is going. If anything the market is still weighing the outcome today and will continue to do so in the future...
• "Bitcoin cash created a market cap that they weren’t entitled to by using the existing blockchain which is ethically questionable" - seems more like a Max Keiser narrative. Bitcoin is permissionless, long term holders were dissatisfied with the non-scaling (obvious sabotage at that point), and it would be ethically questionable not to fight the takeover by what the random anon account claims to be in line with the historical records of "Hijacking Bitcoin".
• "They should have made a new product and a new genesis block with a completely different name" -- we are to believe that this Satoshi sat on the sidelines and could post a signed message to Twitter but couldn't put forth his opinion on the fork prior to it or immediately after it happened, or get in touch with the big blockers to let him know how he felt about it. /s
• "The quest for monetary gain and power goes against everything I stand for." - this is another common BTC maxi / Core narrative against Bitcoin Cash, that it was done out of some ulterior and dirty motive to profit. People should really read "Hijacking Bitcoin" instead of believing these tales.

When invited to publish cryptographic proof, either via the old Twitter message (probably non-existent or a feint from some other key not conclusively linked to SN) or to post a new signed message with some believable credentials on r/btc or elsewhere, the proxy account pulls a Craig Wright like response:

You, and everyone else will likely find a way to say an original cryptographic signature is somehow “not real”

If there were the real SN behind this, they wouldn't put out such a lame excuse.

Claims we have a Christmas day whitepaper release to look forward to, about the new non-blockchain miracle tech.

So watch out. Fake shit probably incoming.

"Do not trust, verify." Keep asking for proof, keep asking hard questions.

This has all the markings of a new anti-"crypto", but here's-my-proprietary-new-financial system campaign.

You know who would like to see that happen.

Those whose real incentive is 180 degrees from working peer to peer electronic cash that is out there today.

Those who have been pouring billions into fighting it on every front.

Hope everyone can stand together, for a decentralized, open financial system based on sound electronic cash, and against deception.