If you believe that gwern has done something to warrant this criticism, I would really love to understand that.
Does gwern's reply on Reddit address what you just wrote?
And as I pointed out in my subsequent replies which you have left out, I am perfectly aware that PGP public key metadata (not pgp.mit.edu timestamps, since the keyservers are only reading what the keys say!) can be backdated at creation, and this is why we put our effort into nailing down the creation and modification dates of the blog post in third-party archives like the IA and Google Reader.
Our case was not based on the key creation dates and it is bullshit for you to imply that it was or that their unreliability torpedoes the article.
Can you point out which part of the gizmodo or wired articles were based on mistaken evidence from gwern's investigation?
Basically every piece of evidence that can falsified in this case is falsified. The PGP key used to sign the emails: Backdated with almost complete certainty. The blog posts? edited in 2013 to include the 'bitcoin hints'.
What is more likely: Someone who is Bitcoin's creator in hiding, went and created a pile of provably falsified information that they were Bitcoin's creator, plus left some circumstantial evidence that can't be decided .... Or someone who _wasn't_ Bitcoin's creator, went and created false evidence and had some circumstantial evidence by chance (or falsified too but not proven yet)?
In any case the complaint isn't even so much about this particular drama-fest, it's about the repeated behavior. This time it looks like it may have precipitated a raid on someones house (otherwise the timing is more coincidental than most of this evidence), had it been in some places in the US perhaps the victim (or at least their dog) wouldn't even be alive now.
Does gwern's reply on Reddit address what you just wrote?
And as I pointed out in my subsequent replies which you have left out, I am perfectly aware that PGP public key metadata (not pgp.mit.edu timestamps, since the keyservers are only reading what the keys say!) can be backdated at creation, and this is why we put our effort into nailing down the creation and modification dates of the blog post in third-party archives like the IA and Google Reader.
Our case was not based on the key creation dates and it is bullshit for you to imply that it was or that their unreliability torpedoes the article.
Can you point out which part of the gizmodo or wired articles were based on mistaken evidence from gwern's investigation?