Posted on HN, prior to your response here, and to which I added a hyper-link to the discussion here within a minute of seeing your response and prior to this accusation.

Really, because the time stamps I saw showed that I replied on Reddit an hour or so before your HN copy.

What of it? You've been going around with theories of Satoshi— saying this person or that.

Please note the vast difference between your initial accusations of hypocrisy and claiming that I was specifically accusing people of definitely being Satoshi, and your new vague formulation. Well, certainly if one discusses how well particular persons fit, one is discussing 'theories of Satoshi', whatever that means...

Even claiming to have concrete evidence with Moriarty grade precision-pretension "so we can finally rule out claims of his death and knock that theory down from .1% to ~0% probability".

The .1% estimate was based on actuarial estimates of mortality for males in the relevant age brackets, and I stand by it, as I do the additional evidence.

If you don't see why I find it ironic that you complain about someone privately accusing you of being Satoshi while you actively seek to do so to others

Note that Jack was not just accusing me privately, but threatening to go public, and also extorting me and intimating physical harm to Gavin Andresen and his family. Somehow, I fail to see the parallels.

I wasn't aware that you were one of the people with the sort of misshapen ethics that admit arguments like "if it can be broken, it's morally right to do so".

Are you trying to argue that the Bitcoin economy is more stable the longer that Satoshi remains a complete and utter cipher of unknown wealth, intentions, and security? I would be fascinated to see a more elaborated explanation of why Satoshi's anonymity is actually a good thing for the Bitcoin economy.

One might wonder why you'd need "hash pre-commitment to secure priority" as part of the satisfaction of an intellectual interest.

It's possible to walk and chew bubble gum, and to desire more than one thing. It's great to get credit, and it's great to satisfy intellectual interest - but it's even greater to both satisfy intellectual interest and get some credit. Greater minds than myself, like Hooke and Newton, used anagrams to secure priority even as they satisfied their own curiosity. I don't see why you are so baffled.

And again, I note the lack of quotes from IRC showing how I am so totally hypocritical, self-centered, irresponsible, and a bad egg all around.