"Claude, based on the screenshots of these two X/Twitter pos...

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "9cafd93ae3dc24aaf9d1198f313d30f5ff103c662fcb347731f8fe53c29542c2",
  "pubkey": "3875a16c978814346640ccf1c169ade71086cfdd1a2b904f46ad6591988456c9",
  "created_at": 1777043733,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "ea06813eb0f709a1a153eb093f571190aba1bdd712eddff6e604f32767ff379b",
      "",
      "root"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "04c915daefee38317fa734444acee390a8269fe5810b2241e5e6dd343dfbecc9"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://offchain.pub/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://nostr.wine/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://nos.lol/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://premium.primal.net/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "wss://eden.nostr.land/"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Primal Web"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "\"Claude, based on the screenshots of these two X/Twitter posts, tell me why Paul Sztorc, the guy apparently trying to create a fork of Bitcoin to call it eCash, may be considered by some peple to be a grifter, and generally speaking a 'retard'? Brief concise answer only.\"\n\n---\n\nBased on the posts, here's why critics might react harshly:\nThe \"grifter\" concerns:\n\nHe plans to reassign coins from the \"Patoshi\" stash (dormant coins widely believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto) to private investors before launch. Taking coins that aren't his to give is the core objection — it resembles a pre-mine dressed up as a fair fork.\nRestricting pre-fork investment to \"accredited\" insiders is exactly the insider-allocation pattern people associate with ICO-era cash grabs.\nHe even uses the word \"grifter\" himself while describing the activity, which critics will find telling rather than reassuring.\nReusing the name \"eCash\" — already an existing cryptocurrency (the XEC rebrand of Bitcoin Cash ABC) and also the name of David Chaum's historic DigiCash system — looks like name-squatting on recognizable branding.\n\nThe \"technically clueless\" concerns:\n\nA one-time difficulty reset to minimum on a SHA-256 chain invites existing Bitcoin miners to instantly obliterate the chain with redirected hashpower — a well-known failure mode of past BTC forks (BCH, BSV, BTG all struggled with this).\nPromising to \"continue to merge\" Bitcoin Core's changes (\"even the bad ones\") into a hostile fork is operationally naive; divergence happens fast and merges break.\nAnnouncing a hard fork via a Twitter thread with a Vegas trip aside, rather than a spec, testnet, or paper, reads as unserious.\nThe Patoshi coins are locked by private keys he doesn't have — he can only \"reassign\" them on his new chain, which means the fork is defined by him overriding UTXOs he dislikes. That undermines the whole premise that a fork inherits Bitcoin's ledger faithfully.\n\nShort version: he's proposing to print himself premine allocations out of Satoshi's coins, sell access to insiders, and ship it on a chain design that veteran forks have already shown doesn't survive contact with SHA-256 miners.",
  "sig": "00c22a1a4a45ad0139d206ce1ea45e11c854d85b239771bd55f337b48a690148e5d45421c549b9fd8d12fb249bb6835ff924f52ce5532fd6dc6fa49b11e9ae6c"
}