1 Logically speaking 1 failed to prove that he has btc,…
1 Logically speaking
1 failed to prove that he has btc, and
2 to prove that he does not have btc,
The two are obviously different.
(If you don't understand the sentence above, be sure to ask someone around you who is good at math.)
Replies
6
If a fraudster faces a massive $ 6 billion in property split litigation, is it not a reasonable choice for the fraudster to reveal his true identity and free himself from the obligation of reparation?
But cw did not
5
ps.
Suppose cw is a crook trying to impersonate satoshi
I don't know how much he earns by impersonating satoshi,
But
3
The proof that all swans are white is broken with just one black swan.
(In fact, in civil litigation involving divorce proceedings, it is common to submit false lists of assets or lie about past tracks in favor of the trial.)
4
Of course, in his words so far, it is your free choice to assume that he does not have btc. But that is not logical reasoning. As a result, a wrong judgment can be made. Be careful because wrong investments due to illogical judgment can lead to losses.
2 So far no one has proved that cw does not have btc.
(Of course, cw couldn't prove that he had btc)
For example, if cw has submitted false evidence
Or lying, etc., is no evidence that cw does not have btc.
That is the limit of inductive reasoning.
7
There are several interesting hypotheses related to this.
But I will not write it here.
If you are interested, you can easily find them on the Internet. Hypotheses relate to the nature of cryptocurrencies rather than general assets and are very likely