TNW issued five points of "evidence" to question the authenticity of "false snail" identity

After noticing several obvious problems in the article "Pseudo-Cong", the Bitcoin community quickly responded and raised questions about the "pseudo-consistency". The specific differences are as follows: 1. Writing style: "Pseudo-Cong" articles use multiple sentences, two or more main sentences or independent clauses are connected together, but no transition or correct punctuation is used. In contrast, the white paper is well written and well structured. 2. Spelling error 1: "Pseudo Cong" spelled cypherpunks into cyberpunks. 3. Misspelling 2: “Pseudo Cong” said that the name of Bitcoin was created after accepting some letters from the International Credit Commercial Bank (BCCI), which is ironic in itself, because Bitcoin was created to bypass the mainstream. financial. In addition, "Fake Cong" mistakenly spelled BCCI as BBCI. 4. The contradiction of the name source: “Pseudo Cong” said in the article that Hal Finney was the person who gave him the alias Nakamoto. Then, in the next paragraph, "Pseudo Cong" came again with a 180-degree turn. He wrote: "When I decided to make an alias, I wanted a name for the main digital numerology: …." 5. Bad web hosting: Before the first part of the self-certification update, the "Pseudo Cong" website had shown 508 errors, considering that it claimed to hold nearly $10 billion in bitcoin, this thrift seems to be fundamental no need.