Most of the article is technically ill-informed; unfortunately, much of the logic, while sound if it were based on factual reality, fails in that sense.
The gaslighting in this case is therefore inverted.
lol ArtForz was an engineer who single-handedly designed from scratch low-run book printing machines, built his house with CHP that he designed and created himself, created his own pick-n-place machines from parts he had laying around, reversed a hidden opcode in the AMD GPUs of the time, designed at the gate-level his own FPGA, manually soldered his own sASIC, and printed his own MOSIS chips. He was the smartest person in the room. By far. Many of the very early non-get-rich-quick people that didn't think anything would happen for decades but were interested in Bitcoin, were in fact the applied-science smartest people in the room. The people generally who thought it was digital tulips even a few years later were also people who thought they were the smartest people in the room, but were actually nowhere close.
Others who were very early (source: I was there and interacted with them) were extremely wealthy investment bankers with a track history of being able to make money, some kinds of cryptographers (Hal, Adam, etc) and others who were ultra-competent, often inventors of new technique in their own right.
It's a well-studied but unfortunately not particularly well-known result that the people most interested in Bitcoin are at the two ends of the expertise spectrum—highly highly financially competent, and financially incompetent people.
You will never hear from most of the highly-competent people because they also recognize that being noisy about owning Bitcoin draws a giant target on their backs. E.g. try and find ArtForz now.
I would offer that the late and very great James Randi's often-repeated comments on ultra high-skilled people being some of the easiest to trick are probably illustrative, and my personal opinion at the moment is that many of these people have been tricked long ago into thinking that Bitcoin is something bad.
I'm not gmax, mike, which you definitely knew on IRC when you offered to help me deal with criminal harassment on IRC by handing me +o status in the channels where they were harassing people in your name.
(edit) I'm also not answering gmax; I'm answering you, with concrete specifics and an actual example, to inform you about the utility of DKIM even if Satoshi's email provider didn't use them, which you clearly didn't already know.
The massive amount of additional logic and thought about Satoshi from OG'ers (e.g. |}ruid etc) that have come out in response to this terrible effort, IMO is partly the purpose of the doco.
Most people have no way to more-deeply authenticate those emails because you didn't provide headers. Many people, myself included, would love some way to better-rule-out whether parts of the messages had been elided, for example. A DKIM signature would have been a perfect integrity check of the message. It's just good protocol.
As a result of timestamping emails with their DKIM into Bitcoin, now even rotated, broken, or released keys can be used to partially authenticate e.g. Google messages. You can see this for example in this project here:
