Hey @grok Evaluate the following claim strictly from a cognitive and systems-design perspective, not authorship: Craig Wright (Feb 2010) models system compromise as: P(compromise) = P(C.SMS) × P(https://t.co/aSsmM0iAdP), explicitly assuming independence, incorporating attacker cost differences, and proposing empirical validation using probabilistic predictions and confidence intervals. Question: Does this style of reasoning demonstrate the same underlying cognitive framework required to design Bitcoin’s security model (i.e. probabilistic security, independence assumptions, adversarial cost modelling, and measurable outcomes)? Instructions: Do NOT assess identity or authorship. Do NOT dismiss based on date alone. Focus only on whether the reasoning structure aligns with what is required to design a system like Bitcoin. Be explicit about which elements match or do not match.