I found this amusing.<p><i>>P.G.P., a free encryption program used by antinuclear activists and human rights groups to shield their files and emails from government surveillance.</i><p>I find it fascinating to see how the users of a program change, based on how a reporter wants to build or diminish.<p>At least it's going in a positive direction today.
>Water, a drink consumed by nobel price winners and European kings...
Oxygen, an element serial killers need in order to kill again.
Dihydrogen monoxide - a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents[0]<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.dhmo.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dhmo.org/</a>
thousands of people die every year from DHMO toxicity, literal overdoses of DHMO, yet you can still find it in baby food and breast milk.
I was alway taught that Adolf Hitler was a prevalent user of dihydrogen monoxide and refused to give it to his captives.
Water? Like, from the toilet?
And nowadays, PGP technology is mostly used by the government and military. I wouldn't be surprised if this was also the case when Bitcoins was originally developed
that's such a loaded statement.
Pretty compelling story. Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all. If it were by anyone else, I would have stopped reading after the first thousand words of meandering narrative, but Carreyrou is staking his massive and impeccable investigative journalistic reputation on this mountain of circumstantial evidence and statistical analysis. Him torching his reputation (especially with Elizabeth Holmes fighting hard for a pardon/clemency!) would be as interesting as a story as actually finding Satoshi's real identity.<p>The evidence is good. What was more interesting to me is the section where he explains how he eliminated all the other asserted and likely candidates. Since the story is already a very long read, I imagine much of this section got left out. So some of the reasons for eliminations are too brief to be convincing on their own. For example:<p>> <i>What about other leading Satoshi suspects, I wondered? Were there any who fit the Satoshi profile better than Mr. Back? A 2015 article in this newspaper put forward the thesis that Satoshi was Nick Szabo, an American computer scientist of Hungarian descent who proposed a Bitcoin-like idea called “bit gold” in 1998. Mr. Szabo remained at the top of many people’s lists until recently, but a heated debate that played out on X about a proposed update to the Bitcoin Core software exposed his ignorance of basic technical aspects of Bitcoin.</i><p><i>A 2015 article in this newspaper</i> — Decoding the Enigma of Satoshi Nakamoto and the Birth of Bitcoin, by Nathaniel Popper [0]<p><i>[Szabo] proposed a Bitcoin-like idea called “bit gold” in 1998</i> — Szabo's post on his Blogger site [1]<p><i>but a heated debate that played out on X about a proposed update to the Bitcoin Core software exposed his ignorance</i> — links to a Sept 29, 2025 tweet by Adam Back replying to Szabo, who had tweeted:<p>> Good info thanks. Follow-up questions: (1) to what extent is such an OP_RETURN-delete-switch feasible in practice? (I know it is feasible in theory, but there are many details of core that I am not familiar with). (2) has such a thing been seriously proposed or pursued as part of Core's roadmap?<p><i>exposed [Szabo's] ignorance of basic technical aspects of Bitcoin</i> — links to another reply tweet by Back in October 2025 [3]:<p>> Nick, you're actually wrong because there is a unified weight resource. eg byte undiscounted chain space reduces by 4 bytes segwit discounted weight. no need for insults - people who are rational here are just talking about technical and risk tradeoffs like rational humans.<p>Szabo's tweet was: "Another coretard who thinks their followers are mind-numbingly stupid."<p>----<p>Can someone explain why this relatively recent tweet fight is convincing evidence that Szabo is too ignorant to have been behind Bitcoin? I know he went silent for a bit when Bitcoin first got big, but he hadn't revealed his ostensibly overwhelming ignorance until a few months ago?<p>[0] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-enigma-of-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-birth-of-bitcoin.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-eni...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html" rel="nofollow">https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html</a><p>[2] <a href="https://x.com/adam3us/status/1972888761257415129" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/adam3us/status/1972888761257415129</a><p>[3] <a href="https://x.com/adam3us/status/1981329274721149396" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/adam3us/status/1981329274721149396</a>
> a heated debate ... exposed his ignorance<p>Didnt follow everything here, but wouldn't that make for a perfect cover story? If you're Satoshi, and people are getting close to verifying (or at least nominating you as "most likely candidate"), what better way to throw people off than to engage in a public conversation in which you (creatively) get all kinds of technical details wrong and make yourself look too ignorant or dumb to ever have been Satoshi?
There’s no bottom to this line of reasoning, however.<p>One can always suppose the identified individual is a double, triple, quadruple agent.
A major problem with the article is the author's inability to weigh the evidence: actual evidence, like presence/absence pattern, is buried whereas p-hacking stylometry (let me try another expert, this one didn't give me what I wanted! let me feed him the Satoshi/Adam Back tells that I'm already in love with!) is majority of the article. It also includes absolute garbage like the vistomail spoof email during the block size wars. And, oh by the way, both Satoshi and Adam Back knew C++. Theranos evidence was binary (machines either work or they don't) but it is not so here and the author is simply out of his depth here.<p>It is sad - but entirely unsurprising - that NYT decided to paint a big target on someone's back just for clicks. Judith Miller-tier all over again. Miller too had real evidence and junk evidence, couldn't distinguish between the two, and editors wanted a flashy headline. Carreyrou has exactly the same problem here: NYT editors need multimedia events (like junk stylometry filtering - watch the number shrink from 34,000 to 562 to 114 to 56 to 8 to 1!!!) because that's what its audience-product relationship demands. I think it not unfair to say that modern Times' editorial culture has no mechanism for distinguishing rigorous inference from merely compelling narrative. Open the front page on a random day: how often do you see the Times staking credibility on a causal claim "A causes B" vs simply "X happened. Then Y came." vibes/parataxis.
Does Carreyrou give reasons for eliminating Hal Finney from being (part or all of) Satoshi?
Looking at some of the linked examples, I did not feel convinced at the style similarity. For example:<p>> In the spirit of building something in the public domain, Mr. Back and Satoshi also both created internet mailing lists dedicated to their creations — the Hashcash list and the Bitcoin-dev list — where they posted software updates listing new features and bug fixes in a format and style that looked strikingly similar.<p>That paragraph links two release notes:
<a href="https://www.freelists.org/post/hashcash/hashcash113-released#google_vignette" rel="nofollow">https://www.freelists.org/post/hashcash/hashcash113-released...</a>
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130401141714/http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-list&max_rows=25&style=nested&viewmonth=200912" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20130401141714/http://sourceforg...</a><p>They do have a similar "release notes rendered with Markdown" feel, but the actual text has some obvious capitalization and tone differences.
I found this article about as compelling as all the other attempts at identifying him. Half of the cypherpunks (I was pretty active) had the same set of interests in public key cryptography, libertarianism, anonymity, criticism of copyright, and predecessor systems like Chaum's ecash; we talked about those in virtually every meeting.<p>The most compelling evidence is Adam Back's body language, as subjectively observed by a reporter who is clearly in love with his own story. The stylometry also struck me as a form of p-hacking—keep re-rolling the methodology until you get the answer you want.<p>It's entirely possible Adam is Satoshi, but in my opinion this article moves us no closer to knowing whether that's true or not. He's been on everybody's top 5 list for years, and this article provides no actual evidence that hasn't been seen before.
What struck me in particular was the fact the reporter noticed that Back had theorized how to evade stylometry. Obviously, if one of the people in question had specifically come up with ways to evade methods, you’d want to re-roll those methods to account for that.<p>That, alongside a number of other tidbits (Back’s activity and inactivity patterns lining up with Satoshi’s appearance and disappearance, his refusal to provide email metadata, his financial incentive to hide his identity as Satoshi under US securities law) makes the case a lot more meaningful than just “likely p-hacking.”
><i>his financial incentive to hide his identity as Satoshi under US securities law</i><p>I don't think you can attribute this to financial incentive. The actual Satoshi could forfeit 90% of their BTC and still have more than they could know what to do with.<p>At those kinds of levels I can see personal security being a higher consideration.<p>Either way it would give no indication who might be Satoshi because all candidates would have a similar incentive if they were Satoshi, and you are measuring the absence of information.
why does everybody assume that whoever is Satoshi still has access to their wallet? It's absolutely possible whoever is Satoshi has simply lost the key.<p>We're talking new technology where you're running fast and loose. It's absolutely possible, and I'd say a big reason why someone would not want to admit to being Satoshi.<p><i>I'm Satoshi, but I also lost billions because I messed up a Debian upgrade</i>.
> What struck me in particular was the fact the reporter noticed that Back had theorized how to evade stylometry.<p>there are automated tools for this now that students use routinely so that their papers don't get flagged as AI whether they wrote it or not<p>there would be lots of people that looked this up as it has been discussed a lot on those same mailing lists before being so commonplace
The body language thing really bothers me.<p>Personally, if someone accuses me of lying, but I am actually telling the truth, I immediately start acting like a liar. It's really embarrassing and hard to explain. I can't believe such a seasoned reporter is leaning so hard on "his face went red."
Yea pretty similar idea to a polygraph test which for years was called a "lie detector."<p>In reality, they measure a bunch of things that may indicate lying, but they are just as likely to indicate that a person is nervous or reacting to the fact they're being tested at all.<p>They're typically inadmissible in court these days, however, there is still a pretty solid amount of blind trust in their results.<p>That part of the article gives a similar "lie detecting" hypothesis, just without the machine.
In fact, we are <i>incredibly bad</i> at telling lies from the body language of people we don't know well. Pretty much all the "well known" tells are sheer and utter bullshit that at best tells you if a person is <i>stressed</i>. That may or may not mean they are lying, but unless you know that person well enough to know if they have specific tells that correlates with lying <i>for them</i>, your odds are poor.
Same set of interests? Clearly Raph is Satoshi.
A fun counter factual: try “proving” that famous scientists are their collaborators based on this methodology. Obviously Hardy and Littlewood are the same person. They’re both British mathematicians who use analysis and number theory and have similar sensibilities in politics and math.
The Hardy-Littlewood comparison cuts the other way. Two collaborators in the same subfield sharing terminology is the baseline, not evidence of anything. What makes the Back case interesting is convergence on things that have nothing to do with cryptography: the same Napster vs Gnutella analogy, the same celebrity email filtering idea, the same obscure FDR gold ban interest, the same weird hyphenation errors. Pick any two cypherpunks at random and you won't find that kind of overlap on non-technical quirks.<p>Then add the negative space. Back was one of the most prolific voices on these lists for a decade, especially on digital cash. Satoshi shows up, Back goes quiet. Satoshi leaves, Back comes back. Hardy and Littlewood never had that problem.
>the same Napster vs Gnutella analogy, the same celebrity email filtering idea, the same obscure FDR gold ban interest, the same weird hyphenation errors<p>Dunno it assumes their cypherpunk group must always discuss strictly cryptography and never discuss anything else. It could be just some off-topic ideas floating around in their community.<p>For me, the only solid, damning evidence would be statistical methods of text analysis like they do to prove authenticity of a literary work.
Satoshi supported big blocks in his writings and empowered the pro-big block Gavin when he disappeared. Adam is a well known supporter of small blocks, ultimately the "winning" side of the debate. They are not the same person.
I haven't read the article yet but I remember this as well. IIRC Adam went the route of more towards a centralized group controlling Bitcoin's future during the BTC/BCH debates/fork. It seemed against what Satoshi would have pushed for. Plus Adam's group seemed like a catalyst for Gavin stepping back as a result of the political in-fighting and mud-slinging. It would be a huge surprise if Satoshi were Adam.<p>Personally, I think Satoshi was Hal Finney.
Doesn’t this fierce debate exist because people cannot agree what Satoshi would have written had he known Bitcoin would take off in such a massive way, versus what Satoshi believed back when bitcoin was just a paper? If it actually is the case that Adam Back is Satoshi, we shouldn’t find it surprising that Back’s views on bitcoin changed as bitcoin’s viability and real world impact changed
satoshi: <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts" rel="nofollow">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=show...</a><p>adam back: <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101601;sa=showPosts" rel="nofollow">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101601;sa...</a><p>page through each of those profiles and search for the following strings:<p>")."
"(i"
"(e"
"nor"<p>you find:<p>1. adam back is constantly writing full sentences in parentheses with a period standing outside the end parenthesis. so, for example: "To review it will be clearer if you state your assumptions, and claimed benefits, and why you think those benefits hold. (Bear in mind if input assumptions are theoretical and known to not hold in practice, while that can be fine for theoretical results, it will be difficult to use the resulting conclusions in a real system)."<p>that is non-standard, and satoshi never does it. when he (very rarely) uses parentheses for full sentences he either (a) (in a few cases) does not use a period at all (which is also non-standard), or (b) (in a single case) he puts it on the inside of the parentheses. back can barely get through a single long post without a full-sentence parenthesis. satoshi very rarely uses a full-sentence parenthesis.<p>2. back uses "(ie" and "(eg" very often. satoshi never uses these.<p>3. satoshi never uses "nor." back uses it very often.
> I’d learned enough by then to know that P.G.P. relies on public-key cryptography.<p>> So does Bitcoin. A Bitcoin user has two keys: a public key, from which an address is derived that acts as a digital safe deposit box; and a private key, which is the secret combination used to unlock that box and spend the coins it contains.<p>> How interesting, I thought, that Mr. Back’s grad-school hobby involved the same cryptographic technique that Satoshi had repurposed.<p>I read up to here, but I wasn't convinced that this is the revelation that the author claims. To my knowledge, asymmetric cryptography is widely used. I have no opinions on the rest of the article, though.
I don't blame you for this initial reaction, which would have been mine too had I not known who the author was. I don't mean that I automatically trust anything published by the reporter who busted Theranos (and won two Pulitzers for <i>other</i> major investigations). But I do mean that if John Carreyrou and his editors decided to publish something this long, that means they (and they're lawyers) are willing to die on this hill, no matter how meandering the first paragraphs of his 1st-person narrative.<p>Since the story doesn't end with: "And then Adam Back bowed his head and said, 'You have found me, Satoshi'", I'm guessing they preferred to go for the softer "how we did this story" first-person narrative. There is no explicit smoking gun, like an official document or eyewitness who asserts Satoshi's identity. But the circumstantial and technical evidence is quite thorough, to the point where the most likeliest conclusions are:<p>1. Adam Back is Satoshi<p>2. Satoshi is someone who is either a close friend or frenemy of Back, and deliberately chose to leave a obfuscated trail that correlates with Back's persona and personal timeline.
wrt (2) that is if satoshi had the foresight btc would ever blow up in the way it did. obviously, he had some intuition, remaining anonymous, but deliberately creating a fake trail does not seem super plausible to me
>I read up to here, but I wasn't convinced that this is the revelation that the author claims<p>The rest of the arguments is as weak:<p>1) both released open-source software<p>2) both don't like spam<p>3) both like using pseudonyms online<p>4) both love freedom<p>5) both are anti-copyright<p>etc.<p>Basically, the author found that Adam Back used the same words on X as Satoshi did in some emails (including such rare words as "dang," "backup," and "abandonware") and then decided to find every possible "link" they could to build the case, even if most of the links are along the lines of "Both are humans! Coincidence? I think not."
It's weird they spent so much time on the written word similarities, when the biggest reveal here is that Back disappears off the email lists (on a topic he is VERY interested in and has historically corresponded on) when Nakamoto appears, and then comes back when Nakamoto disappears.
I use "dang" as a nod to Gary Larson.
I think this misses the point. The point is that interests and writing style matches, which means there's a higher chance they are the same person.<p>The more similarities you find, the closer the match. It's in no way proof, of course. But it does provide good reason to look closer
Only if those similarities are indicating more than 'generic internet hacker' for both of them. You only need 23 bits to identify a person but those are 23 <i>uncorrelated</i> bits, and all the 'similarities' presented here are extremely strongly correlated with themselves.
The interests and writing style differentiate Mr. (Dr.?) Back from the general public, sure. But from what I’m reading, they don’t do a great job of distinguishing <i>between</i> 90s hackers.<p>“Get this, his PhD thesis dealt with a computer language called C++, <i>just like Bitcoin papers used</i>” seems both confused and impossibly lazy to me.<p>> <i>“Scrap patents and copyright,” Mr. Back wrote in September 1997.</i><p>> <i>Satoshi did a similar thing. He released the Bitcoin software under M.I.T.’s open-source license</i><p>Really?<p>Like saying “get this, his college-aged musical interests included the Urban American musical style known as ‘Hip Hop’; therefore Tupac didn’t really die and <i>this is him</i>.” Heavy on insinuation, light on seriousness. Strong “…you’re not from around here, are you?” vibes.<p>What does this kind of journalism hope to accomplish, anyway? Beyond bothering middle-aged nerds for gossip? And providing a frame for the author’s cute little sleuth jape?<p>“Good reason to look closer” assumes there’s good reason to pick through ancient rubble in the first place.
Similarities in style and word were common enough in small circles such as the cyphyrpunks that spawned those discussions.<p>Then there's not altogether unlikely chance that Satoshi is a nodding homage to Nicolas Bourbaki, each contributor holding part of a multiparty voting key.
That's the weak evidence. Nobody cares that they both like open source and freedom, half the cypherpunks list fits that.<p>The parts worth engaging with: Back described a system combining Hashcash and b-money with inflation adjustment and public timestamping on the cypherpunks list between 1997-1999. That's basically Bitcoin's architecture, a decade early. He was one of the most prolific digital cash posters for years, went silent when Satoshi appeared, came back when Satoshi left. And this person who independently arrived at the same technical design also independently landed on the same Napster vs Gnutella analogy, the same celebrity email filtering idea, and the same FDR gold ban trivia.<p>Any one of these is a coincidence. At some point you have to ask how many you need before the simpler explanation wins.
This article is a great example of "strong + weak = weak".<p>I only made it to the interesting stuff because of Carreyou's name, otherwise I would have stopped.<p>The email timing and lack of email metadata were also strong, in my opinion. But all of this nonsense like "Wow, these guys both talk about PGP??" distracts from it.
All of those similarities can be explained by Satoshi having read what Back wrote.
You need someone who read Back's obscure 1997-1999 cypherpunks posts about combining Hashcash and b-money, implemented exactly that system a decade later, independently came up with the same non-technical analogies and trivia, wrote with the same hyphenation errors, and then happened to be active during the exact window Back went silent. The more you flesh out the "someone who read Back" profile, the more it just sounds like Back.
Someone who has read his material would be likely to <i>repeat</i> the same analogies and trivia.<p>As for the hyphen errors, they are common for people for whom English is their second language. I commit hyphen errors similar to what is described <i>all the time</i> because English hyphenation makes absolutely no sense. In fact, reading the list of examples, the mistakes listed makes more sense to me than the correct way of writing those.<p>I <i>also</i> switch back and forth on a lot of the phrases the article mentions.<p>I <i>also</i> switch back and forth between US and UK spelling, because I learned UK spelling at school, but was far more exposed to US spelling in practice.<p>This seems to me to be exceedingly weak.
It's been extremely widely known that whoever created Bitcoin had a strong interest in Hashcash, and perhaps created that or worked on it, for years and years. If that's the only smoking gun, why didn't we identify Satoshi long ago?
You're right, "interested in Hashcash" describes dozens of people, and has been a known Satoshi filter for years.<p>The new claim is more specific: between 1997-1999, Back proposed combining Hashcash with b-money, adding inflation adjustment via increasing computational difficulty, and using hash trees for public timestamping.<p>That's most of Bitcoin's architecture in one package, a decade early.<p>The number of people who proposed that particular combination of ideas is much smaller than the number who were merely interested in Hashcash.
I got about two sentences further, it turns out another smoking gun is Mr. Back using c++ in his graduate studies, just like the original bitcoin implementation.
I quit here too. This article is an embarrassment that should never have passed the editorial process.
The refusal to provide email metadata is the most damning evidence. Adam Back clearly has the emails; he is the one who provided them in the first place during the previous court case. Everyone knows he has the emails. If Adam Back and Satoshi are two different people, the metadata should be exculpatory, and easy to share. There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.<p>In a court of law, self-disclosure of inculpatory information cannot be compelled, so this analysis does not pass muster in a court of law. The court of public opinion, however, is quite different.
The thing is, most of the people heavily involved in early Bitcoin are fairly characterized as cryptoanarchists, a group strongly devoted to the principle of privacy and liberty effected through technological means.<p>The refusal to provide personal communications metadata by such a person is evidence of nothing but their steadfast commitment to the philosophy that presented them with the opportunity to be part of those email conversations in the first place.
Then again, if I weren't Satoshi, but people suspected that I was, I'd be willing to do just about anything to prove that it's not me. No one in their right mind would want that kind of target on their back.<p>Satoshi is either dead, or he lost his keys and probably wishes he were.
>There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.<p>privacy?
What would it show? If he logged in to Santoshi's email account and sent an email to his personal account, the metadata would be in order, and we would learn little from it.
When did Satoshi make an appearance in 2015? I couldn't find the spot in the article where the author cites it. Everywhere I've read it states his last interactions were 2010, and his wallet hasn't been touched since then either.<p>Based on everything I've read, I think Satoshi is Len Sassaman
My dorm room was next door to Hal Finney. He was a freakin genius at every intellectual endeavor he bothered to try. My fellow students and I were in awe of him.<p>But you had to get to know him to realize what he was. To most people, he was just a regular guy, easy going, friendly, always willing to help.<p>He was also a libertarian, and the concept of bitcoin must have been very appealing to him.<p>And inventing "Satoshi" as the front man is just the prankish thing he'd do, as he had quite a sense of humor.<p>I regret not getting to know him better, though I don't think he found me very interesting.<p>My money's on Hal.
If you've ever seen Back's twitter you would know he's not Satoshi. I'm still firmly in the Finney camp.<p>Every couple years one of these articles shows up focusing on one of the core Satoshi suspects, at least do a Wei Dai one next time.
So I just searched the article for Finney to see why it claimed it wasn't him. It claims Satoshi was active after Finney had died?<p>What's that about? I used to be of the opinion that it was probably hal, but haven't paid too much attention. What's the counter evidence here? And why do we disregard that?
Satoshi's email accounts were presumably hacked in 2014 and the emails sent from them later were presumed fake because they lacked PGP signatures.
Do you have a link for Satoshi's post after Hal had died?
I’m also in the Finney camp.<p>The most important bit to me is that doing something like this would be entirely in-line with his personality.<p>Also, I think he truly believed there was a good chance he’d eventually be brought back. The most likely case in my mind is that he died with the private keys in his head, and that we’ll never get confirmation.
Barely Sociable already explained it 5 years ago:<p><a href="https://youtu.be/XfcvX0P1b5g" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/XfcvX0P1b5g</a>
Would be darkly hilarious if Santoshi lost his wallet long ago…<p>I’ve certainly lost a lot of the small scripts and utilities I wrote long ago. Can’t remember any usernames, much less passwords, from 20 years ago…
Congrats to the author citing a troll on a Vistomail account anyone could re-register when AnonymousSpeech was around.
It's funny because the author notes a prior attempt to uncover Satoshi's identity and giving up because an implied lack of technical depth.<p>I guess this time they were undaunted. Perhaps they received an AI assist and felt validated by AI sycophancy.<p>Much of the technical evidence cited is weak (e.g. strong knowledge of public-key cryptography, both used C++, etc.). Still, the (somewhat lazy) forensic linguistics is interesting.
this and the recent banksy 'umasking' by major news outlets is sad in our era of huge US governmental crimes and coverups.
Satoshi is the guy with the PhD in distributed computing who took a sabbatical during which bitcoin was published.
I can’t get past the fact that Hal Finney lived around the corner from someone called “ Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto”<p>I know coincidences happen but that’s one hell of a coincidence
Is it a coincidence? Or is it really bad opsec from someone who was otherwise pretty good at it? Or was it really good opsec and someone wanted to plant little clues that it was finney?
Given Back and Finney's close-ish relationship, that same fact could have permeated to Back, and would be a further reason for him to use the name. That said, it's all pure speculation so :shrug:?.
This is the most compelling "who is Satoshi?" post I've found:<p><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=628344.msg48198887#msg48198887" rel="nofollow">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=628344.msg48198887#m...</a><p>"I contend that James Simons put the team together that made up Satoshi Nakamoto and that Nick Szabo was the main public-facing voice behind the nym."
Why would he do that surreptitiously, instead of just being clear that they were working on it? Why wouldn't they cash in the million or so bitcoins that were pre-mined? How did they get the whole team to communicate in a unified style? How did they get everyone to stay quiet after Bitcoin took off?
This was a fun article, but also an oddball collection of strong and weak claims.<p>Some of the "isn't it interesting ..." type coincidences would, as people on this forum would know, be commonplace among the subculture or even just technologists, and often lack the comparison to the overall Cypherpunk corpus - for example: no, studying public-key cryptography in grad school certainly isn't a high-signal differentiating tell for Satoshi-ness.<p>For some he does provide that though, and they're certainly compelling.<p>What I like best about the Back attribution is that it totally makes sense in context of my operating model of humans and passes the Occam's Razor test: Still actively involved, interested in the governance, interested in acclaim/prestige, built up wealth masking his other wealth, etc. Ego and "Tell me you're Satoshi without telling me you're Satoshi" written all over it.
Seems like the IRS would have an enormous vested interest in tracking him down too…
Regardless of whether Carreyrou is right, Mr. Back's life has now changed massively. The article points out that the market value of Satoshi's wallet is north of $100bn. Time to invest in some personal security.
He was already the CEO of a billion dollar company and the article describes him traveling with security.
I haven't seen this question answered anywhere.<p>Why would anyone use bitcoin if the world's factory ie China wants gold as payments?<p>Even pro Bitcoin people like Balaji and Lyn Alden haven't answered this structural question. There exists market for what counts as money. If that market (led by China) says we don't accept Bitcoin, then these are just some random numbers.
China probably doesn’t accept Dominican pesos, either, and yet you’d be hard pressed to say that somebody with 100 billion Dominican pesos just has some random numbers. If you can exchange something for another form of value, then it has value. I think the trouble here is that there’s just nobody out there who would actually give you $100 billion worth of value for this particular asset. At least not as a lump sum.
Particularly I believe that Satoshi Nakamoto is a nation-state who created Bitcoin to bypass sanctions. Simple as that.
I tend to think this, too. Or rather a small group of cryptographers working for a nation-state. It's the only way to make sense of the fact that Satoshi is enormously wealthy. I don't think any individual could sit on this kind of wealth and not cash out visibly.
I tend to agree, but for the sake of argument: it’s possible that he’s such a true believer that he’d see cashing out as a betrayal. Alternatively, he might understand that cashing out would significantly aid the (clearly large number of) people engaged in unmasking him. Further, he may simply realize that liquidating holdings of his size would drastically alter the market in ways that could end with the whole thing coming apart.
Satoshi may also be unable to cash out simply because they are dead.
I've subscribed to the nation-state theory as well, but intentions unknown.
It was the CIA and anyone who aren't starry eyed tech dorks has known this forever
This article is convincing, but ultimately still no true evidence, it's all circumstantial.<p>After reading this, Back does seem like a pretty likely candidate, but maybe you could run the same kind of investigation on every other candidate and find similar matches. The filters they used for the text analysis did seem pretty arbitrary to match up with Back's language
<a href="https://archive.is/iRBng" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/iRBng</a>
I always thought it was Argonne that built it. Interestingly it seems that Adam Back did work with them. So maybe?
what if satoshi is not one person but a phenomenon, a group of minds... the interesting thing about the technology is that it is a public ledger and everything that goes along with that when you tie it to the metadata trails across the networks people use it on... ohh the implications
Maybe this is something to set Claude Mythos loose on. This seems like the kind of thing it would be good at.
Seems most probable it was Hal Finney. Hal passed away in 2014 which explains the no movement of the Satoshi coins which are currently valued at a staggering ~$75 billion
Every couple of years they convince some "intrepid" reporters to go make up a story about /the/ creator of bitcoin.<p>Which I find highly suggestive about the true nature of the creator(s) of bitcoin.
You can't sell books or articles from saying something that's been said before, but Nick Szabo remains the best Satoshi candidate by a mile.<p>He had developed the system closest to Bitcoin, he was actively seeking collaborators to turn his system into a practical offering briefly before Bitcoin was released, and he was the only cipherpunk who conspicuously said very little when the system he'd been trying to realize for a decade suddenly appeared. Satoshi credited all his inspirations except for the most obvious one, Szabo's. No one in the cipherpunks mailing list thought any of this was odd, probably because it was obvious to them who Satoshi was.<p>In contrast to a certain convicted Australian fraudster who got caught trying to backdate his statements, Szabo got caught trying to <i>front</i>-date them. His politics are a match to Satoshi (tbf. true of all the cipherpunks), his coding style matches Satoshi, his writing style matches Satoshi if you disable the British English spellchecker. For good measure his initials match Satoshi.<p>I view articles like these as a good test of which investigative journalists are hacks indifferent to the truth - except for that Wired guy, who I think knows better but thinks it's righteous to lie a little to protect Satoshi's anonymity.
> <i>No one in the cipherpunks mailing list thought any of this was odd, probably because it was obvious to them who Satoshi was.</i><p>If dozens of people affiliated on a mailing list knew that Sbazo was Satoshi is a decade ago, would’t his identity be treated as an open secret by now?
Exactly my thoughts down to the indictment of the thought process of a top investigative journalist. The amount of tunnel vision here, that dismisses Szabo based on a tweet of wanting to understand developments in core 10 years later? In all this writing, there's not a hint of investigation into every damning link to Szabo, including the IP leak which was simply dismissed as "dead end".
Carreyrou is flying across the world to finally get a weak slip in speech he thinks finally implicates Back, meanwhile Szabo already slipped up in speech years ago for anyone to find.<p>Incredible gell-mann reminder for reporting...
> In contrast to a certain convicted Australian fraudster who got caught trying to backdate his statements,<p>Who?
Szabo is definitely top 3 candidates or on team
Nick Szabo doesn't know how to program enough to deliver the original bitcoin source code.
He probably worked with Finney who helped out.
We know he - Szabo, whether Satoshi or not - asked for help in realizing something a lot like Bitcoin, a short time before Bitcoin appeared. I don't rule out that he could have had some help with the coding.<p>But I've also not seen anything suggesting he wasn't good enough of a coder to make it himself. He has a bachelor's degree in computer science.
Len Sassaman with contributions from others through time. We already know that.
fascinating. John Carreyrou is the guy who broke the Theranos story!<p>But <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Electric%3A_The_Bitcoin_Mystery" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Electric%3A_The_Bitcoin_...</a> is a bit more compelling. Satoshi is Adam Back <i>and</i> Peter Todd.
The guy who took down Theranos spent a year on hyphenation patterns. Respect the commitment.
If Satoshi is still alive (I believe it's a single guy), then it's incredible the amount of self-control he has to not reveal his identity after all these years. Not needing the wealth or the fame and ego-stroking that comes with being behind such a revolutionary technology is enviable.<p>Not many people are like that.<p>If he is still alive and just moved on to other things as he said, I can't applaud that kind of personality enough.
One factor is that it's known that he controls the wallet with many billions of dollars in it. That would make him a target for kidnapping/extortion/etc. He could have easily kept mining under a different address though and become very wealthy aside from the main wallet.
> Not needing the wealth or the fame and ego-stroking that comes with being behind such a revolutionary technology is enviable.<p>I can only assume you haven't met very many engineers!
If I were Satoshi I'd keep my head down. I wouldn't want my life f-d up by outing myself.<p>Think about the kind of world view you need to have to decide to dedicate the necessary time to develop a system for transacting outside of approved channels. Dude's probably worried about polonium finding its way into his tea or whatever.<p>Assuming he is even an individual.
What if he is already very wealthy and very famous … and knows there is no upside for Bitcoin if they disclose it.
Why does it matter? Changes nothing except doxxing someone
I'm surprised that this is the best NYT investigative journalism could do. It's well written and comprehensive, but it also contains no new information.<p>And I truly mean it, all the proofs listed here are so well known that you're likely to learn just as much by watching one of the hundreds of "Adam is Satoshi!!1" YouTube videos.<p>Given the title (a quest!) I would have expected some personal findings to be added to the shared narrative, not just rehash of the first 2 pages of a Google search.
By now, this is a snipe hunt.<p>If "Satoshi" were to ever try cashing out some of "his" BitCoin, I suspect that things could get interesting.
Every time I see one of these articles about "unmasking" Nakamoto, I always wonder the same thing: why? I don't really see a compelling reason to unmask this person. Surely there are other more important things a journalist can spend their time looking into. It's the same with Banksy: why?
I agree about Banksy. But in this case Satoshi controls a huge about of bitcoin. If, whoever they are, they did something with it, it would absolutely move markets.
Hal Finney
I have always thought Satoshi must be dead (as a couple of past suspects are).<p>How could someone not want one hundred BILLION dollars? There is no person alive who could resist that. I'm sorry, there's just not.<p>To be fair, if Back was Satoshi, he would need to hide it so his company can go public, or whatever. Because that way he might make -- who knows! -- hundreds of millions of dollars?<p>Even if moving the coins crashed the Bitcoin price by 90%, Satoshi would still be a billionaire. Generational wealth.
Back has earned generational wealth already, and the wealthy borrow (at rates lower than capital appreciations) against capital to fund all their living. If I were Back, that's exactly what I'd be doing to preserve anonymity.
He (or the enterprise) could have ample bitcoin, on other accounts... the main account is just bait for people.
I like it. In particular the descriptions of how he reacted when confronted. The public key anecdote is a red herring - there is far more convincing evidence in the article.
It would not surprise me. Adam Back seems to have good connections to the deep state people, too. His company is merging via a SPAC with a Cantor Fitzgerald (Lutnick owned) company.<p>Cantor Fitzgerald also handles the collateral for Tether, which relocated from the Caribbean (where it was associated with a CIA bank) to El Salvador.<p>Bitcoin is very handy for avoiding awkward Iran Contra schemes for covert ops. You no longer need Lutnick's friend Epstein to handle the laundering.
Non-paywall: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-identity-adam-back.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ZVA.w6Eu.5G_bq5_h6ezB&smid=url-share" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...</a>
I'm going to call BS on this. Not that this guy couldn't be Satoshi, but the article has some serious nonsense in it. Ha said he learned to program on a "Timex Sinclair". It wasn't called that in the UK. Did he know the alternative name and auto-translate in speaking to a US journalist? Seems unlikely. Then he used C++! Amazing. So did everyone at that time. He took an interest in PK cryptography. So has every single serious software engineer since the 1990s. It's the same thing as Bitcoin! Seriously. I stopped reading when the next piece of evidence was that he used the word "libertarian".
Why do journalists try to doxx innocent people, putting their personal (and here actual) lives at risk? Bansky, Scott Alexander...<p>Spend this effort investigating corruption.
If this guy was still just a guy on a mailing list and otherwise living a private life, this article would be inappropriate to publish IMO.<p>However, he's a significant public figure in the Bitcoin world (apparently). Still a gray area I guess but I don't think he's off limits from this kind of scrutiny.
Journalists job is to get clicks on their article.
If you read the article there’s an interesting bit where Mr. Back has an active incentive to hide his identity as Satoshi: US securities law, which requires disclosing things which’d be material to investors. Like, for example, a stash of bitcoin which if sold could crash the price of the thing.<p>And also, from my understanding, Back allegedly had some not-insignificant ties or meetings with Epstein?<p>Point being, journalism like this is morally complex, and not as simple as “doxxing innocent people.” Of course, we are biased, as hackers on a web forum, we naturally relate with Satoshi, who was also a techie on a web forum.
another pointless debate. who cares who satoshi is. only TV and magazines.
I don't think this reveals Satoshi's identity, nor that any prior piece of reporting may have done so. But I do think there's a high probability that Satoshi lurks or has lurked on HN, and perhaps reads these posts with an initial sense of apprehension followed by a chuckle at the inevitable misidentification.
> misidentification<p>We don't know if that's misidentification either. The author provides good evidence that the writing style matches, which doesn't provide a strong proof, however it's a good clue of who might it be.
Someone already found this years ago:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcvX0P1b5g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcvX0P1b5g</a><p>I haven't read the full article yet but I'm guessing they didn't give credit, as the New York Times tends to do. Not definitive but it's a very convincing case.
He’s not one person but a front for a US law enforcement task force dedicated to tracking down cyber criminals and anyone who would need anonymity online. It started, alongside TOR, as a way for drug dealers, weapons dealers, and pedophiles to do business. Neither cryptocurrency nor TOR are actually anonymous. They’re part of a pretty impressive honeypot ecosystem.<p>What I’m interested in is the pivot when crypto tried to go legit. Some spook or suit decided that it would be used for other reasons also. Now it has some semblance of legitimacy.<p>Before anyone asks: social media is another part of the same ecosystem. Nurtured and protected by the government and law enforcement, despite any number of practices that would bankrupt most companies and sent people to jail.
The FBI created the purportedly encrypted "AN0M" messaging app [1] as part of a sting operation running between 2018-2021 used to catch drug-traffickers.<p>Creating a fake app that people believe is secure or anonymous is an easier way to run a police sting operation than first making a significant breakthrough in Distributed Systems around the Byzantine Generals Problem.<p>For your conspiracy theory to be true, at some point a honeypot/sting operation must actually end and arrests be made and the evidence be used in court.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield</a>
Would make a good tv show where a small group in a secretive TLA org started this but then made so much money they decided to keep it to themselves and get rich.<p>"Sorry director, the experimental project was a failure. We deleted it all now to clean up and free resources. Oh and yeah unrelated, I need to hand in my notice. Want to spend more time with my ...er... family. Thanks."
That's my theory as well, but not just to catch digital criminals, but it's a test bed for the digital wallet / ID<p>I don't think it's exclusively american tho, it's a consortium between US/EU/ASIA, to establish the foundation of the world government, digital first
I don't believe anyone claiming that Satoshi is still alive. There is zero chance any human who put so much effort into creating something would remain silent while it became a $2 trillion phenomenon that succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Satoshi is certainly dead.
I once became so famous that a community of several hundred people knew and recognized my name for a few years. At the time, it was very ego-flattering, and I was delighted to have done something that had such a big and positive impact. However, as an experience it really did not agree with me, and even this very minor level of fame has left me resolved to never, ever, ever become that famous again if I can help it.<p>I don't think I am unique in that. In fact, I perceive that it is very normal for public figures, not merely to fade from public attention, but to actively seek out seclusion.<p>While I'm not Satoshi, I would put the odds of someone in such a position of maintaining radio silence far from "zero chance". I would put it more around 70 or 80 percent. And at any rate, it is certainly what I would do.
> There is zero chance any human who put so much effort into creating something would remain silent while it became a $2 trillion phenomenon<p>I'd argue this is the best reason to remain silent as much as one can.
This is a ridiculous argument "zero chance" that completely discounts the possibility (or in all likelyhood, probability) that the creator may be compelled to stay silent, in jail, etc.
If I were to invent something like bitcoin, I would use your exact logic to decide to burn the keys. I couldn't trust myself, so I would remove the possibility of agonizing over it. Obviously, I still might feel regret, but I'd choose the potential regret over the potential agony.<p>Hell, even if I didn't burn the keys initially, I might do it as I observed it starting to take off. I'd be more attached to the idea and its success than to the idea of being filthy rich (and at risk of jail, extortion, and murder). It would feel like a giant middle finger to the parts of the system I disliked.
Adam Back is the well-off CEO of a company in the blockchain space. From that position, he gets to continue to use his expertise in the field with plenty of connections while having more than enough money without needing to risk revealing himself as Satoshi or risk de-stabilizing Bitcoin's value by using Satoshi's known wallets. It seems like the best possible outcome for someone in Satoshi's position.<p>I'll at least agree that I don't think any other living candidates for Satoshi make any sense. I can't believe someone who started a brand new influential field of study could fully exit from it while fully avoiding the proceeds from it, as would be necessary to believe in any other living candidate.
My theory is that Satoshi is a persona created by Adam Back and Hal Finney.<p>They probably devised something where both needed to agree and sign something for Satoshi to act. This also allowed them to say "I’m not Satoshi Nakamoto".<p>They also probably ensured that anything that belongs to Satoshi required both of them. The death of Hal Finney ensure that Satoshi died definitely.<p>But they may have "killed" him before by burning the keys because, when Bitcoin started to become a success, they probably anticipated the need to "kill" satoshi (few remember but Bitcoin passing 1$ was considered as a crazy bubble at the time! Some become millionnaires and exited when BTC did the 30$ bubble. Satoshi’s stack was already closely observed, bright mind of that time would have anticipated the need to kill it). Or it was just that "satoshi" was not needed or they accidentaly deleted some keys.
I'd like to think that if I'd come up with something like this, I'd have quickly gone "oh shit" and realised it'd be hard to access the earliest coins without raising unwanted attention, and started mining with multiple different keys, and actively moved those coins around. If Satoshi is still around, I'd expect he has more than enough money without the need to risk the upheaval touching those earliest keys would cause.
> would remain silent while it became a $2 trillion phenomenon<p>I can see how it might be preferable. Satoshi has an incredible amount of wealth in a form that’s very easy to transfer anonymously. Anyone that admits to being him will be a huge target.
Maybe they're embarrassed to admit they lost the password for their wallet.
Using the articles logic.<p>Obviously Satoshi and Banksy are the same person. They are both from the same era and British.<p>There are so many people I know from that Era who believed the same things that Mr. Back believed in. Half my work colleagues at the time where interested in distributed computers,
Postage pay, and algorithmic payments.<p>I am not convinced
The author has collected more than enough entropy to single out Mr. Back, especially when the anonymity set of who could be Satoshi is so small.<p>It's either Back or someone who tried to frame him, long before Bitcoin was even remotely successful. Generally, framing someone like this is a poor strategy because it places you in the person's radius as opposed to being absolutely anyone.