4/8/2026 at 4:58:56 AM
> I’d learned enough by then to know that P.G.P. relies on public-key cryptography.> 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.
> How interesting, I thought, that Mr. Back’s grad-school hobby involved the same cryptographic technique that Satoshi had repurposed.
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.
by kaladin-jasnah
4/8/2026 at 6:25:39 AM
>I read up to here, but I wasn't convinced that this is the revelation that the author claimsThe rest of the arguments is as weak:
1) both released open-source software
2) both don't like spam
3) both like using pseudonyms online
4) both love freedom
5) both are anti-copyright
etc.
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."
by kgeist
4/8/2026 at 5:50:22 PM
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.by DeliciousSeaCow
4/8/2026 at 7:29:14 AM
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.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
by tovej
4/8/2026 at 8:58:00 AM
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 uncorrelated bits, and all the 'similarities' presented here are extremely strongly correlated with themselves.by rcxdude
4/8/2026 at 1:56:41 PM
Where are you getting 23 from? That's only 8-ish million values max.by extraduder_ire
4/8/2026 at 6:21:46 PM
Suspect it's a typo. 33, not 23, gives ~8.6*10^9.by bnjemian
4/8/2026 at 4:56:35 PM
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 between 90s hackers.“Get this, his PhD thesis dealt with a computer language called C++, just like Bitcoin papers used” seems both confused and impossibly lazy to me.
> “Scrap patents and copyright,” Mr. Back wrote in September 1997.
> Satoshi did a similar thing. He released the Bitcoin software under M.I.T.’s open-source license
Really?
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 this is him.” Heavy on insinuation, light on seriousness. Strong “…you’re not from around here, are you?” vibes.
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?
“Good reason to look closer” assumes there’s good reason to pick through ancient rubble in the first place.
by alwa
4/8/2026 at 9:29:52 AM
Similarities in style and word were common enough in small circles such as the cyphyrpunks that spawned those discussions.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.
by defrost
4/8/2026 at 6:44:20 PM
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 other 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.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:
1. Adam Back is Satoshi
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.
by danso