The article doesn't mention this, but presumably analysis of the quite large and available codebases Len is known to have worked on could be done vs the Satoshi code? In the past I've tried to write code that doesn't look like I wrote it, but it's exhausting and probably won't defeat modern AI methods.

I'd categorize a cypherpunk as a very specific form a cyberpunk, so to me that's normal journalistic form to use both terms at some point in an article.

This [1] is the canonical article you're looking for.

[1] - https://evanhatch.medium.com/len-sassaman-and-satoshi-e483c8...

> due to article spam about this documentary.

Such as this one by "Blockhead", all very low quality

The guy that died of actually curable cancer because he believed in some alternative nonsense cure? I cannot think of a single other reason why Apple would be "hiding a bitcoin manifesto in Macs [...] fueling theories that Steve Jobs was Satoshi Nakamoto".

this is a valid comment, there are counterpoints to the Len theory

They'll probably just list the usual suspects and say it's likely one of them.

That would be exactly the kind of thing to do to obfuscate your identity.

I'm skeptical about this. Although I have been a Linux user since 1992, in my (fairly wide) experience Linux was not used in commercial settings until around 2000. Len was a professional developer working for SV companies during that period. So was I. I did have colleagues with no Windows experience, but they would have been Solaris users (or HPUX or...). Anyone writing code to be used by regular end-users would have had to have targeted Windows because there simply wasn't much of any installed base for any other OS at the time. Plus, according to the Medium article, Len worked on the PGP codebase. PGP ran on Windows (Win32, not sure about Win16).

Yep, I make this point often.

The only two that match up with the Windows piece of the puzzle are Dave Kleiman and Paul Le Roux. Of those two, Paul Le Roux had a interest in online gambling. Guess what the first Bitcoin release had references to.

If I then said "it's me," that would be an obvious echo.

Or if I instead said "it's not me", that would a contrarian echo.

So I'm just going to say: it's probably not me, the last time I checked, but I'd be happy to be wrong.

It’s not really unfounded. Several commenters in this thread have already linked a well-researched piece from a few years ago which (convincingly) compiles all the evidence. So it seems blatantly wrong to say it’s unfounded…

And Belgium

...and Belgium apparently.

This article shows how his Tweet times match well with Satoshi's posts: https://evanhatch.medium.com/len-sassaman-and-satoshi-e483c8...

I always found it interesting to read the initial announcement and follow up emails on the Cryptography Mailing List by Satoshi in 2009.

Hal Finney responds relatively quickly to Satoshi’s email, whilst the rest of the mailing list is embroiled in a hash algorithm discussion (TLS/MD5/SHA1/SHA256).

Finney goes into some detail suggesting to me that he already knew beforehand what Bitcoin was about and how it could work and change the world. Of course parts of Bitcoin were based on his RPOW paper as well as building on much of the developments in digital cash up to then.

Much of the feedback was negative (without it seems testing it) and based on the concept of digital cash in general and POW. Ironically it was also pointed out by another member that Bitcoin’s proof of work would require a lot of energy and have negative effects on the environment if successful. But most of the discussion and pro-side was promoted by both Finney and Satoshi. It almost seems “sock-puppet-esque”, or at a minimum Finney was already invested in the idea.

https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January...

Some very interesting and applicable work happening among Japanese scientists in the late 1990s. "Satoshi" is either dead or Japanese, no one else could keep quiet.

I agree it sounds really compelling that those three names are involved, but as mentioned they could just be influences that motivated that particular pseudonym. It would be hard for three people to keep such a secret.

Another funny coincidence is the email that Satoshi chose to use in the whitepaper: [email protected]. Observe that `SatoshiN' can be interpreted as `Sat(4 chars)N', or equivalently: `Sat4N'! Meaning each time you send someone sats, you're actually sending them little satans. :)

What an excellent sense of humor Satoshi had.