A reporter from The New York Times believes he has uncovered the identity of the elusive Satoshi Nakamoto, the person behind Bitcoin. However, the individual he named has firmly denied the claim.
On Wednesday, reporter John Carreyrou identified British computer scientist Adam Back, 55, as Nakamoto. Back has again rejected this assertion.
“I’m not Satoshi, but I did focus early on the positive social impacts of cryptography, online privacy, and electronic currency,” he posted on X in response to Carreyrou’s revelation.
Carreyrou, known for breaking the Theranos scandal, mentioned that he spent over a year poring over thousands of archived emails and forum discussions to piece together Nakamoto’s identity.
He observed that the language used in communications attributed to Nakamoto leans towards British spelling and expressions, hinting at a connection to someone like Back.
Further clues pointed to the founding of Bitcoin, including Back’s concepts of HashCash, referenced in Bitcoin’s original white paper.
The reporter also found writing style similarities between Back and Nakamoto, plus notable silence from Back when Bitcoin launched—only to later engage with the community after Nakamoto’s disappearance.
Carreyrou utilized AI tools to analyze writing patterns but noted that findings were not definitive, leaning more on circumstantial evidence.
Despite this, on social media, he confidently claimed the mystery surrounding Nakamoto was finally unraveled, teasing the identity of a 55-year-old British man. This conveyed a certainty that seemed stronger than the analysis in his article.
Carreyrou’s theory also stems from evidence during a legal dispute involving Craig Wright, who falsely claimed to be Bitcoin’s creator.
Documents reveal a 2008 email in which Nakamoto contacted Back prior to the release of the Bitcoin white paper, a correspondence often interpreted as evidence against Back being Nakamoto.
Yet, Carreyrou argued that this could be a smokescreen, suggesting Back might have fabricated the communication to obscure his true identity. Back outright denied this allegation, insisting the exchange was genuine and he played no part in Bitcoin’s inception.
He reminded others that he had been part of the “cypherpunk” movement and has long been interested in the practical applications of electronic cash technology since 1992, which led to ideas like HashCash.
Back further dismissed claims of textual similarities, arguing they were coincidental, the result of similar phrases among people with shared interests and experiences.
He suggested that the findings were an example of “confirmation bias,” and due to his involvement in early digital cash discussions, his comments were simply reflective of that background.
In an interview, Back insisted he was not the Bitcoin creator, stating, “I don’t even know who Satoshi is, which is good for Bitcoin.” Despite repeated denials during discussions with The Times, he characterized the evidence against him as inconclusive.
Carreyrou, however, seemed unconvinced, indicating that Back’s defenses were often insufficient and that his reactions sometimes felt unusually defensive.
The reporter noted that Back admitted to having the proper background and expertise to be Bitcoin’s founder, and even acknowledged inconsistencies in key emails. Yet, he denied any intent to mislead, including the notion he sent emails to himself.
