What "linguistic analysis"? What "coding style"? Was any actual code written by "Dorian S. Nakamoto" presented?
Where is some evidence he even knows how to program?
From the links on Reddit, which are the only pieces of writing that can be confirmed for "Dorian", I see absolutely no similarity with the style of the bitcoin paper. None, at all.
> describes why the other Satoshis are not the Bitcoin Satoshi
Where is this? She says "Dorian" was the only plausible Satoshi, and proceeds to use interviews and the absence of any hard evidence as evidence. It's like a creationist saying "how come there are no fossils of the missing link"?
Here's why it's shoddy journalism:
The process also requires a good amount of math, something at which Nakamoto - and his entire family - excels. The eldest of three brothers who all work in engineering and technical fields,
The only "evidence" that the family "excels" in math is that they work in engineering or technical fields. No papers published, nothing except that a couple of them worked at Hughes aircraft (including Dorian S.).
My mom is actually an engineer at Raytheon and before that Hughes. She had to get national security clearance and her work there can be described similarly. I'm sure many HN users have had to get security clearance. It's not that big a deal. Though my whole family consists of engineers, and even some professors, I would not particularly describe us as "excelling" in math. That is probably true for a lot of HN users as well.
And even if you were to make such a claim, it is in and of itself no evidence that this Satoshi is the Satoshi. On the other hand, if he had been publishing cryptography papers or game theory papers or even CS papers for a while, or even demonstrated any interest at all in cryptography similar to his interest in model trains ..
Where is some evidence he even knows how to program?
From the links on Reddit, which are the only pieces of writing that can be confirmed for "Dorian", I see absolutely no similarity with the style of the bitcoin paper. None, at all.
> describes why the other Satoshis are not the Bitcoin Satoshi
Where is this? She says "Dorian" was the only plausible Satoshi, and proceeds to use interviews and the absence of any hard evidence as evidence. It's like a creationist saying "how come there are no fossils of the missing link"?
Here's why it's shoddy journalism:
The process also requires a good amount of math, something at which Nakamoto - and his entire family - excels. The eldest of three brothers who all work in engineering and technical fields,
The only "evidence" that the family "excels" in math is that they work in engineering or technical fields. No papers published, nothing except that a couple of them worked at Hughes aircraft (including Dorian S.).
My mom is actually an engineer at Raytheon and before that Hughes. She had to get national security clearance and her work there can be described similarly. I'm sure many HN users have had to get security clearance. It's not that big a deal. Though my whole family consists of engineers, and even some professors, I would not particularly describe us as "excelling" in math. That is probably true for a lot of HN users as well.
And even if you were to make such a claim, it is in and of itself no evidence that this Satoshi is the Satoshi. On the other hand, if he had been publishing cryptography papers or game theory papers or even CS papers for a while, or even demonstrated any interest at all in cryptography similar to his interest in model trains ..