This right here is like a case study in why a "Computer Science" education doesn't make one a "scientist".
The only thing here is coincidence, allegation, and innuendo: There's not the slightest hint of proof. This is shitty journalism and shitty investigative rigor. What it comes down to is a name and being smart.
Maybe he is the actual bitcoin Satoshi. But there is not one piece of positive evidence that is the case. Everything is circumstancial to the highest degree. Personally I think the standard of evidence for something this important should be higher.
The only thing here is coincidence, allegation, and innuendo: There's not the slightest hint of proof. This is shitty journalism and shitty investigative rigor. What it comes down to is a name and being smart.
Maybe he is the actual bitcoin Satoshi. But there is not one piece of positive evidence that is the case. Everything is circumstancial to the highest degree. Personally I think the standard of evidence for something this important should be higher.