“I would rather not.”
Bartleby, the clerk, by Herman Melville
The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto can be described as the greatest contemporary mystery. 15 years after the launch of Bitcoin and after multiple failed investigations to reveal the person behind the pseudonym, it is possible to affirm that this secret will forever remain an enigma.
Solving the mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto only serves two purposes: introducing him into the society of entertainment to delve into his head or his personal life, whether as a developer/economist worthy of the Nobel Prize, or as one of the most millionaire people in the world. . Secondly, and as a consequence of the above, place it as a target for extortion or theft, whether at the hands of the State or extralegal criminals.
None of these purposes are of any use. Knowing who Satoshi Nakamoto is does not change Bitcoin technology. But it can affect the call layer 0 of Bitcoin: the social layer.
We know that Satoshi disappeared shortly after Wikileaks started accepting BTC donations. He himself recognized the danger that media attention imposed on the project, even more so at such a young age of Bitcoin.
Although many years have passed since then and Bitcoin has managed to survive all the attacks it has fallen prey to, the absence of a recognizable face to serve as a scapegoat It has been an indispensable condition for the survival of Bitcoin. Probably, if Satoshi had not disappeared, some excuse would have been found for him to have a fate similar to Ross Ulbricht, or the developers of Samourai Wallet or Tornado Cash.
Aside from the obvious personal risk, the risk of membership is found: that people end up taking his word as holy regarding the direction that Bitcoin development should follow. We have an example of this in those who fell for Craig Wright’s farce.
Is there irrefutable proof of Satoshi’s identity?
Either way, and just like the years of effort Wright spent trying to convince people that he was Satoshi, Finding irrefutable proof that links the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto to a natural person is very difficult, if not impossible.
Satoshi Nakamoto could be both dead and alive. Among the deceased candidates, Hal Finney and Len Sassaman stand out, while, among the living, the names of Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Wei Dai persist, and now Peter Todd and Peter Todd are added to the list. practically any early developer. It is also possible that all these characters are Satoshi, and that they maintain a pact not to reveal the secret. Anything is possible.
The only way to “solve” the mystery of Satoshi is by signing his transactions with his private key. This would be the most convincing proof of identity or direct connection to Satoshi. But Even this does not guarantee that it is Satoshi; It could be argued that the person found the keys somehow, that Satoshi himself gave them to them or, under the theory that Bitcoin was created by a group, it may be that whoever has the keys today is not the same person who developed the code or the idea of Bitcoin.
The fact is that having access to the keys does not necessarily and irrefutably link to Satoshi’s identity. It seems, then, that it is impossible to be certain who Satoshi. Even the most compelling evidence, signing the transactions, would leave room for doubt.
In any scenario, there is always plausible deniability. Simply say “I am not.”
As has happened with all the aforementioned candidates, who have refuted being Satoshi every time it has been pointed out to them, at this point no evidence seems to be conclusive enough to link the pseudonym with a person.
Wright showed that evidence can be forged; every investigator who has set out to reveal the mystery has failed; and just like Melville’s clerkwho responded to any request made to him “I would prefer not to do it”, all Satoshi candidates abdicate these honors by responding “I would prefer not to do it”. be.”