Even though there's no good answers here, I still enjoyed reading this. It's as much about the process and the hype as it is about trying to answer yes/no. In the end he decides it's a maybe, and that's probably good enough for now. It's a fun little piece.
No, it's not Paul, but wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out that the designer and architect of the original Bitcoin protocol was (partially) responsible for putting him behind bars?
My favorite part of this is that there's a clear reason for the Satoshi coins to have never been spent. Like the article says, the only other theories that allow for that are Satoshi being something like a nation-state.
The speculation that Paul Le Roux (the developer of TrueCrypt's precursor E4M, and the suspected coauthor of TrueCrypt) is Satoshi Nakamoto has a long history, but ultimately many found that it was still unpersuasive.
Has anyone analyzed the coding style of E4M and compared it to the original Bitcoin release?<p>Coding style may not be as unique to an individual as prose, but it would be an interesting smoke test.
Another interesting article on this topic .... <a href="http://cryp7o.me/pujs9" rel="nofollow">http://cryp7o.me/pujs9</a>