This is pretty thin. Some Japanese cryptography researchers happen to have some very common syllables in their surnames.<p>I still like Hal Finney as Nakamoto, just because those bitcoin have never moved, and his being dead is the best explanation for that.
So he googled a bunch of people at an academic cryptography conference and discovered that they wrote papers mentioning public/private keys?<p>Like sheesh... obviously academic cryptographers write papers involving public/private keys. That is basically their job.<p>I bet a lot of them used a computer too, just like satoshi did.
I think it's a reasonable explanation for the name, but it almost completely rules out these three people as the author of Bitcoin. Using part of your actual name as part of your pseudonym would be incredibly stupid.<p>Chelsea Manning (nee Brad) was caught almost immediately because she leaked her documents through an account with the username "bmanningfm".
My very own personal and totally unproven theory is that at a certain point in time Big Tech decide they can take over banks. See for instance<p>- <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240213185758/https://www.cimb.ch/uploads/1/1/5/4/115414161/banking_disrupted_geneva22-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20240213185758/https://www.cimb....</a><p>- <a href="https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/T20_TF8_PB3_0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/reports-pdf/...</a><p>How? Well pushing what seems an alternative to a central bank and banks system, a fully open and still pure finance one. Since no one really trust such actors they choose the FLOSS path publishing a FLOSS project as a mysterious developer who seems to want fight the giants. "Hey, but cryptos are open!", really? Formally yes, while 99% who use them use them via some exchange, witch is de facto a kind of bank not under the national banks laws of course. When a blockchain grow enough essentially no little player can handle it entirely so again it's a big tech natural game, pretend to be open, friendly and innocent "do not be evil", while being of course the contrary.<p>Eventually banks react an reach some kind of agreement so now the trend is crypto but with a CBDC model, who solve some inter-central-banks problems, give a place under the Sun to big tech and keep essentially anything as usual.<p>Otherwise I see no reasons for someone to mask his/shes identity in a FLOSS project that's formally innocent and friendly.
I know it always gets shutdown, but I’m comfortable with it being done by the US/CIA[1], especially since Satoshi stopped sending emails once Gavin Andresen met with CIA and « took over » the project.<p>I anticipate it’ll be unclassified at some point, and then really take off, but not before the US exhausts the ability to try and trace malicious transactions they might be focused on. Also the US owning a bunch of the original bitcoins is in line with owning a bunch of the lower IPv4 addresses which haven’t seem much, if any, activity.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mr780k/satoshi_nakamoto_is_cia/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mr780k/sato...</a>
The fact that none of the original BTC has been transferred is more than enough proof that whoever Satoshi is is dead. There's no other explanation, especially after this generationally significant amount of money it's worth.
Original text deleted, here's an archive:<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240408132600/https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1bxqnpq/new_theory_on_satoshi_nakamoto/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20240408132600/https://old.reddi...</a>