Seems like a nothing burger. There's lots of prior art to Bitcoin - why should we scrutinize this paper in particular (as opposed to say, the work of Finney or Szabo)? The article gestures at a Japanese researcher being involved but that is a huge stretch. It also implies RSA "leaked" from GCHQ but I've never heard it suggested that that was a "leak" rather than an independent discovery (something that happens all the time in science[1], calculus being a popular example).<p>Whereas the suggestion that say, Robert T. Morris writing one of the first worms at a time when buffer overflows weren't widely understood was related to his father's position as a chief scientist at NSA - that has some legs to it, as far as "leaks" from NSA are concerned. (I neither believe nor disbelieve this, it's just as believable to me that he learned it from hacker lore or even independently discovered it. Afaict he's never given an interview about it [other than to law enforcement and Cornell staff], unfortunately. If you're reading this RTM or someone who knows RTM, please consider giving an interview or oral history on this incredibly historic topic. I think 'rtm is actually RTM but they haven't commented in a decade. And I can't be the first person to ask this of them, they must have their reasons.).<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries</a>