Apologies for any sloppiness, no time to proofread properly.

Due to regular life stuff, I missed the NY Times article about researching Satoshi's ID. That's actually good because by the time I read it there had already been a couple of days for people to react, and yawn.

I admit, the "Who is Satoshi?" question intrigues me and I'm a sucker for each "explanation". The NY Times one did lead me to a question I'd like to ask, maybe someone could offer thoughts.

Is this 2015 "Satoshi" post? really from Satoshi? I thought I was fairly up on Satoshi's writings (I put together "Kicking the Hornet's Nest") and a 2015 post certainly was not on my radar. I know the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" post on Bitcoin Talk is questionable as to its authenticity. I assume this post has the same question marks, maybe more. I will say that when I read it, it does not read with the same voice as other Satoshi writings.

But, anyone have any thoughts on this?

Some other thoughtsSome other thoughts

Aside from that question, I'll share some rather random thoughts that occurred after reading it.

I was reminded of couple of psych 101 concepts while reading the NY Times piece: confirmation bias and heuristics. The writer is connecting dots in the work. Yes, he builds a case, but it looks like he's trying to build the case. Like an D.A. who has a hunch as to who did it, the prosecutor goes about gathering evidence that the guy is guilty and builds a case. But, he's arranging the dots that align into the picture. It read as though the picture was not arranging itself. Confirmation bias suggests that when a dot, a piece of information suggested it was Adam Back, that info was included. But, anything suggesting otherwise is simply ignore...it must be wrong. When we look for evidence and then find some that backs up what we think, we take it to heart, all while disregarding evidence to the contrary which may have just as much merit.

And, heuristics. The author is not going to create shock waves pointing to Adam Back (or Nick Szabo). That's like saying, "I analyzed all the data and concluded that Michael Jordan is the basketball GOAT (he is)." There are definitely things about Back that could be lined up as dots to suggest he's Satoshi (same with Szabo). And yet, I'm reminded of the psycho 101 heuristics.

Availability heuristics says we make a decision based on the ease of gaining information, particularly info that confirms our bias. There's a lot of info on Adam Back and it's rather easy to gather a lot via the internet. The author of the article actually interviewed Back on a couple of occasions. Back is "out there" and I give him credit for talking and doing interviews and whatnot. He's available; his dots are there to be connected. By contrast, what if Satoshi was exactly what he says: someone in hiding, nameless, a no-name, someone you'd never heard of before (unlike Back or Szabo). How available would that person's info be? Then, how could be compare person X's writings and thoughts to Satoshi's public writings and thoughts? The availability heuristic suggests that human nature is to take what is easily available, run it through our confirmation bias, and then accept that as true.

Also, I think the representative heuristic might be at play here. It has to do with numbers, probabilities. I'm reminded of a mental exercise from David Myers' textbook on cognition that went like this:

A person is short, slim, and likes to read poetry. Is this person most likely an Ivy League university professor of classics who enjoys poetry or a truck driver?

It's immediately tempting to think Ivy League professor. We stereotypically picture a small, nerdy bookworm of a fellow. But, in terms of numbers, there might only be 40 Ivy League classics professors, half are slim, half of them like poetry. So, only 10. But, the mental exercise figures there are 400,000 truck drivers. Only 1/8 are slim, but that's 50,000. And only 1 in 100 like poetry, so that's 500. So, the odds are that the short, slim poetry lover is a truck driver.

Regarding Satoshi, the investigators typically start with the usual suspects then start dwindling from there. The NY Times and the NY Mag author below started with a spreadsheet of 100. They started with the usual suspect then began narrowing. I think anyone involved in an investigation will tell you that if you show five or six suspects to a witness, the witness will pick the one they think fits. But, they neglect to "pick" someone who is NOT in the lineup...which could be thousands or millions of people.

In this case, we have 100 usual suspects, 100 short, slim Ivy League classics professors. What if Satoshi was from the other group, he's not in the lineup of usual suspects? Let's do some representative heuristics and cast a wide net. There are 8 billion other truck drivers out there. Let's start whittling down...

Required qualifiers/disqualifiers (traits we know Satoshi had):

• trained in C
• "in his prime" leading up to October 2008

Supposed traits (but not absolutes):

• had cypherpunk or libertarian leanings?
• had some academic training
• had an understanding of economics
• at least age 50 now (due to double spacing after sentences and Hungarian notation in coding)
• fluent English with both British and American usage
• calm, polite, "all business"

A comment to the NY Times article referenced this article from 2025. It raised something I'd never heard of: Hungarian notation in coding. I had to look it up -- it's a way of naming variables that was used in the 1980s and 90s. This meshes well with the double spacing after sentences trait. It suggests to me that Satoshi is about the age that Adam Back is (55). In "Kicking...", I guessed he was born around 1968 (which would make him 57 or 58 today). Personally, I think there's something to this double space and Hungarian coding angle. It's like trying to speak without your native accent, you can't do it.

I realize it's uncool to share "my AI research shows...", but I don't care, I 'm not cool. I used the short Ivy League professor vs. truck driver method to whittle down numbers of possible Satoshis.

It got the list down to ~800 possible Satoshis. 40 were "public" and likely on the 100 list on the spreadsheet, so, ~760 possible Satoshis we've never heard of. See the chart.

A second opinion AI using the same prompts came down to 5,000 possible Satoshis. It estimated that of the 5,000, it wondered how many would be "findable" that is, they wrote enough or talked enough about this type of thing for a researcher to find them digging around on the internet. Interestingly, the number they came up with was about 100 - exactly the number on each of these two spreadsheets to start out (while neglecting the unseen larger number of possible Satoshis).

Summed, I think it's very possible, maybe even probable, that Satoshi is someone we've never heard of. In a way, naming one of the people that is on "the top 100 list" is actually kind of safe. Can you imagine a reporter picking Bill Jones who lives two houses down the street and putting out an expose saying as much in the NY Times? Can you imagine the legal backlash that would come at the Times for putting that person in the spotlight and possible danger? This kind of happened already with Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, right?

One more thing that intrigued me regarding all this is Jameson Lopp's tweet. I don't know if he knows something no one else knows, but it is interesting how he says...if you know, you know to not tell.

First, Lopp has the God-given IQ, technical skill, research skill (I think his work is strong suggesting Hal Finney was not Satoshi) -- seems "sufficiently qualified" as he puts it to perhaps have an Easter egg. I wondered, why would you not tell if you knew or had a strong clue that others might use? I see three options: (a) the safety issue, (b) legal issues, and (c) it'd wreck bitcoin. The safety issue seems straightforward: ID Satoshi and he/she or family is in jeopardy from thieves. This fits with Lopp's security expertise. The possibility of wrecking bitcoin is Satoshi's ID leaks is juicier. How could this info wreck BTC?

• Revealing Satoshi might wreck bitcoin by undercutting the mystery and ethos of Satoshi. By putting a human face on Satoshi, warts and all, the mystery is gone and he's off the pedestal. It's like what they say about meeting your hero. Frankly, I don't put much toward this. Maybe for a short period it could impact bitcoin if, say, if Satoshi was now a street drunkard, but in the long run, bitcoin don't care. Bitcoin gonna bitcoin.
• Revealing Satoshi might have legal implications not only for Satoshi but for the leaker. If a jurisdiction found out about that much money being "hidden" and if you were holding information that helped keep that money hidden...well, I don't know. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know. But, that much money brings attention.
• Revealing Satoshi might prompt him to do something drastic with his million-ish coins. What if Satoshi said, "You dox me, I'll dump my coins straight into the ecosystem." This fits with the safety idea. Along these lines, Lopp actually recent posted a prayer asking Satoshi to please publicly burn (not airdrop) his coins. Publicly owning that many coins would be like walking through the worst part of any city at night flaunting your Rolex watch. It won't go well.

That's all. Interesting stuff for sure.