High speaking frequency leads to misjudgment? Adam Back refutes The New York Times' speculation that he is Satoshi Nakamoto

After @The New York Times@ investigative reporter John Carreyrou published a research piece identifying Blockstream CEO Adam Back as the “most likely candidate” for Satoshi Nakamoto, Back posted on X on April 8 to deny again that he is not the Bitcoin creator—Satoshi Nakamoto.

In response to Carreyrou’s investigative conclusions, Back rebutted from a statistical perspective that, because he was highly active in the cypherpunk email mailing list, his posting volume far exceeded that of ordinary participants, making him more likely to leave comments on topics such as electronic cash; This is also different from others with the same interests but lower posting frequency—compared to them, his “footprints” in the mailing list are too obvious, artificially increasing the probability of him being mistaken for Satoshi Nakamoto. This also makes it easy for investigators to associate his statements with Satoshi Nakamoto, when in fact it is a statistical bias. Compared with someone who has the same interests but posts twenty times less, his “footprints” in the mailing list are too obvious, artificially increasing the probability of him being mistaken for Satoshi Nakamoto.

Back further said that most of the other “evidence” cited in the report is merely overlap in phrasing habits produced by people with similar backgrounds and interests using similar vocabulary and sentence structures. He acknowledged that inventing Bitcoin requires specific skills and long-term experience, but emphasized that many cryptographers, including himself, in the previous decade’s attempts to design electronic cash, “appeared close to the final solution, but in fact never reached the core.” This series of statements by Back is both proof that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto and an expression of respect for Satoshi Nakamoto completing a true breakthrough.

Back reiterates that he has no knowledge of Satoshi Nakamoto’s real identity Back also reiterated that he has no knowledge of Satoshi Nakamoto’s real identity, and believes this state of uncertainty benefits Bitcoin. Because, uncertainty about identity helps BTC be viewed as “a mathematically scarce digital commodity,” becoming an asset class independent of any individual or institution. However, on X, Carreyrou also admitted that the only truly indisputable evidence is a cryptographic proof—only Adam could provide it, but that is already very close.

Craig Wright fraud case reveals more related details Worth noting is that during Craig Wright’s fraud trial (a person who once claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto), some emails were made public—emails that are communications between Adam Back and Satoshi Nakamoto. The emails show that in August 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto contacted Adam Back directly, wanting to confirm whether the content Back cited was correct before releasing the Bitcoin white paper, indirectly indicating that Back and Satoshi Nakamoto are two different people. But Carreyrou proposed a counterargument that these emails might have been sent to himself by Adam Back, with the purpose of creating the illusion that “I am not the same person as Satoshi Nakamoto,” as cover. However, this view has not been widely accepted by the public.

Conclusion In summary, although views differ, there is still no conclusive evidence that reveals Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity. This is just as Back said: the unknown status of Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity is actually what has driven Bitcoin’s development, making it a unique asset that does not depend completely on any individual or institution. Identity can be disguised, and speculation can be biased—but Bitcoin’s technological innovation and its truly decentralized nature may be exactly the most valuable legacy that Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to leave to the crypto world. #AdamBack #SatoshiNakamoto