[LeoPanthera]

Something is weird. He provided a message and a signature, but there's nothing in the message to indicate that he signed it himself, or when it was signed. It could have been signed months or years ago and there's no way to prove otherwise.

He needs to sign a message provided to him right now - or otherwise show ownership of coins in early blocks by moving them around.

Edit: He apparently haven't even provided a valid message/sig, so the whole thing stinks.

[bambax]

Yes, absolutely. He apparently goes to great lengths to "prove" that he is Satoshi, but when asked to sign a new message, answers "I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops."

Um, what? Signing a new message is a minuscule jump through a very large hoop, not something difficult or cumbersome or time consuming.

This fact alone is indefensible, smells of fake and should be enough to dismiss the claim.

[kolinko]

If you're using a given key daily, yeah, it's not a big hoop. But I imagine Satoshi having his key hidden on an offline computer right now, hidden securely. Taking it out of vault must be a lot of effort.

[jrochkind1]

But if you actually want to prove you're Satoshi, isn't that exactly what you'd do, rather than spend a lot of time on these other 'proofs'? What's the point?

[TruePath]

Which is exactly why you wouldn't waste time signing a useless quote.

Just sign a message attesting that YOUR NAME is satoshi. No more work. Done once.

[im3w1l]

Yeah, the best thing would be if he signed a news article that didn't exist, and couldn't have been predicted until very recently.

EDIT: Or maybe the latest bitcoin block.

[astrodust]

Sending even the tiniest amount from one of the early chunks of Bitcoins would be closer to proof.