[panorama]

Because Satoshi's identity and whether or not they were a singular individual or a group of individuals is unknown. It is entirely acceptable, and more often than not probabilistically and politically correct, to use they/them here.

I doubt anyone would be upset at people using he/him when referring to Satoshi, but also along those same lines, it seems strange to be upset at they/them usage for an unknown entity.

[perl4ever]

If it's not even known that Satoshi was an individual, how is it known they weren't a woman?

[Spooky23]

The individual used a male name, so it’s reasonable to make that assumption in common speech.

In terms of individual vs group, it seems unlikely that a group would have the discipline to not do anything with billions of dollars or expose the individual with control of the same.

[perl4ever]

>The individual used a male name, so it’s reasonable to make that assumption in common speech.

As long as you don't know it's a pseudonym, yes. I don't know when that became generally accepted.

[dcow]

Right. I’ve never experienced dialog or writing where somebody elects a gendered pronoun based on the pseudonymous handle used to reference the antecedent when their gender is either irrelevant, unspecified, or unknown. I’m curious which communities practice this colloquially?