[sigmar]

Peter Todd is downplaying the accusation on Twitter by retweeting and discussing this tweet: https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1843788557925921052

To my reading, the bitcointalk reply only makes sense as a snarky comment (ie Todd isn't Satoshi). and the fact it was 1.5 hours after the Satoshi post also suggests it wasn't the same person making a quick correction.

[runjake]

If it was Satoshi making a correction, he could’ve just edited his original post because bitcointalk allowed for post edits even back then.

[nullc]

Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could have just abandoned the account and certainly not later had it renamed to his legal name!

[alchemist1e9]

That’s actually a really good point if true.

In my mind all anyone has to do to prove they aren’t Satoshi is prove what they were doing on 2009-01-10 and had no possibility of using an IP from somewhere around Van Nuys California.

https://whoissatoshi.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/satoshi-in-cal...

[alchemist1e9]

It turns out one can view this as actually incriminating not exculpatory as petertodd and nullc are promoting.

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/bluesky/2001-03/msg00063...

Hal Finney and others interacted with Peter Todd as “retep” for more than a decade before the bitcointalk account and post. They would have immediately recognized him.

[amai]

'retep' for peter backwards? That is kind a lame.

[nullc]

hey now, it took me most of a decade to figure out that retep was peter backwards!

but also, it's not particularly identifying as there are a lot of peter's in and around bitcoin.

[petertodd]

Excellent point!