[tovej]

I think this misses the point. The point is that interests and writing style matches, which means there's a higher chance they are the same person.

The more similarities you find, the closer the match. It's in no way proof, of course. But it does provide good reason to look closer

[rcxdude]

Only if those similarities are indicating more than 'generic internet hacker' for both of them. You only need 23 bits to identify a person but those are 23 uncorrelated bits, and all the 'similarities' presented here are extremely strongly correlated with themselves.

[FarmerPotato]

Yeah, but as Wordle fans know, some clues yield more bits than others. The search space is not balanced.

The search space of hackers is a small subtree of all humans. So it's like a smaller tree of groups in Wordle that contains the letter "H".

However, in reality there is no binary "hacker" bit, so maybe we're back to the brute force 33-bit space. And then, you don't know Satoshi's unique signature, and it's worse if Satoshi is a group.

Come to think of it, do all hacker news posters even share a hacker bit?

I still rely on information-theoretic proofs at work, they just don't involve messy humans.

[extraduder_ire]

Where are you getting 23 from? That's only 8-ish million values max.

[bnjemian]

Suspect it's a typo. 33, not 23, gives ~8.6*10^9.

[rcxdude]

D'oh, yeah.

[emmelaich]

Probably used logn not log2.

   >>> math.log(8_000_000_000)
   22.80270737862625

[defrost]

Similarities in style and word were common enough in small circles such as the cyphyrpunks that spawned those discussions.

Then there's not altogether unlikely chance that Satoshi is a nodding homage to Nicolas Bourbaki, each contributor holding part of a multiparty voting key.

[alwa]

The interests and writing style differentiate Mr. (Dr.?) Back from the general public, sure. But from what I’m reading, they don’t do a great job of distinguishing between 90s hackers.

“Get this, his PhD thesis dealt with a computer language called C++, just like Bitcoin papers used” seems both confused and impossibly lazy to me.

> “Scrap patents and copyright,” Mr. Back wrote in September 1997.

> Satoshi did a similar thing. He released the Bitcoin software under M.I.T.’s open-source license

Really?

Like saying “get this, his college-aged musical interests included the Urban American musical style known as ‘Hip Hop’; therefore Tupac didn’t really die and this is him.” Heavy on insinuation, light on seriousness. Strong “…you’re not from around here, are you?” vibes.

What does this kind of journalism hope to accomplish, anyway? Beyond bothering middle-aged nerds for gossip? And providing a frame for the author’s cute little sleuth jape?

“Good reason to look closer” assumes there’s good reason to pick through ancient rubble in the first place.

[freejazz]

Did you read most of the article or what?

[alwa]

All 12,000 words. Kept expecting it to take a turn toward something beyond pre-judgment and insinuation. Instead it unfolded as a cautionary tale, of the power of a premature conclusion to close an investigator’s mind to reasonable alternative possibilities. About escalating commitment to an early hunch, even as it leads you down an investigative dead end.

For example it sure seems like his mountain of circumstantial evidence fits better with the theory that “Satoshi” could be a pen name for a small group of people—maybe even the small group whose history he traces and whose styles he has trouble teasing apart—rather than one “suspect” (as he calls it). But we don’t even really weigh that possibility seriously.

So, like—why are we coming at this one guy by name and spooky hacker photo in the New York Times, with the suggestion that he has $110 billion under his mattress? All these speculations and arguments have been done over and over—what does this reporting add that’s worth 12,000 words?

The colorful journey down a dead end, fine—but leave it at “My Quest,” don’t do the weasel subhed “the trail of clues […] led to Adam Back” to insinuate that it proved what it set out to prove. Or even added anything significant to the well-trodden record.

[freejazz]

>For example it sure seems like his mountain of circumstantial evidence fits better with the theory that “Satoshi” could be a pen name for a small group of people—maybe even the small group whose history he traces and whose styles he has trouble teasing apart—rather than one “suspect” (as he calls it). But we don’t even really weigh that possibility seriously.

Does it? I didn't come to that conclusion. Do share!

>So, like—why are we coming at this one guy by name and spooky hacker photo in the New York Times, with the suggestion that he has $110 billion under his mattress? All these speculations and arguments have been done over and over—what does this reporting add that’s worth 12,000 words?

Well, they identified this guy and the reporting here is better than the others I've seen in the past. This article obviously has nothing to do with what past writers wrote, so I don't really get the point of pretending like it all comes from one place.

>The colorful journey down a dead end, fine—but leave it at “My Quest,” don’t do the weasel subhed “the trail of clues […] led to Adam Back” to insinuate that it proved what it set out to prove. Or even added anything significant to the well-trodden record.

Yawn