Seeing Michael Saylor's point of view is quite interesting; he's questioning The New York Times' investigation into Satoshi Nakamoto's identity. His meaning is very straightforward, saying that unless someone can produce Satoshi Nakamoto's private key for signature verification, all theories about who Satoshi is are just stories. It sounds reasonable, after all, in the on-chain world, only the keys are the most solid proof. The New York Times has conducted such a long investigation, but in the end, they still couldn't confirm Satoshi Nakamoto's true identity from a technical perspective. It feels like this is the clever design Satoshi Nakamoto originally created—using keys rather than identity to define authority. What do you think? Is this kind of skepticism justified?