I just saw Saylor's comment on The New York Times' investigation into Satoshi Nakamoto, and it's quite interesting. His point is that without a key signature proof, all theories about Satoshi Nakamoto's identity are just stories. It sounds very reasonable—after all, in the crypto world, only on-chain proof is considered valid.

Thinking about it, even The New York Times can only rely on clues and deductions, but the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto has always been a mystery. Unless someone actually signs with the private key of that wallet, no amount of investigative reporting can change anything. Over the years, there have been various speculations about Satoshi, but no one has been able to definitively prove it so far.

I'm a bit curious—if someone actually produces the key proof, would it change the entire narrative of Bitcoin? But it seems like this mystery might forever remain a mystery.