I recently saw Michael Saylor's comment on The New York Times' investigation into Satoshi Nakamoto's identity, and his perspective is quite interesting.

The core logic is actually very simple: relying solely on various speculative theories is fundamentally untenable. He emphasizes that unless someone presents Satoshi Nakamoto's private key for signature verification, all claims about Satoshi's identity are just stories with no solid evidence to support them.

Honestly, this perspective is very pragmatic. Over the years, numerous hypotheses about Satoshi Nakamoto's identity have emerged, but none have been backed by technical proof. Key signature verification is currently the most direct and tamper-proof method of validation. If Satoshi Nakamoto himself were willing to come forward, a single signature could resolve all disputes.

So rather than obsess over the clues and reasoning uncovered by The New York Times, it's better to see this as an ongoing cold case. Unless Satoshi Nakamoto truly appears and proves their identity with the private key, all discussions about who Satoshi is will ultimately remain unresolved.