The New York Times has made another big move. Recently, they released a ten-thousand-word investigation pointing the finger at Blockstream CEO Adam Back, claiming he is the strongest candidate for Satoshi Nakamoto. As a result, guess what happened? Adam Back immediately came out to deny it, and the community exploded.

Speaking of Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity, this mystery has lasted for 17 years. From cryptographers to entrepreneurs, various candidates have taken turns, but there has never been conclusive evidence. This time, the NYT investigation indeed put in effort; reporter John Carreyrou spent over a year cross-referencing language style, technical approaches, and historical context, ultimately focusing on 55-year-old British cryptographer Adam Back.

Their logic is as follows: Adam Back is a core member of the early cypherpunks, and cypherpunks are a significant source of Bitcoin’s ideas. Since the 1990s, Back has been deeply involved in discussions about anonymous communication, encryption technology, and digital cash. More importantly, the Hashcash mechanism invented by Back was directly adopted by Bitcoin as the basis for mining. He also proposed combining Hashcash with Wei Dai’s b-money, which is precisely the technical path Satoshi Nakamoto ultimately used to create Bitcoin.

The investigation also found stylistic similarities. There are many similarities in word choice, grammar, and even subtle habits, including the use of specific technical terms, mixed British and American spellings, and more. Using AI to sift through large email lists, the candidate pool was narrowed down layer by layer, leaving only Adam Back.

But Adam Back’s response was straightforward: “I am not Satoshi Nakamoto.” He explained that he was very active in cypherpunk mailing lists, posting far more than others, so he was more likely to be associated with topics like digital cash. He believes this is just a statistical bias; the other evidence is just coincidental.

Interestingly, Adam Back also mentioned that Satoshi’s choice to remain anonymous was beneficial. He explained that Bitcoin’s goal to reform money and separate currency from the state carries greater risks. In some countries, it remains in a gray area or illegal, and early exposure of his identity could pose huge risks.

The community’s reaction was also intense. Bitcoin core developer Jameson Lopp bluntly said that it’s shameful to frame Adam with such weak evidence and to put a huge target on his back. Crypto influencer Todd also listed several rebuttals, including that Satoshi once casually emailed Back for advice, that Bitcoin’s code is written in C++ which is completely different from Back’s style, and that Back tends to seek patents while Satoshi chose to be fully open source.

Honestly, these clues are indeed interesting, but the NYT itself admits that the evidence remains at a highly correlational level, not conclusive proof. The only thing that can definitively prove it is still a private key signature.

Looking back over the past decade or so, guesses about Satoshi’s identity have kept emerging. In 2014, Newsweek pointed to Japanese physicist Dorian Nakamoto; in 2016, Australian Craig Wright claimed to be Satoshi and even applied for copyright; in 2024, HBO’s documentary pointed to Canadian developer Peter Todd; and British Stephen Mollah also claimed to be Satoshi. But what happened? Most of these attempts caused short-term media buzz, but none could end the mystery with solid evidence.

Now, after years of operation, Bitcoin’s network value is more driven by global consensus than the founder’s identity halo. The potential ownership of about 1.1 million BTC indeed stirs market nerves, but anonymity itself has become part of Bitcoin’s narrative. This mystery may never be fully solved, and perhaps that’s what makes Bitcoin most mysterious.