The New York Times has done 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; journalist John Carreyrou spent over a year cross-referencing language style, technical approaches, and historical context from multiple angles, ultimately focusing on 55-year-old British cryptographer Adam Back.

Their logic is as follows: Adam Back is a core member of early cryptopunks, and cryptopunks are a significant source of Bitcoin’s ideas. Since the 1990s, Back has been deeply involved in discussions on 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 realize 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. With AI-assisted large-scale filtering of multiple mailing lists, the candidate pool was narrowed down layer by layer, leaving only Adam Back.

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

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

The community’s reaction was also intense. Bitcoin core developer Jameson Lopp bluntly said that it’s shameful to paint Adam with such weak evidence and put a huge target on him. Crypto influencer Todd also listed several rebuttals, including that Satoshi once emailed Back in a natural tone asking questions, that Bitcoin’s code in C++ is completely different from Back’s style, and that Back tends to seek patents while Satoshi chose to 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 identified Japanese-American 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. Most of these attempts caused short-term media buzz but never ended the mystery with solid proof.

Today, Bitcoin’s network has been operating for years, and its value is more driven by global consensus than the founder’s identity. The potential ownership of about 1.1 million BTC indeed moves the market nerves, but anonymity itself has become part of Bitcoin’s narrative. This mystery may never be fully solved, and perhaps that’s the most mysterious part of Bitcoin.