Just listened to The Daily podcast unmasking Satoshi. It feels to me that John (the writer) had a very early theory based on a flawed documentary that @Adam Back is Satoshi. Instead of setting out to unmask Satoshi, he set out to prove his own hypothesis that Adam is Satoshi.
He based his 99% certainty on things like the use of hyphenations, grammatical inaccuracies and what sounds like ‘gut feelings’. Hardly a smoking gun.
John has clearly spent little time trying to understand Bitcoin or indeed Satoshi. I laughed when he said early on that he thought it was in the public interest to unmask Satoshi. And he suggests that Adam is hesitant to admit his identity to avoid a wrench attack. They barely talk about the importance to the network of decentralisation or how Satoshi was always pushing attention away from himself and onto the community.
At this point anyone who understands Bitcoin understands that it doesn’t matter who Satoshi was and unmasking him doesn’t provide any benefit. If people spent more time understanding Bitcoin rather than solving a mystery they would find themselves much better off.
