The New York Times published an investigation arguing that Adam Back, the British cryptographer who created Hashcash, is the most likely candidate behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym used by Bitcoin’s creator.
Back denied the claim, pointing reporters to a post on X and repeating earlier rebuttals to similar identification attempts. In that post he said he is not Satoshi and explained he “was early in laser focus on the positive societal implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic cash,” noting his long-running interest in ecash and related research that produced Hashcash.
The NYT investigation, led by John Carreyrou, the journalist known for exposing Theranos, builds a circumstantial case. It highlights that Back was cited in Bitcoin’s white paper, participated actively in discussions about electronic cash for years, then faded from the public mailing lists as Bitcoin emerged and reappeared after Satoshi vanished.
Among the evidence presented, the report leans on stylometric and behavioral signals. It says Back used the hyphenated term “proof-of-work” on mailing lists and referenced the obscure Russian payment system WebMoney — both phrases that also appear in Satoshi’s early emails. The analysis found Back was one of only two people to write “partial pre-image,” matched Satoshi’s phrasing, and uniquely discussed “burning the money” when describing digital coins. The NYT framed these parallels as suggestive but not definitive.
Carreyrou also noted parallels between Back’s career and what one might expect from Satoshi resurfacing under his real name. Back largely avoided Bitcoin initially, then in 2013 became highly engaged — co-founding Blockstream, recruiting leading developers, and helping raise more than $1 billion. The report suggested this trajectory looked consistent with someone returning to steward a creation they had previously hidden.
Back has repeatedly denied being Satoshi. He wrote in 2024 that he is not Satoshi and expressed skepticism about media attempts to name the creator, referencing a prior HBO documentary that had identified a different individual, who also denied being Satoshi.
The crypto community has mostly greeted the NYT’s findings with skepticism. Security veteran Jameson Lopp said Nakamoto “can’t be caught with stylometric analysis,” reflecting a wider view that linguistic and circumstantial evidence cannot conclusively identify Satoshi. Carreyrou himself acknowledged the case falls short of definitive proof and said only cryptographic evidence — such as control of Satoshi’s known private keys or signed messages — would be a smoking gun.
The article revives long-standing speculation about Bitcoin’s anonymous creator by placing a prominent early cryptographer at the center of the inquiry, but it stops short of presenting cryptographic confirmation. The NYT’s analysis relies on patterns of language, timing, and behavior rather than the type of cryptographic proof that would settle the question.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
