Adam Back has denied claims that he is Satoshi Nakamoto after a New York Times article argued that the British cryptographer is the strongest candidate yet for Bitcoin. pseudonymous creator.
In a post on
“I’m not satoshi,” Back wrote. He said he had been “from the beginning focusing on the positive social implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic cash,” and that his work from about 1992 onwards, including discussions on the cypherpunks mailing list, led to Hashcash and other ideas that were later echoed in Bitcoin.
Back, NYT journalist John Carreyrou said, had found “many interesting bitcoin analogues in early attempts to create a decentralized currency,” adding that early researchers explored concepts like peer-to-peer systems, proof-of-work and routing models that looked like prototypes of Bitcoin.
He also questioned a line in the article that treated a comment he made in an interview as a possible slip. Back’s comment – “I’m not saying I’m good with words, but I actually chatted a lot about these lists” – referred to confirmation bias. Because he wrote so frequently about electronic money, he said, his old comments are easier to compare with Satoshi’s than with those of others who published much less.
“The rest is a combination of coincidences and similar phrases from people with similar experiences and interests,” Back wrote.
He added that he doesn’t know who Satoshi is and said it may be good for Bitcoin. In his view, the mystery helps frame Bitcoin as “a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.”
Others also questioned the conclusions. Joe Weisenthal, a Bloomberg columnist and co-host of the Odd Lots podcast, said he was “not 100% convinced by either the evidence or the conclusion.”
“The stylometry is interesting, but in terms of content, all cypherpunks had similar thoughts about politics, privacy, and Internet architecture,” he wrote on
“None of us are that consistent with hyphenation,” Weisenthal added, arguing that the quirks of shared writing may not be significant. He noted that Back was already among those closest to assembling Bitcoin-like ideas before its launch, which could explain his later involvement.
The question of Satoshi’s identity has generated speculation for years. Various books, documentaries, and articles have claimed to have solved it, only for those cases to fall apart or fail to persuade the broader Bitcoin community. In 2024, a high-profile documentary pointed out developer Peter Todd, who denied the claim.
Nicholas Gregory, an early Bitcoin participant based in the United Kingdom, also rejected the latter theory.
“I don’t believe Adam Back is Satoshi based on my personal interactions with him,” Gregory said. “However, if it were, we would have to respect the extraordinary lengths to which he has gone to ensure that no one thinks it is him. In that case, we would have to honor his clear desire for privacy.”
Gregory said the longer the search continues, the more extreme the theories become. He added that many journalists overlook key parts of Bitcoin’s early history and make avoidable mistakes.
He also warned that publicly identifying Satoshi could put that person and his family at risk.
