Prominent investigative journalist John Carreyrou has identified Adam Back, the CEO of Blockstream and a veteran cypherpunk, as the mysterious creator of Bitcoin following an extensive 18-month inquiry.
Nevertheless, Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, quickly highlighted a significant historical inconsistency that undermines this assertion.
The foundation of Carreyrou’s investigation is based on a forensic method known as “stylometry,” which involves analyzing linguistic styles, phrasing choices, and writing habits statistically.
By comparing Satoshi Nakamoto’s documented forum contributions and whitepaper with Adam Back’s previous writings, Carreyrou arrived at the conclusion that they are one and the same individual.
However, Saylor pointed out a crucial piece of evidence that contradicts this theory: there were direct communications between Satoshi and Back during their exchanges.
“While stylometry is intriguing, it does not serve as definitive proof,” stated Saylor. “The emails exchanged between Satoshi and Adam Back indicate they were separate people.”
In Bitcoin’s early development stages, Satoshi notably reached out to Back to discuss Hashcash—a proof-of-work mechanism created by Back in 1997—which was referenced in Bitcoin’s foundational whitepaper. For Carreyrou’s hypothesis to be valid, it would imply that Back had meticulously crafted an email exchange with his own fictitious persona to create misleading evidence.
Saylor concluded his remarks by emphasizing what he believes will be the only acceptable standard for proof within the cryptocurrency community: “Until someone signs using Satoshi’s keys, every theory remains merely narrative.”
“A substantial target on Adam’s back”
Saylor wasn’t alone in rejecting these claims. Bitcoin advocate Jameson Lopp criticized the publication for jeopardizing Back based on tenuous linguistic analysis. “Satoshi Nakamoto cannot be identified through stylometric methods,” Lopp asserted. “It is irresponsible to place such a large target on Adam’s back with such weak evidence.”
Joe Weisenthal from Bloomberg also expressed skepticism regarding stylometry as an effective tool for analyzing this particular group of developers. “I wasn’t entirely convinced by either the evidence or its conclusions,” he remarked. “Stylometric analysis may be fascinating; however when it comes down to content—many cypherpunks shared similar views about politics and privacy along with internet architecture.”