Adam Back has denied claims he is Satoshi Nakamoto after a New York Times article claimed the British cryptographer was the most serious contender yet for Bitcoin. pseudonymous creator.
In an article on
“I am not satoshi,” Back wrote. He said he had “early focused on the positive societal implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic money”, and that his work from around 1992, including discussions on the cypherpunks mailing list, led to Hashcash and other ideas that were later carried over into Bitcoin.
Back, said New York Times reporter John Carreyrou, had found “many interesting analogues of Bitcoin in early attempts to create decentralized cash,” adding that early researchers explored concepts such as peer-to-peer systems, proof of work and routing models that resembled prototypes for Bitcoin.
He also took issue with a line in the article that treated a comment he made during an interview as a possible error. Back’s remark — “I’m not saying I’m good with words, but I actually babbled a lot on these lists” — referred to confirmation bias. Because he writes so often about electronic money, he says, his older comments are easier to match with Satoshi’s than with those of others who have published far fewer.
“The rest is a combination of coincidences and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests,” Back wrote.
He added that he didn’t know who Satoshi was and said it could be good for Bitcoin. He said the mystery helps present Bitcoin as “a new asset class, a mathematically rare digital commodity.”
Others have also questioned the findings. Joe Weisenthal, Bloomberg columnist and co-host of the Odd Lots podcast, said he was “not 100% convinced by the evidence or the conclusion.”
“Stylometry is interesting, but on content, all the cypherpunks had similar ideas about politics, privacy, and the architecture of the Internet,” he wrote on
“None of us are that consistent with hyphenation,” Weisenthal added, arguing that shared writing quirks may not make sense. He noted that Back was already among those closest to assembling Bitcoin-like ideas before its launch, which could explain its later involvement.
The question of Satoshi’s identity has sparked speculation for years. Several books, documentaries, and articles have claimed to have solved it, but these cases have failed to resolve or convince the broader Bitcoin community. In 2024, a high-profile documentary pointed the finger at developer Peter Todd, who denied the claim.
Nicholas Gregory, an early Bitcoin participant based in the United Kingdom, also pushed back against the latest theory.
“I don’t believe Adam Back is Satoshi, based on my personal interactions with him,” Gregory said. “However, if he was, we should respect the extraordinary lengths he has gone to ensure that no one thinks it’s him. In that case, we should honor his obvious desire for privacy.”
Gregory said the more research continues, the more extreme the theories become. He added that many journalists miss key elements of Bitcoin’s early history and make avoidable mistakes.
He also warned that publicly identifying Satoshi could put that person and his family in danger.
