The refusal to provide email metadata is the most damning evidence. Adam Back clearly has the emails; he is the one who provided them in the first place during the previous court case. Everyone knows he has the emails. If Adam Back and Satoshi are two different people, the metadata should be exculpatory, and easy to share. There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.

In a court of law, self-disclosure of inculpatory information cannot be compelled, so this analysis does not pass muster in a court of law. The court of public opinion, however, is quite different.

▲

ianferrel 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The thing is, most of the people heavily involved in early Bitcoin are fairly characterized as cryptoanarchists, a group strongly devoted to the principle of privacy and liberty effected through technological means.

The refusal to provide personal communications metadata by such a person is evidence of nothing but their steadfast commitment to the philosophy that presented them with the opportunity to be part of those email conversations in the first place.

▲

CamperBob2 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Then again, if I weren't Satoshi, but people suspected that I was, I'd be willing to do just about anything to prove that it's not me. No one in their right mind would want that kind of target on their back.

Satoshi is either dead, or he lost his keys and probably wishes he were.

▲

eddiewithzato an hour ago | parent | next [-]

it’s simply that Back has nothing to gain to claim to be Satoshi. It would make bitcoin a lot more volatile. He even said just now

> I also don't know who satoshi is, and i think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case, as it helps bitcoin be viewed a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.

That’s as close to admitting it as you can get

	▲	CamperBob2 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Point being, he has a lot to lose if people think he IS Satoshi. I would be coughing up those email headers if I were him. Or forging some, if necessary.

▲

argsnd 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Supposing it is Adam Back, and supposing he lost his keys, he's still worth at least nine figures and is one of the most influential figures in the field he’s devoted his life to. Why would he wish he was dead?

	▲	CamperBob2 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Nine figures isn't cool. You know what's cool? Eleven figures." That aside, I don't agree with the premise. Back might be Satoshi, but there's nowhere near enough evidence in Carreyrou's article to reach that conclusion. He should have run it by some other veteran figures in the crypto community, so they could point out how quotidian some of the language and tropes being cited really are.

▲

ShowalkKama 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.

privacy?

	▲	neffy 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Time? He´s busy starting a company, taking the time to drag out decade old emails and digging out the meta data for a journalist who is borderline stalking (assuming he even has them somewhere). I wouldn´t give that the time of day either.

▲

vzaliva 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What would it show? If he logged in to Santoshi's email account and sent an email to his personal account, the metadata would be in order, and we would learn little from it.

▲

nullc an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The author didn't make a serious effort to obtain the email metadata. The email w/ metadata has previously been part of litigation, -- if it indicated that Adam was Satoshi it would have come up.

Adam has no reason to further fuck up Satoshi's privacy by sharing private information. But I can get how people who see no issue invading Adam's and Satoshi's privacy would have no concept as to why someone wouldn't publish it.