Comment by bnjemian
8 days ago
It's funny because the author notes a prior attempt to uncover Satoshi's identity and giving up because an implied lack of technical depth.
I guess this time they were undaunted. Perhaps they received an AI assist and felt validated by AI sycophancy.
Much of the technical evidence cited is weak (e.g. strong knowledge of public-key cryptography, both used C++, etc.). Still, the (somewhat lazy) forensic linguistics is interesting.
The hyphenating patterns are particularly curious, to me.
Some supposed idiosyncrasies ('bugfix', for example) are just standard renderings amongst programmers/tech types; using those as evidence somewhat betrays the author's lack of familiarity with the field/community (as if the C++ and public-key cryptography 'evidence' didn't make that plain enough...).