Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?

Every candidate who has been seriously or publicly proposed, with who proposed each one and when, the evidence for and against, and where each claim stands as of 2026-10-09. Contested and fringe claims are included too, each labelled with who makes it. These are research notes, not investment advice.

How to read the tags. Every claim carries a source tag such as [S1]. The full list is in section 8, and saved copies are in sources/satoshi/ (see sources/satoshi/INDEX.md).

Label	Meaning
Court finding	Decided by a court, in a judgment saved in sources/satoshi/.
Primary record	Satoshi's own posts or emails, the blockchain, the whitepaper, or a government or court filing.
Reported	A journalist or researcher says so. Not independently checked here.
Contested	Disputed by named people. Both sides are given.
Fringe	Put forward by few people and rejected by most who have looked at it. Kept because the editor wants everything, clearly flagged.
Own analysis	A tally made for these notes from saved primary data. Not peer reviewed.
(unverified)	Could not be confirmed from a source retrieved on 2026-10-09.

---

1. Bottom line

• No one has proved they are Satoshi. The accepted ways to prove it are to sign a message with a key from the early blocks or with Satoshi's PGP key, or to move the early ("Patoshi") coins. None of these has happened. The UK judge listed moving early coins as something the real Satoshi could easily do [S1 ¶13.1.1]. As of mid-2026 the Patoshi coins had not moved [S45].
• Only one identity question has been decided in court. Craig Wright is not Satoshi. The UK High Court said so orally on 14 Mar 2024 and in writing on 20 May 2024 (Court finding) [S1 ¶7]. Every other candidate rests on journalism or on analysis.
• Recent investigations disagree with each other. Between October 2024 and April 2026, three high-profile investigations named four different people:
• HBO's Money Electric (Oct 2024) named Peter Todd.
• The New York Times (Apr 2026) named Adam Back.
• The film Finding Satoshi (Apr 2026) named Hal Finney and Len Sassaman together.

None of them produced cryptographic proof (Reported) [S45]. - The judge's personal view. Mr Justice Mellor said he thought several people probably contributed to Bitcoin, perhaps around one central individual. He said this view carried no significant weight in his decision [S1 ¶10].

---

2. What the record shows about Satoshi (baseline)

Timeline (all Primary record or Court finding unless marked otherwise)

Date	Event	Source
Aug 2008 (18 Aug per whois)	bitcoin.org domain acquired	[S1 ¶23.1], [S30]
20–22 Aug 2008	Satoshi emails Adam Back about the Hashcash citation. Back points him to Wei Dai's b-money, and Satoshi then emails Wei Dai. The Back emails were first made public in the COPA trial.	[S1 ¶23.2]
31 Oct 2008	Whitepaper announced on the Cryptography mailing list	[S1 ¶23.4], [S30]
14 Nov 2008	Satoshi writes "I'm better with code than with words"	[S22]
17 Nov 2008	Satoshi says he worked through the details "over the last year and a half while coding it", which puts the start of coding around mid-2007	[S23]
3/4 Jan 2009	Genesis block. The date depends on time zone; the block timestamp is 18:15 UTC on 3 Jan.	[S1 ¶23.6], [S61]
8–9 Jan 2009	Software released on SourceForge; block 1 mined	[S1 ¶23.7–23.8]
12 Jan 2009	First transaction: Satoshi sends Hal Finney 10 BTC mined in block 9, recorded in block 170	[S1 ¶23.8]
11 Feb 2009	P2P Foundation announcement post	[S20]
2 May 2009 – 22 Feb 2011	144 emails to Martti Malmi survive. In July 2009 Satoshi mentions "18 months development" and says Hal "isn't currently actively involved".	[S24] (email #24)
Apr 2011	Lead developer role handed to Gavin Andresen; network alert key sent to him on 26 Apr 2011	[S1 ¶23.11]
2011	Email to Mike Hearn saying he had "moved on to other things" (Reported, via Wikipedia citing a WSJ book review)	[S30]
7 Mar 2014	"I am not Dorian Nakamoto." is posted from Satoshi's P2P Foundation account. Its authenticity is doubtful, because the account and the [email protected] email were compromised in Sept 2014.	[S21], [S52]

What Satoshi said about himself. His P2P Foundation profile gave his age as 37, his country as Japan and his birth date as 5 April 1975 (Reported, from an archived profile cited by Wikipedia) [S30]. Finney believed he was writing to "a young man of Japanese ancestry" [S63].

Language clues - The whitepaper uses the British spelling "favour" [S26]. - Writers have noted British forms in his posts and code: "colour", "grey", "bloody", "maths", "flat", along with double spaces after full stops (Reported) [S30]. - But "-ize" spellings outnumber "-ise" in his key documents (Reported) [S60]. - The genesis block quotes a headline from The Times of London of 3 Jan 2009 [S1], [S30].

Whitepaper references. The whitepaper cites Wei Dai (b-money) and Adam Back (Hashcash). It also cites a 1999 paper by Massias, Avila and Quisquater given at the Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux. It does not cite Nick Szabo or David Chaum [S26].

Estimated holdings - About 750,000–1,100,000 BTC (Reported) [S30]. - About 1.1M BTC (Lerner's Patoshi analysis) [S34]. - About 700,000 (BitMEX Research, as quoted by Lerner) [S34]. - 900,000–1.17M (Bitquery, 2026, as reported by a low-reliability outlet; (unverified)) [S66].

---

3. Candidate summary

#	Candidate	First proposed by / when	Status on 2026-10-09
1	Craig Steven Wright	Wired and Gizmodo, 8 Dec 2015; Wright's own public claim from 2 May 2016	Declared not Satoshi by the UK High Court in 2024. Forgery findings, contempt conviction, referral to prosecutors.
2	Dave Kleiman (d. 2013)	Gizmodo, 8 Dec 2015 (from Wright's documents); Wright 2016 and 2019	No independent evidence. A US jury found no Wright–Kleiman partnership.
3	Adam Back	FT 2016 (as part of a group); John McAfee 2018; Barely Sociable 2020; HBO 2024; NYT (John Carreyrou), 8 Apr 2026	Denies it. The leading media candidate in 2026. Contested, unproven.
4	Hal Finney (d. 2014)	Forbes (Andy Greenberg), 25 Mar 2014, who then cleared him; FT 2016; Finding Satoshi, 22 Apr 2026	Denied it in life. Contested.
5	Len Sassaman (d. 2011)	Bitcointalk user, 15 Mar 2013; Evan Hatch, 2021; prediction-market bettors, Oct 2024; Finding Satoshi, 2026	His widow rejects it. Unproven.
6	Nick Szabo	Skye Grey, 1 Dec 2013; Aston University linguists, 2014; Dominic Frisby, 2014; Nathaniel Popper (NYT), 2015	Denies it. Unproven.
7	Peter Todd	Cullen Hoback, HBO Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery, 8 Oct 2024	Denies it. Widely rejected.
8	Dorian Nakamoto	Leah McGrath Goodman, Newsweek, 6 Mar 2014	Denies it. Widely rejected.
9	Wei Dai	General speculation; Szabo's 2011 aside	Denies it. Weak.
10	Paul Le Roux	Evan Ratliff (book Jan 2019; Wired 2019); Martin Shkreli, 13 Dec 2022	Fringe. Shkreli's evidence is discredited.
11	Michael Clear (and Vili Lehdonvirta)	Joshua Davis, The New Yorker, 10 Oct 2011	Both deny it. Dropped.
12	Shinichi Mochizuki	Ted Nelson, May 2013	Fringe. Reportedly denied.
13	Gavin Andresen	Vice list, 22 May 2013	Not a serious candidate.
14	Jed McCaleb	Vice list, 22 May 2013	No evidence.
15	Neal King, Vladimir Oksman, Charles Bry	Adam Penenberg, Fast Company, 11 Oct 2011	All deny it. Dropped.
16	Ross Ulbricht	Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir paper, 2013	Retracted.
17	Elon Musk	Sahil Gupta (former SpaceX intern), Nov 2017	Musk denied it. Fringe.
18	Jack Dorsey	Seán Murray (deBanked); promoted by Matthew Sigel (VanEck), Feb 2025	Dorsey denies it. Fringe.
19	David Chaum	CoinMarketCap Academy, about 2023	Circumstantial only.
20	Group / collective theories	Kaminsky 2011; FT 2016; Wright 2019; Mellor J 2024; HBO 2024; Finding Satoshi 2026	Open question.
21	Government agency (NSA / CIA / DHS)	Vice 2013; CIA FOIA reply 2018; DHS agent's remarks 2019; FOIA lawsuit 2025	Unproven. The FOIA case is ongoing.
22	Other fringe items (European finance collective, company-name acronym, Epstein email, pro se lawsuit)	Various	Fringe or hoax.

---

4. Candidates in detail

4.1 Craig Steven Wright: declared by a court not to be Satoshi

Who proposed it, and when - Wired (Andy Greenberg and Gwern Branwen) and Gizmodo (Sam Biddle and Andy Cush), both on 8 Dec 2015, working from leaked documents (Reported) [S30], [S56]. - Wright went public on 2 May 2016 through the BBC, The Economist and GQ, and a blog post (the "Sartre" post) [S1 ¶886], [S31]. - Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis backed him after private signing sessions [S30], [S1 ¶848–849]. - Andrew O'Hagan's London Review of Books piece (30 Jun 2016) gives an inside account of the business deal behind the reveal, involving Robert MacGregor and Stefan Matthews of nTrust/nCrypt with Calvin Ayre in the background. O'Hagan reached no firm conclusion (Reported) [S57].

Evidence for (Wright's case, as the judge summarised it; all rejected) [S1 ¶11] - His mix of skills, qualifications and interests. - Circumstantial evidence from business associates and family. - The 2016 private "proof" sessions. - His own lengthy witness statements. - The content of his "Reliance Documents". - Wright also presented a 2021 US jury award against him as vindication. The jury awarded $100M to W&K Info Defense Research for conversion, while finding no partnership with Kleiman [S14 fn.1], [S31].

Evidence against (Court findings) - The four declarations (14 Mar 2024), as Mellor J recorded them [S1 ¶7]: Wright "is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper"; he is not the person who "adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period between 2008 and 2011"; he is not the person who created the Bitcoin system; and he is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. - Forgery. Documents were "forged on a grand scale" [S1 ¶5]. Wright kept producing forgeries during the case, including a forged email in mid-trial [S1 ¶924]. The court called his attempts to prove he is Satoshi "a most serious abuse" of court process in the UK, Norway and the US [S1 ¶926]. The 150-page appendix details each forgery [S2]. - The Sartre post (2 May 2016) reused a signature taken from the public blockchain. Both sides' experts agreed it proved nothing [S1 ¶887]. - The private signing sessions were held on Wright's own laptop or without key safeguards. The experts agreed they cannot be relied on [S1 ¶848–849]. - Coins never returned. In May 2016 BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones and Gavin Andresen each sent small amounts of BTC to the address used in Satoshi's transaction to Finney. Neither was ever returned [S1 ¶890]. - No unique knowledge. He showed nothing only Satoshi would know, and made errors Satoshi would not have made [S1 ¶13.2.1–13.2.2]. - Unlike Satoshi. His arrogance and writing style were "at odds" with Satoshi's [S1 ¶13.2.4]. - US Copyright Office (22–23 May 2019): Wright's April 2019 registrations of the whitepaper and the Bitcoin 0.1 code do not establish that he is Satoshi. The Office does not check claims of authorship under a pseudonym. Wright confirmed to the Office that he was the author (Primary record) [S18]. - Wright v McCormack (libel case against a podcaster): - The High Court (Chamberlain J) said plainly that Wright "has not established that he is Satoshi". It awarded him £1 because he had advanced a "deliberately false" case [S9 ¶3–4]. - The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 26 Jul 2023 [S10]. - The UK Supreme Court refused permission to appeal (Reported, Jan 2024) [S69]. - McCormack later obtained a £1.548m worldwide freezing order against Wright to recover costs [S11]. - Norway (Granath v Wright, Oct 2022): the Oslo District Court found for "Hodlonaut" (Magnus Granath) (Reported) [S31]; also cited in [S1 ¶926]. The Norwegian judgment itself was not saved (see gaps). - Early press doubts. Wired said within days that new clues pointed to a hoax, and Satoshi-linked PGP keys looked backdated (Reported, Dec 2015) [S30].

What happened after the ruling (Court finding) - 16 Jul 2024. Anti-suit injunctions were granted. The papers were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS, the prosecutor for England and Wales) to consider prosecuting Wright for "wholescale perjury and forgery". Stefan Matthews' evidence was also referred. Wright's BTC Core, Coinbase, Kraken and Tulip Trading claims were certified "totally without merit" [S3 ¶197–204]. - Nov 2024. The Court of Appeal (Arnold LJ) refused permission to appeal as totally without merit. It noted case citations that appeared to be AI-fabricated (Reported, 29 Nov 2024) [S43]. - 19–20 Dec 2024. Wright was found in contempt on five grounds for issuing a new claim of more than £911 billion against "BTC Core" and SquareUp. He was sentenced to 12 months, suspended until 20 Dec 2026, and the new claim was struck out [S4], [S5], [S6]. - 7 Mar 2025 (reasons 12 May 2025). A three-year general civil restraint order (a bar on starting any case without the court's permission) was made. The case was referred to the Attorney General to consider a civil proceedings order (a longer-term vexatious-litigant ban) [S7 ¶1]. - 2023. Earlier, the Court of Appeal had let Wright pursue a copyright claim over the "Bitcoin File Format" [S12]. That claim fell away after the 2024 identity ruling (the BTC Core claim was dismissed as totally without merit [S3 ¶204]). - Film. A US$70M film dramatising Wright's account (dir. Doug Liman, with Casey Affleck as Wright, reportedly funded by Calvin Ayre) had found no distributor as of Sept 2026 (Reported) [S67]. The title is often given as Killing Satoshi (unverified; not named in the retrieved source).

Status: legally declared not Satoshi. Wright and his supporters still assert the claim; they are a fringe position. The outcome of the CPS referral was not found (gap).

4.2 Dave Kleiman (1967–2013): only as Wright's partner

Who proposed it, and when - Gizmodo, 8 Dec 2015, based on documents said to come from Wright's hacked email, proposing that Wright and Kleiman together were Satoshi [S56]. - Wright repeated it to The Economist in May 2016 [S31]. - Wright in 2019: Bitcoin was a group effort he led, with Kleiman and Finney involved [S31].

Evidence for - Kleiman was on the Metzdowd Cryptography list where the whitepaper was announced [S31]. - Wright emailed Kleiman's father in Feb 2014 claiming Dave was involved [S1 ¶33–34]. - Gizmodo's documents included a draft Seychelles trust that mentions 1.1M BTC [S56].

Evidence against - It rests on Wright's documents, which the UK court found false or forged [S1 ¶5, ¶926]. - Gizmodo itself flagged inconsistencies in the contract, and noted that Kleiman needed money despite the supposed fortune [S56]. - Court finding: the jury in Kleiman v. Wright (S.D. Fla., 6 Dec 2021) found no partnership between Wright and Kleiman to develop Bitcoin. The 11th Circuit affirmed on 26 Oct 2023 [S13], [S14].

Status: no independent evidence. Live only inside Wright's account.

4.3 Adam Back (British cryptographer, b. 1970; invented Hashcash in 1997; CEO of Blockstream)

Who proposed it, and when - FT (Izabella Kaminska), 7 May 2016, as a possible member of a group with Finney and Szabo (Reported) [S30]. - John McAfee, 2018 [S30], [S47]. - The YouTube channel Barely Sociable, 2020 [S31]. - HBO Money Electric, 8 Oct 2024, which treated him as a lead suspect alongside Todd [S31]. - John Carreyrou (with Dylan Freedman), The New York Times, 8 Apr 2026, the strongest public claim so far [S47], [S48], [S49].

Evidence for (Reported / Contested) - Hashcash is cited in the whitepaper [S26]. Satoshi emailed Back on 20 Aug 2008, before anyone else [S1 ¶23.2]. - HBO's points: - writing style similar to Satoshi's; - his move to Malta; - Wikipedia edits that listed other suspects but not himself; - joining Bitcointalk on 17 Apr 2013, the day Sergio Lerner's estimate of Satoshi's holdings was published.

[S31] (Money Electric page); date of Lerner's post: [S33] - The NYT's points: - An 18-month investigation narrowed about 620 suspects down to Back [S47]. - Carreyrou said he was "somewhere between 99.5% and 100%" sure [S48]. - Shared writing habits: British spelling mixed with American phrasing, "it's"/"its" mix-ups, double spaces, sentences ending in "also", and consistent hyphen errors [S48]. - A 1990s Back post about being better at coding than at arguing, alongside Satoshi's 2008 "better with code than with words" [S45], [S22]. - Back went quiet on the crypto lists while Satoshi was active, and reappeared after Satoshi left [S48], [S49]. - He declined to share the metadata of his 2008 emails with Satoshi [S48], [S31]. - Carreyrou reports Back's body language and a conversational slip in an interview at a conference in El Salvador [S31], [S48].

Evidence against - Back denies it: in 2020, on camera in 2024, and on X in April 2026. He says the overlaps are coincidence between people with similar backgrounds, and confirmation bias given how much he wrote on the lists. He says he was in fact active on forums in the period in question [S31], [S47], [S49]. - Court record: in COPA, Back gave evidence in person. The judge found him a careful, truthful witness on the matters he addressed [S1 ¶256]. His emails with Satoshi, made public for the first time at that trial, showed him supportive of Satoshi [S1 ¶620]. The court was not asked whether Back is Satoshi. - Market and commentators: Polymarket priced about a 6% chance that he would be confirmed by the end of 2026 [S45]. Bitwise president Teddy Fusaro was openly sceptical [S47]. - No cryptographic proof [S45].

Status: the leading media candidate in 2026. Contested, unproven.

4.4 Hal Finney (1956–2014)

Who proposed it, and when - Andy Greenberg, Forbes, 25 Mar 2014. Finney lived a few blocks from Dorian Nakamoto in Temple City, California. Writing-analysis firm Juola & Associates rated Finney's writing the closest match to Satoshi's among the candidates it tested. After meeting Finney and seeing his emails and wallet history, Greenberg concluded Finney was telling the truth (Reported) [S30]. - FT 2016, as part of a group [S30]. - The film Finding Satoshi (released 22 Apr 2026; directed by Matthew Miele; investigators William D. Cohan and Tyler Maroney, with former FBI behavioural analyst Kathleen Puckett). It proposes Finney wrote the code and Sassaman wrote the paper and handled communications, drawing on Alyssa Blackburn's analysis of early mining data (Reported) [S45], [S46]. - Wright in 2019, as part of his group story [S31].

Evidence for - Finney was the first person besides Satoshi to run Bitcoin, and received the first transaction (block 170) [S63], [S1 ¶23.8]. - He was a cypherpunk who had built RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work), which Satoshi credited [S24 #24]. - He lived near Dorian Nakamoto [S30]. - The Juola writing match [S30]. - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong praised Finding Satoshi's conclusion [S45], [S46].

Evidence against - Finney's own account (Bitcointalk, 19 Mar 2013): he corresponded with Satoshi as a separate person and did not know who he was [S63]. - Juola also found that Satoshi's emails to Finney read more like Satoshi than like Finney [S30]. - Jameson Lopp ("Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto", 21 Oct 2023) [S32]: - On 18 Apr 2009 Finney ran a 10-mile race in Santa Barbara (photographed in bib #591). During the race, Satoshi traded emails with Mike Hearn and a Bitcoin transaction took place; Satoshi's reply was sent about 2 minutes before Finney finished. - By Aug 2010 Finney's ALS had badly slowed his typing, yet Satoshi made several code check-ins and 17 forum posts on 14–15 Aug 2010. - January 2009 IRC debug logs show separate IP addresses for Finney and Satoshi. - Their coding styles differ: tabs versus spaces, and snake_case versus camelCase names. - Satoshi to Malmi, Jul 2009: "Hal isn't currently actively involved" (Primary record) [S24 #24]. - Critics of Finding Satoshi, Back among them, point to time-zone inconsistencies [S45].

Status: denied it before his death on 28 Aug 2014 (he is cryopreserved at Alcor) [S31]. Revived and contested in 2026.

4.5 Len Sassaman (1980–2011)

Who proposed it, and when - A Bitcointalk user, 15 Mar 2013 [S31]. - Developer Evan Hatch, in a 2021 Medium essay [S31]. - Bettors on the prediction market Polymarket favoured him before the HBO film (Oct 2024) [S42]. - Finding Satoshi (2026), together with Finney [S45], [S46].

Evidence for - He was a cypherpunk and remailer developer who, per Bram Cohen, posted under pseudonyms [S42]. - He studied for his PhD at KU Leuven's COSIC group in Belgium [S31], [S42]. - He died on 3 Jul 2011, months after Satoshi's last known emails in Apr 2011 [S42], [S1 ¶23.11]. - A tribute to him was embedded in the blockchain in 2011, as Dan Kaminsky showed at Black Hat [S31]. - Benelux links: - Jens Ducrée's 2022 profile finds the evidence points to the Benelux cryptography scene [S39]. - The whitepaper cites a 1999 Benelux symposium paper [S26 ref. 2]. - Finding Satoshi reportedly shows his widow open to the idea of a secret collaboration [S45]. This conflicts with her 2024 statements below.

Evidence against - His widow, Meredith Patterson (DL News, Oct 2024), rejected the idea: - Early Bitcoin let users pay to an IP address, a "newbie mistake" she said Len would not have made. - Len was a Mac user, while early Bitcoin development centred on Linux. - His doctoral adviser called the theory "highly unlikely" [S42]. - No cryptographic evidence [S45].

Status: unproven, contested.

4.6 Nick Szabo

Who proposed it, and when - Blogger Skye Grey, 1 Dec 2013 [S37]. - Aston University forensic linguists, Apr 2014 (Reported; the study itself was not retrieved) [S31]. - Dominic Frisby, in a 2014 book [S31]. - Nathaniel Popper, NYT, 15 May 2015 [S31]. - Fortune (Oct 2024) called Szabo a stronger candidate than Todd [S40].

Evidence for - He designed "bit gold", the closest precursor to Bitcoin. - Grey's phrase analysis [S37]: - Shared phrases and terms, such as "timestamp server", "trusted third party" and "of course" without commas. - Grey put the chance of the combination at about 0.08%. - Szabo asked for help building bit gold in April 2008. - Two bit gold blog posts were later re-dated to December 2008. - He was interested in pseudonyms in the 1990s [S30].

Evidence against - He denies it. In a July 2014 email to Frisby he said Frisby had got it wrong in naming him [S31]. - His 2011 writing treats Nakamoto as a different person [S30]. - The British spelling "favour" in the whitepaper does not fit Szabo's American usage, which Grey himself conceded [S37], [S26]. - He is not cited in the whitepaper [S26].

Status: denies it. Unproven.

4.7 Peter Todd (Canadian Bitcoin developer)

Who proposed it, and when: Cullen Hoback, HBO Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery, 8 Oct 2024 [S40], [S41], [S31].

Evidence for (Hoback's case) - In Dec 2010, shortly after joining the forum, Todd replied to one of Satoshi's last posts within about an hour. The reply reads like a continuation of Satoshi's own thought. Satoshi's last public post came days later. - Todd uses Canadian/British spellings such as "colour" and "cheque". - His history with the "replace-by-fee" patch, and the alleged use of an alternate persona ("John Dillon"). - A later remark about being an expert in "sacrificing" bitcoins, which Hoback reads as an admission.

[S30], [S40], [S41], [S31]

Evidence against - Todd denies it. He called the theory "ludicrous" and compared it to QAnon-style coincidence thinking. He notes his forum account was then named "retep" and was renamed only years later [S41], [S30]. - Fortune argues he was too young and inexperienced, and was never on insiders' lists of candidates [S40]. - Hoback himself says the film is not proof [S31]. - Wired reported in late Oct 2024 that Todd had gone into hiding; Todd called that an exaggeration [S31]. - Todd was one of the developers Wright sued in the BTC Core claim [S1, title page].

Status: widely rejected.

4.8 Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto

Who proposed it, and when: Leah McGrath Goodman, Newsweek, 6 Mar 2014 [S53].

Evidence for - His birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto; he changed his first name in 1973. - He is a physicist and engineer who did classified defence work, and holds libertarian views. - His remark at his door: "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it." - Los Angeles sheriff's deputies said he was quoted accurately.

[S53], [S30]

Evidence against - He denied it in a written statement in March 2014 and in interviews. He said he first heard of Bitcoin in Feb 2014, and that he took the question to be about his earlier engineering or contract work [S53], [S54], [S30]. - His son said Satoshi's writing was more polished than his father's [S53]. - The "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" post came from Satoshi's account [S21], but that account was compromised later in 2014 [S52]. - The story was widely condemned as doxxing [S54].

Status: widely rejected.

4.9 Wei Dai

Who proposed it: general speculation, for example in lists compiled by the press in 2014 [S31]. Szabo's 2011 aside was "assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai" [S31].

Evidence for: his b-money paper is reference 1 in the whitepaper [S26]. Satoshi emailed him on 22 Aug 2008 [S1 ¶23.2].

Evidence against: Dai says Satoshi reinvented the idea independently and only credited him afterwards, and that his own connection to Bitcoin is limited (LessWrong, 16 Feb 2011) [S70]. He has denied being Satoshi [S31].

Status: denies it. Weak.

4.10 Paul Le Roux (encryption programmer turned criminal cartel boss)

Who proposed it, and when - Evan Ratliff's book The Mastermind (Jan 2019) relays a jailed former employee's suggestion. Ratliff's 2019 Wired article says the idea cannot be ruled out but lacks direct evidence [S31]. - Martin Shkreli, 13 Dec 2022 [S58].

Evidence for - He wrote the E4M encryption software [S31]. - Shkreli cites a message signed with Hal Finney's address that names "Paul Leroux" as the sender of the 12 Jan 2009 transaction [S58]. - Wikipedia notes that Le Roux's arrest roughly coincided with Satoshi's last activity [S31].

Evidence against - Ratliff himself found no direct evidence [S31]. - Gregory Maxwell and Pieter Wuille pointed out two problems with Shkreli's signed message: that kind of signature did not exist while Finney could still use a computer, and the address kept sending transactions after Finney died. Someone else therefore held the key [S58], [S31]. - Le Roux was arrested on 26 Sep 2012 [S31], more than a year after Satoshi's last known emails in Apr 2011 [S1 ¶23.11].

Status: Fringe. Unproven.

4.11 Michael Clear (and Vili Lehdonvirta)

Who proposed it, and when: Joshua Davis, The New Yorker, 10 Oct 2011. Clear was a cryptography student at Trinity College Dublin in 2008; Lehdonvirta is a Finnish economic sociologist (Reported) [S30].

Evidence against: both strongly denied it. Clear did so on his university web page and in the Irish Times (8 Oct 2011) [S30].

Status: dropped.

4.12 Shinichi Mochizuki (Japanese mathematician)

Who proposed it, and when: computer pioneer Ted Nelson, in a YouTube video, May 2013 [S30].

Evidence for: a brilliant Japanese mathematician who publishes unconventionally online [S50].

Evidence against: he has no known cryptography or coding background [S50]. The Age reported (10 Jul 2013) that he denied it [S30] (original not retrieved).

Status: Fringe.

4.13 Gavin Andresen

Who proposed it, and when: Vice list, 22 May 2013 [S50]. Later blog speculation (unverified; not retrieved).

Evidence for: he became lead developer after Satoshi. Some have claimed his conversational style is similar [S50].

Evidence against - He denies it, and his coding style differs from Satoshi's [S50]. - Satoshi handed him control and the alert key in 2010–11 [S1 ¶23.11], [S31]. - He publicly backed Wright in 2016 and later regretted it [S31], [S1 ¶849]. Our inference: that is hard to square with being Satoshi.

Status: not a serious candidate.

4.14 Jed McCaleb

Who proposed it, and when: Vice, 22 May 2013 [S50].

Evidence for: he built the eDonkey peer-to-peer network, founded Mt. Gox (based in Tokyo), and was an early enthusiast [S50].

Evidence against: he later turned against energy-hungry mining and built Ripple. There is no direct evidence [S50].

Status: no support.

4.15 Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry

Who proposed it, and when: Adam Penenberg, Fast Company, 11 Oct 2011 [S30].

Evidence for - Their encryption patent application (filed 15 Aug 2008) contains the phrase "computationally impractical to reverse", which also appears in the whitepaper [S30], [S26]. - bitcoin.org was registered three days after the filing [S30].

Evidence against: all three denied it [S30].

Status: dropped.

4.16 Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road)

Who proposed it, and when: Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, in a 2013 paper based on transaction-graph analysis [S30].

Evidence against: the claim was disputed (Dustin Trammell said the linked address was his own), and the authors retracted it [S30].

Status: retracted.

4.17 Elon Musk

Who proposed it, and when: Sahil Gupta, a former SpaceX intern, in a Medium post in Nov 2017.

Response: Musk denied it on Twitter (Bloomberg, 28 Nov 2017) [S30].

Status: Fringe.

4.18 Jack Dorsey

Who proposed it, and when: Seán Murray of deBanked; promoted by Matthew Sigel, head of digital-asset research at VanEck, in Feb 2025 [S44].

Evidence for - Timing coincidences between Bitcoin events and Dorsey's life. - An IP leak from Jan 2009 that points to California. - A 2014 hacked email mentioning a shipment to St. Louis, Dorsey's home town. - He wore "Satoshi" T-shirts.

[S44]

Evidence against: Dorsey has said simply "No". Critics reject Murray's readings of wallet patterns [S44].

Status: Fringe.

4.19 David Chaum (ecash pioneer)

Who proposed it, and when: CoinMarketCap Academy, about 2023 [S55].

Evidence for: his 1982 dissertation came close to describing a blockchain, lacking only proof-of-work. He invented blind signatures and built ecash [S55].

Evidence against: he always worked openly under his own name. There is no direct link [S55]. The whitepaper does not cite him [S26].

Status: circumstantial only.

4.20 Group and collective theories

Who has argued for a group - Early observers. Security researcher Dan Kaminsky said the creator was "a team of people" or a genius. Laszlo Hanyecz felt the code was too well designed for one person (Reported) [S30]. - FT, 2016: Back, Finney and Szabo as a possible group [S30]. - Wright's 2019 version: himself, Kleiman and Finney [S31]. Rejected by the court [S1]. - Mellor J (2024), as a personal remark: probably several contributors, possibly around one central individual [S1 ¶10]. - HBO (2024): Todd and Back, with Blockstream as a "corporate Satoshi" [S31]. - Finding Satoshi (2026): Finney and Sassaman [S45]. - DHS agent (2019): said Satoshi was one of four people interviewed in California (see 4.21) [S15 ¶27–28]. - Blackburn et al. (2022): most bitcoin mined before the price reached $1 (Feb 2011) went to only 64 agents, and early survival depended on cooperation within that small group. This is context about early mining, not a claim about who wrote Bitcoin [S36]. - A "computer collective" in the European financial sector: discussed in 2013 (IBTimes) (Fringe) [S30].

Evidence against a large group - Lerner's analysis of the Patoshi blocks shows one machine with one clock: there are no timestamp reversals between consecutive Patoshi blocks [S34]. - That fits one dominant miner. It does not rule out several authors.

Status: open.

4.21 Government-agency theories (NSA / CIA / DHS)

Speculation - Vice (2013) floated a government agency, noting that the Navy developed onion routing. It also noted there was no evidence and no clear motive [S50].

The NSA paper often cited as proof - "How to Make a Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash" (Law, Sabett and Solinas, NSA, 18 Jun 1996) [S19]. - Own analysis of the saved copy: it describes bank-issued, blind-signature e-cash. "Bank" appears 149 times; "proof of work" and "peer" do not appear at all. It is the opposite of Bitcoin's design. - That the NSA designed SHA-256, which Bitcoin uses, is often added to this theory (not sourced here).

CIA: in 2018 the CIA would "neither confirm nor deny" holding records about Satoshi, in answer to a FOIA request by Motherboard's Daniel Oberhaus (a so-called Glomar response) [S51].

DHS / Homeland Security Investigations (Primary record, court filing) - The claim. At the OffshoreAlert conference on 29 Apr 2019, HSI agent Rana Saoud said agents flew to California, found "he wasn't alone", and met Satoshi and three others [S15 ¶24–28]. - The FOIA requests. Attorney James A. Murphy (@MetaLawMan) filed FOIA requests in Jan and Feb 2025 and sued on 7 Apr 2025: Murphy v. DHS, No. 1:25-cv-01025 (D.D.C., Judge Walton) [S15]. - What the search found. ICE found 2,524 potentially responsive documents. It released 5 pages on 12 Sep 2025, and said in Nov 2025 that the rest appeared not responsive [S16]. - Since then. In Jan 2026 ICE identified one more 3-page document. Its release was delayed by a partial DHS shutdown (Mar 2026) [S16]. - Status. Status conferences continued through Sep 2026 (RECAP docket listing). The content of the released pages was not found (gap).

Name-meaning theory: "Satoshi Nakamoto" is said to mean "central intelligence" (Fringe, (unverified); no source retrieved).

Status: unproven.

4.22 Other fringe items, self-claimants and hoaxes

• Pro se lawsuit, Kilgore v. Nakamoto (D.D.C.): the plaintiff claimed a 50/50 profit share in Bitcoin and demanded about $15 billion. It was dismissed without prejudice on 8 Apr 2025 (Court finding) [S17].
• Jeffrey Epstein: a fabricated email circulated claiming Epstein invented Bitcoin. AFP and Snopes fact-checked it as fabricated (details unverified: only the headlines were seen; the articles could not be retrieved) [S71].
• "SAmsung-TOSHIBA-NAKAmichi-MOTOrola" acronym: the name is said to be built from these company names (Fringe, (unverified); no source retrieved).
• Wright's continuing claims: see 4.1.

---

5. How the evidence has been analysed

5.1 Stylometry (writing-style analysis)

Study	Who / when	What was compared	Finding	Source
Phrase search	Skye Grey (blog), 1 Dec 2013	Whitepaper vs. Szabo's blog and papers	Szabo; rare phrases put the odds of the combination at ≈0.08%	[S37]
Forensic linguistics	Aston University team, Apr 2014	Whitepaper vs. candidates	Szabo (Reported; study not retrieved)	[S31]
Juola & Associates (for Forbes)	Mar 2014	Finney vs. candidates proposed by Newsweek, Fast Company, The New Yorker, Ted Nelson and Skye Grey	Finney closest, but Satoshi's emails to Finney read more like Satoshi than like Finney	[S30]
Spelling and persona	Hoback / HBO, 2024	Todd	Canadian/British spellings match	[S40]
Judicial assessment	Mellor J, 2024	Wright vs. Satoshi's writings	Wright's arrogance and style are "at odds" with Satoshi's	[S1 ¶13.2.4]
AI-assisted comparison	Carreyrou / NYT, 2026	Back vs. Satoshi	Back; markers listed in 4.3	[S47], [S48]
Multimodal stylometry	Adebayo and Yampolskiy, IEEE BigData, Dec 2024	Satoshi's writing and code vs. candidates	Result not retrieved (gap)	[S38]
"Profile" study	Jens Ducrée, arXiv, 2022	Whitepaper, blockchain parameters, Satoshi's choices	Points to the Benelux cryptography scene; offers filters to exclude candidates	[S39]
Code style	Jameson Lopp, 2023	Finney's code vs. Satoshi's	Different conventions (tabs/spaces, naming)	[S32]

Cautions - Cypherpunks shared vocabulary. - Samples are small. - The author may have disguised his style deliberately. - Satoshi mixed British and American forms [S60], [S37]. - Back calls the NYT approach confirmation bias [S47].

5.2 Coin-movement and mining analysis (the "Patoshi" pattern)

• Lerner, 17 Apr 2013 [S33]
• A pattern in one coinbase field (ExtraNonce) shows a single dominant early miner: a series of constant slopes that restart roughly every 100 hours.
• About 1M BTC, none of it spent.
• Lerner, 16 Apr 2019 [S34]
• Patoshi blocks use nonce low bytes only in the range 0–9 and 19–58, across about 22,000 blocks.
• There are zero timestamp reversals between consecutive Patoshi blocks, against 224 among other blocks: one machine, one clock.
• 99.9% of the coins are unspent.
• About 1.1M BTC.
• Lerner was answering doubters, including nullc (Gregory Maxwell) and BitMEX Research, which estimated about 700k.
• Lerner, 22 Jun 2020: Patoshi blocks usually carry timestamps about 312 seconds after the previous block. The reason is unknown. This is not a time-zone analysis, and Lerner urges readers to check his work [S35].
• Blackburn et al., 6 Jun 2022: 64 agents mined most bitcoin before Feb 2011 [S36].
• Bitquery, 2026: reportedly 54,316 blocks reconstructed, a 99.2% match to the pattern, and 900k–1.17M BTC. Its researchers stress that the pattern cannot show who controls the keys today (Reported by a low-reliability outlet; (unverified)) [S66].
• Only known Satoshi spend: 10 BTC from block 9 to Finney in block 170 (12 Jan 2009) [S1 ¶23.8].

Tests and claims that failed - Wright's 2016 "proof" signature was copied from the blockchain [S1 ¶887]. - Coins sent in 2016 by the BBC and Andresen to Satoshi's Finney-transaction address were never returned [S1 ¶890]. - Shkreli's 2022 signed message from Finney's address used a signature type that came later, and the address was used after Finney's death [S58].

Noise, not signal - On 5 Jan 2024 someone sent 26.9 BTC to the genesis-block address. It says nothing about Satoshi [S64]. The Block calls these coins unspendable. Only the 50 BTC genesis reward is unspendable by design; later deposits could in principle be spent by whoever holds the key (unverified here). - On 8 Oct 2026, 100.02 BTC mined in July 2010 moved after 16 years (flagged by Galaxy Research). It is not linked to Satoshi or Patoshi [S65].

Status: the Patoshi coins were still unmoved as of mid-2026 [S45].

5.3 Time-zone and posting-time analyses

• Stefan Thomas (2011, reported by Wired) charted more than 500 forum posts. Almost none fall between 05:00 and 11:00 GMT, weekends included. That is 2–8 pm in Japan, which argues against Satoshi living there (Reported) [S30].
• Chain Bulletin (about Nov 2020) used 539 Bitcointalk posts, 34 emails and 169 code commits. Activity runs from late afternoon to about 03:00 GMT, which it read as London [S62], [S60], [S61].
• Rebuttals: the same data fits US Eastern or Pacific time with more normal hours, and Satoshi mixed "-ise" and "-ize" spellings [S60]. One analysis gives a European location only 10% confidence [S61]. Forum replies call timing alone insufficient [S62].
• Lopp (2023) uses Pacific-time race timing to rule out Finney (see 4.4) [S32].

Own analysis: date headers in Satoshi's emails to Martti Malmi [S24]

Satoshi sent 144 emails between 2 May 2009 and 22 Feb 2011.

• Only two time-zone offsets appear: +0100 (46 emails) and +0000 (98).
• The switches follow UK summer-time dates:
• The last +0100 email is dated 24 Oct 2009 and the first +0000 email 26 Oct 2009. UK clocks went back on Sunday 25 Oct 2009, under the last-Sunday-in-October rule (general knowledge; not separately sourced).
• +0100 returns by 16 May 2010 and lasts until at least 4 Oct 2010. +0000 is in use from 1 Dec 2010.
• For comparison, Malmi's own emails carry +0200/+0300, as expected for Finland.
• What it shows: the computer or mail program Satoshi used was set to a GMT/BST-type zone (UK, Ireland or Portugal), not German time (CET/CEST), even though the account was a GMX address (the point about GMX's server time is unverified).
• Caution: a sender controls this header and can set it at will.

Sending hours (UTC) across those 144 emails

UTC hours	Emails
00:00–06:59	50
07:00–07:59	1
08:00–13:59	0
14:00–23:59	93

• The quiet window is about 07:00–14:00 UTC.
• In London that is roughly 7–8 am to 2–3 pm: an odd sleep window for an office-hours resident, though possible for a night worker.
• On US Eastern time it is about 2–3 am to 9–10 am, and on US Pacific about 11 pm to 7 am: ordinary sleeping hours.
• How it fits other analyses: it fits Thomas's chart and the US-time critique of the London theory [S30], [S60]. It is also compatible with a UK-set clock used by someone who keeps late hours.
• This is not proof of location.

---

6. The court and government record in brief (saved in sources/satoshi/)

COPA v Wright (High Court, England and Wales)

Case	What it establishes
[2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch), plus appendix [S1], [S2]	The four declarations; forgery findings; the judge's factors for and against; an agreed timeline of Satoshi's activity (¶23).
[2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch) [S3]	Injunctions; referral to the CPS (Wright and Matthews); related claims certified totally without merit.
[2024] EWHC 3315 and 3316 (Ch), order of 20 Dec 2024 [S4], [S5], [S6]	Contempt on five grounds; 12 months suspended to 20 Dec 2026; the £911bn+ claim struck out.
[2025] EWHC 1139 (Ch) [S7]	Three-year general civil restraint order; referral to the Attorney General.
[2023] EWHC 3287 (Ch) and remote-access order [S8], [S25]	Pre-trial procedure.

Other cases in England and Wales

Case	What it establishes
Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 3343 (KB); [2023] EWCA Civ 892; [2024] EWHC 1735 (KB) [S9], [S10], [S11]	£1 damages for a "deliberately false" case; appeal dismissed; freezing order to secure costs.
Wright v BTC Core [2023] EWCA Civ 868 [S12]	Copyright point on the "Bitcoin File Format".

United States

Case or document	What it establishes
Kleiman v. Wright (S.D. Fla.; 11th Cir.) [S13], [S14]	No partnership; $100M conversion verdict for W&K.
Murphy v. DHS (D.D.C.) [S15], [S16]	The DHS agent's 2019 remarks; the FOIA search results.
Kilgore v. Nakamoto (D.D.C.) [S17]	Frivolous claim dismissed.
US Copyright Office, May 2019 [S18]	A copyright registration does not prove authorship.
NSA, 1996 [S19]	The e-cash paper behind the government theory.

---

7. Gaps and unverified points

• Paywalls and blocked sites. These original articles could not be retrieved: the NYT investigation (8 Apr 2026), Wired (2011, 2015, 2019), Forbes (Greenberg 2014), The New Yorker (2011), Fast Company (2011), Business Insider (2013), Bloomberg (2017, 2020), FT (2016), the Aston University study (2014), Evan Hatch's and Sahil Gupta's Medium posts, and the Snopes and AFP Epstein fact-checks. Their content comes from secondary coverage or Wikipedia, labelled Reported.
• One stylometry paper unread. The results of Adebayo and Yampolskiy (IEEE BigData 2024) were not retrieved; only the title and authors (via Crossref) are known.
• Outcome of the CPS referral (Jul 2024): no charging decision was found.
• Norway. The Granath v Wright judgment (Oslo District Court, Oct 2022) and any appeal were not retrieved.
• US docket gaps. In Kleiman v. Wright, the jury verdict is a scanned image with no text layer, so the $100M figure is taken from the 11th Circuit opinion [S14]. The final judgment and the sanctions orders were not saved.
• DHS release. What ICE actually released to Murphy (5 pages in Sep 2025, plus 3 more pending) is not public in the sources found. Murphy docket entries ECF 19, 20 and 22 were not on RECAP.
• Primary sources not retrieved. Chain Bulletin's original 2020 article (only coverage of it), and Stefan Thomas's original chart (only via Wired/Wikipedia).
• Self-claimants. Recent ones, such as a 2025 London press-conference claimant, could not be confirmed by search, so they are not included as candidates.
• Unsourced fringe items. The company-acronym and "central intelligence" name theories are noted as fringe with no source.
• Contradictory accounts. Finding Satoshi's portrayal of Sassaman's widow conflicts with her 2024 statements [S42] vs. [S45]. Not resolved.
• Own analysis. The time-zone tally in 5.3 has not been checked by anyone else, and the Date header can be set freely by the sender.

---

8. Sources

All were retrieved or read on 2026-10-09. Bold entries are saved in full in sources/satoshi/. All others are links, summarised above in my own words.

Court and government (saved) - [S1] Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch), Mellor J, 20 May 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/COPA-v-Wright-Judgment.pdf — COPA-v-Wright-2024-EWHC-1198-Ch-judgment.pdf - [S2] Same judgment, Appendix, 20 May 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/COPAv-Wright-Judgment-Appendix.pdf - [S3] [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), form-of-order judgment, 16 Jul 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/COPA-v-Wright-Judgment.pdf - [S4] [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch), contempt liability, 19 Dec 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/COPA-v-Wright-Approved-Judgment-on-Liability-for-Contempt-2024-EWHC-3315-Ch.pdf - [S5] [2024] EWHC 3316 (Ch), sentence, 20 Dec 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/COPA-v-Wright-Judgment-on-sentence.pdf - [S6] Committal order, 20 Dec 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crypto-open-patent-alliance-v-wright-order/ - [S7] [2025] EWHC 1139 (Ch), civil restraint orders, 12 May 2025 — https://www.hogarthchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/COPA-v-Craig-Wright.pdf - [S8] [2023] EWHC 3287 (Ch), pre-trial review, 20 Dec 2023 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/COPA-v-Wright-Others-2023-EWHC-3287-Ch-PTR-Judgment.pdf - [S9] Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 3343 (KB), 21 Dec 2022 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Wright-v-McCormack-Final-Judgment-for-Hand-Down.pdf - [S10] Wright v McCormack [2023] EWCA Civ 892, 26 Jul 2023 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Wright-v-McCormack-judgment-260723.pdf - [S11] McCormack v Wright [2024] EWHC 1735 (KB), 5 Jul 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/McCormack-v-Wright-WFO-Judgment-05.07.2024.pdf - [S12] Wright v BTC Core [2023] EWCA Civ 868, 20 Jul 2023 — https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Wright-v-BTC-Core-judgment-200723.pdf - [S13] Kleiman v. Wright, 9:18-cv-80176 (S.D. Fla.), ECF 812, jury verdict, 6 Dec 2021 — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.812.0_2.pdf - [S14] Kleiman v. Wright, 11th Cir. No. 22-11150, opinion 26 Oct 2023, mandate 27 Nov 2023 (ECF 1061) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.1061.0_4.pdf - [S15] Murphy v. DHS, 1:25-cv-01025 (D.D.C.), complaint, 7 Apr 2025 — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279217/gov.uscourts.dcd.279217.1.0.pdf - [S16] Murphy v. DHS, joint status reports of 28 Nov 2025, 29 Jan 2026 and 30 Mar 2026 (ECF 13, 16, 17) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279217/ (files .13.0, .16.0, .17.0); docket listing via the CourtListener search API - [S17] Kilgore v. Nakamoto, 1:25-cv-00498 (D.D.C.), memorandum opinion, 8 Apr 2025 — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277635/gov.uscourts.dcd.277635.3.0.pdf - [S18] U.S. Copyright Office, statements on Bitcoin registrations, 22–23 May 2019 — https://www.copyright.gov/press-media-info/press-updates.html - [S19] Law, Sabett and Solinas (NSA), "How to Make a Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash", 18 Jun 1996 — http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm - [S25] COPA remote-access order, 29 Jan 2024 — https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crypto-open-patient-alliance-v-dr-craig-steven-wright-and-dr-wright-v-various/

Satoshi's own writing (saved) - [S20] Satoshi Nakamoto, P2P Foundation post, 11 Feb 2009 — https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/p2pfoundation/1/ - [S21] Satoshi's P2P Foundation account, "I am not Dorian Nakamoto.", 7 Mar 2014 — https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/p2pfoundation/4/ - [S22] Satoshi Nakamoto, Cryptography list, 14 Nov 2008 — https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/12/ - [S23] Satoshi Nakamoto, Cryptography list, 17 Nov 2008 — https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/15/ - [S24] Satoshi–Malmi emails 2009–2011, published by Martti Malmi (2024) — https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/ - [S26] Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (whitepaper) — https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Reference works (read, not saved) - [S30] Wikipedia, "Satoshi Nakamoto" (wikitext read 2026-10-09; used as a pointer to its cited originals) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto - [S31] Wikipedia articles: Adam Back; Hal Finney (computer scientist); Len Sassaman; Nick Szabo; Wei Dai; Paul Le Roux; Dave Kleiman; Craig Steven Wright; Gavin Andresen; Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery (all read 2026-10-09) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Analyses and research (read, not saved) - [S32] Jameson Lopp, "Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto", 21 Oct 2023 — https://blog.lopp.net/hal-finney-was-not-satoshi-nakamoto - [S33] Sergio Demian Lerner, "The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto", 17 Apr 2013 — https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/ - [S34] Lerner, "The Return of the Deniers and the Revenge of Patoshi", 16 Apr 2019 — https://bitslog.com/2019/04/16/the-return-of-the-deniers-and-the-revenge-of-patoshi - [S35] Lerner, "A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps", 22 Jun 2020 — https://bitslog.com/2020/06/22/a-new-mystery-in-patoshi-timestamps - [S36] Blackburn, Huber, Eliaz, Shamim, Weisz, Seshadri, Kim, Hang and Lieberman Aiden, "Cooperation among an anonymous group protected Bitcoin during failures of decentralization", arXiv:2206.02871, 6 Jun 2022 — https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02871 - [S37] Skye Grey, "Satoshi Nakamoto is (probably) Nick Szabo", 1 Dec 2013 — https://likeinamirror.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/satoshi-nakamoto-is-probably-nick-szabo - [S38] G. O. Adebayo and R. Yampolskiy, "Estimating the Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto using Multimodal Stylometry", 2024 IEEE Int'l Conf. on Big Data, 15 Dec 2024, DOI 10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10826132 (metadata only) - [S39] Jens Ducrée, "Satoshi Nakamoto and the Origins of Bitcoin — The Profile of a 1-in-a-Billion Genius", arXiv:2206.10257 (v1 21 Jun 2022) — https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.10257

Reporting on the investigations (read, not saved) - [S40] Jeff John Roberts, Fortune, 8 Oct 2024 — https://fortune.com/crypto/2024/10/08/who-invented-bitcoin-hbo-peter-todd/ - [S41] Brandon Vigliarolo, The Register, 9 Oct 2024 — https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/09/satoshi_nakamoto_suspect_hbo_bitcoin/ - [S42] Ekin Genç, DL News, 7 Oct 2024 (Sassaman's widow) — https://www.dlnews.com/articles/people-culture/len-sassaman-the-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto - [S43] Tim Craig, DL News, 29 Nov 2024 (Court of Appeal refusal) — https://www.dlnews.com/articles/people-culture/judge-denies-craig-wright-appeal-citing-ai-hallucinations - [S44] Tim Craig, DL News, 20 Feb 2025 (Dorsey) — https://www.dlnews.com/articles/people-culture/jack-dorsey-likely-satoshi-nakamoto-says-van-eck-exec - [S45] Jamie Redman, Bitcoin.com News, 30 May 2026 (three investigations) — https://news.bitcoin.com/todd-back-sassaman-and-finney-named-satoshi-in-3-investigations-that-found-no-proof - [S46] HollywoodLife, 28 May 2026 (Finding Satoshi) — https://hollywoodlife.com/2026/05/28/finding-satoshi-the-viral-documentary-says-it-knows-who-created-bitcoin - [S47] André Beganski (Decrypt, via Yahoo), 8 Apr 2026 (Back denies) — https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/adam-back-denies-hes-satoshi-160034323.html - [S48] Moneywise (via AOL), 11 Apr 2026 (details of the NYT evidence) — https://www.aol.com/articles/meet-adam-back-one-nyt-105000000.html - [S49] Newser, 8 Apr 2026 — https://www.newser.com/story/386938/theres-new-debate-over-id-of-bitcoins-satoshi-nakamoto.html - [S50] Alec Liu, Vice, 22 May 2013 — https://www.vice.com/en/article/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-creator-of-bitcoin/ - [S51] Daniel Oberhaus, Motherboard/Vice, 14 Jun 2018 (CIA Glomar response) — https://www.vice.com/en/article/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-cia-foia-fbi/ - [S52] Patrick McGuire, Motherboard/Vice, 9 Sep 2014 (Satoshi's email hacked) — https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-satoshi-nakamoto-email-hacker-says-hes-negotiating-with-the-bitcoin-founder - [S53] Leah McGrath Goodman, Newsweek, 6 Mar 2014 — https://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-bitcoin-247957.html - [S54] CoinMarketCap Academy, "Satoshi Files: Dorian Nakamoto" (undated) — https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/satoshi-files-dorian-nakamoto - [S55] CoinMarketCap Academy, "Satoshi Files: David Chaum" (about 2023) — https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/satoshi-files-david-chaum - [S56] Sam Biddle and Andy Cush, Gizmodo, 8 Dec 2015 (updated 2 May 2016) — https://gizmodo.com/this-australian-says-he-and-his-dead-friend-invented-bi-1746958692 - [S57] Andrew O'Hagan, "The Satoshi Affair", London Review of Books 38(13), 30 Jun 2016 — https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v38/n13/andrew-o-hagan/the-satoshi-affair - [S58] Martin Shkreli, "Paul Le Roux is Satoshi", Substack, 13 Dec 2022 (with Gregory Maxwell's rebuttal) — https://martinshkreli.substack.com/p/paul-le-roux-is-satoshi - [S59] CryptoSlate, 7 Apr 2025 (Murphy suit) — https://cryptoslate.com/crypto-attorney-sues-us-authorities-to-reveal-satoshi-nakamotos-identity

Time-zone, coin-movement and Wright-aftermath reporting (read, not saved) - [S60] CryptoVantage, "Did Satoshi Nakamoto live in London?" (date not confirmed; covers Chain Bulletin's analysis and rebuttals) — https://www.cryptovantage.com/news/did-satoshi-nakamoto-live-in-london-does-it-even-matter-to-bitcoin - [S61] nakamoto.be, "Satoshi, a European?" (undated) — https://www.nakamoto.be/post/location-information - [S62] Bitcointalk topic 5293099, "Satoshi Nakamoto Lived In London While Working On Bitcoin", 25 Nov 2020 — https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293099.0 - [S63] Hal Finney, "Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney)", Bitcointalk, 19 Mar 2013 — https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0 - [S64] The Block, 5 Jan 2024 (26.9 BTC sent to the genesis address) — https://www.theblock.co/news/ecosystems/2024-01-06-someone-sent-1-2-million-of-bitcoin-to-the-genesis-wallet-mined-by-satoshi-nakamoto-270748 - [S65] Jose Antonio Lanz, Decrypt, 8 Oct 2026 (100 BTC from 2010 moved) — https://decrypt.co/380514/satoshi-era-bitcoin-mined-2010-moves-16-years - [S66] Hokanews, 23 Sep 2026 (Bitquery reconstruction; low-reliability outlet) — https://www.hokanews.com/2026/09/satoshi-nakamotos-11-million-bitcoin.html - [S67] Phil Haunhorst (BeInCrypto, via Yahoo), 4 Sep 2026 (Liman film) — https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/craig-wright-satoshi-70-million-145002248.html - [S68] Yahoo (Decentralized Dog), 19 Dec 2024 (contempt sentence) — https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/craig-wright-dodges-two-jail-042152639.html - [S69] CryptoVert, 26 Jan 2024 (UK Supreme Court refusal, McCormack) — https://cryptovertapp.com/uk-supreme-court-refuses-craig-wright-appeal - [S70] Wei Dai, comment on LessWrong, 16 Feb 2011 — https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ijr8rsyvJci2edxot/making-money-with-bitcoin

Seen only as search-result headlines (not read) - [S71] AFP Fact Check, "Fabricated email suggesting Epstein is bitcoin inventor…" — https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.98PU6NW ; Snopes, "Did Epstein create Bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto? …" — https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

---

Spark run on this topic (pointer added by the completeness check, 2026-10-09)

The local Spark run 20261009-143633--who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-survey-every-serious-candidate-hal-f finished on 2026-10-09. Its findings are not merged into this note yet. Its CONTESTED and UNDOCUMENTED answers, the claims its verifier rejected or found only partly supported, the facts it dropped, and the pages it refused or skipped are all listed and flagged in RESEARCH-STATUS-2026-10-09.md § 6, as the editor asked (include everything the Spark rejects, labelled). It labels six candidates CONTESTED (Finney, Back, Dorian Nakamoto, Wright, Todd, Le Roux). Its errors spotted so far, such as "Cryptocurrency Open Platform Association" for COPA and "Liya Gudman" for Leah McGrath Goodman, are in § 6.1.