Grok 3 versus Perplexity Deep Research: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?

Sociological Imagination 28 Minutes

Using Deep Research on two different LLMs to find who is the creator of Bitcoin.

OpenAI released Deep Research on February 2nd only for Pro users. Since my plan is Plus, I don’t have access to it. Subscribing to the $200/month is costly right now for most users, so I decided to use the next best thing.

Perplexity made their Deep Research mode available for free, of course, the catch is that it is limited usage. Elon Musk recently released Grok 3 latest version of his AI available for the public (x users) for free for a limited time only to test it out. Both of these products have Deep Research mode and I decided to test them out with the request to find the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Now, I don’t expect neither of these LLMs to be correct since it will be pulling from online publicly available data. I have been a long user and tested ChatGPT for far too much, how it will comb the web, to know that it can gloss over important details when I request something, or want an answer to a general or nuanced question.

Only recently have I seen more improvements in ChatGPT when it gathers and answers a specific question regarding something I know too well such as Bernie Madoff, the infamous ponzi scheme fraudster. Often though, I have to steer it in the right direction or upload the relevant information myself. Once it claimed I was wrong, or speculating, in some way it was a speculative claim on my part, but the point was not farfetched because I could point to court documents and books on the matter that says otherwise. But that’s a story for another post.

The post here is about finding the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto using AI and see how far it could go in this test. This is a surface level test run. Not an in depth as I would normally go in a research myself or could push AI to do. Recently Jack Dorsey has become another name thrown out there as a potential suspect of the Bitcoin creator. But I have my doubts because Dorsey was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. And if memory serves, Satoshi Nakamoto’s emails, forums, and blockchain messages may hold clues of where they are from.

For example, the English spelling from his writings were distinct from American English spelling in where they may add a u to certain words like favour, instead of the American version of favor. Another clue is when Satoshi posted the The UK bank bailouts with great discontent, hinting this could potentially be somewhere near, thus disqualifies Dorsey as Satoshi (but not entirely). Although Jack Dorsey is of English, Irish, and Italian descent, his linguistical pattern may not reflect these regions. Yet I haven’t studied his stylistic writings (nor do I plan too) to make this claim official and rule him out. One could simply see and compare his tweets from the beginning or use a program to test the theory.

https://river.com/learn/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/

II. “Deep Research” Grok 3 (Beta).

// Started with basic questions first.

Me: Do you think Jack Dorsey is Satoshi Nakamoto?

Grok 3: The question of whether Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and Block, is Satoshi Nakamoto — the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin — has been a topic of speculation in some circles. Let’s break it down with what’s known and see where it leads.

Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin whitepaper in October 2008 and mined the genesis block in January 2009, then gradually faded from public interaction by 2011. Nakamoto’s identity remains unconfirmed, with candidates like Dorian Nakamoto, Hal Finney, and Nick Szabo floated over the years, none conclusively proven. The mystery persists because Satoshi used encryption, proxies, and careful anonymity to obscure their trail, leaving only writings and code as clues.

Jack Dorsey, born in 1976, was 32 when Bitcoin emerged. By 2008, he was deep into Twitter, which he co-founded in 2006, and was its CEO until 2008 when he stepped down to chairman. He’s since become a vocal Bitcoin advocate, integrating it into Block (formerly Square) and tweeting things like “#bitcoin” with a heart emoji. His interest is clear: he’s said Bitcoin could be the internet’s native currency, and Block’s TBD division works on decentralized finance. But does enthusiasm equal authorship?

Satoshi’s whitepaper and forum posts show a distinct style — technical, precise, with British English spellings (e.g., “favour”) and a libertarian bent. Dorsey’s public persona leans philosophical and minimalist — think bearded tech guru tweeting haikus — not the cypherpunk vibe of Satoshi’s writings. Dorsey was also busy scaling Twitter during Bitcoin’s birth, a startup grind that leaves little room for secretly inventing a world-changing cryptocurrency on the side.

The counterargument? Dorsey’s technical chops — he coded dispatch software before Twitter — and his later Bitcoin obsession could hint at a hidden past. Some conspiracy-minded folks point to his wealth and influence, suggesting he could’ve masked his involvement. But there’s no hard evidence: no cryptographic keys, no leaked emails, nothing tying him to Satoshi’s known outputs beyond speculation.

Compare this to other candidates. Hal Finney, a cryptography pioneer, interacted with Satoshi early and lived near Dorian Nakamoto (a coincidence?), making him a stronger fit. Nick Szabo’s work on “bit gold” prefigures Bitcoin’s ideas, and his writing style has been linguistically analyzed against Satoshi’s. Dorsey? No such overlap in code, writing, or timeline emerges.

Could I dig deeper? I could analyze Dorsey’s old tweets or Block’s Bitcoin projects for clues, but that’s a stretch without a specific lead. Web searches and X posts mostly recycle the same theories — no smoking gun. Satoshi’s stash of ~1 million BTC remains untouched; if Dorsey were Satoshi, you’d think Block’s moves might hint at that wealth or knowledge. They don’t.

So, do I think Jack Dorsey is Satoshi Nakamoto? Nah, probably not. It’s a fun thought — Twitter’s ex-king secretly birthing Bitcoin — but the dots don’t connect beyond surface-level “he likes Bitcoin a lot.” Satoshi feels more like a ghost from the cypherpunk underground, not a Silicon Valley poster boy. Still, the truth’s out there, and I’m happy to chase it if you’ve got a hunch to follow! What do you think?

Me: There’s been recent claims that he is. Check those claims and sort them out if they stand up. Then rate the likelihood that he is Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator 1–10.

Grok 3: Let’s dive into the recent claims suggesting Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and Block, might be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. These claims have bubbled up again in February 2025, fueled by posts on X and articles from crypto enthusiasts. I’ll sift through the evidence, assess its strength, and then rate the likelihood of Dorsey being Nakamoto on a 1–10 scale.

Recent Claims and Their Sources

The latest buzz kicked off around February 15–18, 2025, with two key figures driving the narrative: Seán Murray, editor-in-chief of deBanked, and Matthew Sigel, head of digital assets research at VanEck. Murray posted a detailed thread on X on February 15, laying out a case built on coincidences, timelines, and technical hints. Sigel amplified this on February 18, declaring his “strong belief” that Dorsey is Satoshi, citing “technical parallels, circumstantial links, patterns, and timing.”

Claim 1: Timeline Coincidences

Murray points to eerie date alignments:

  • First Bitcoin transaction: January 11, 2009, matches Dorsey’s mother’s birthday.
  • Last block mined by Satoshi: March 5, 2010, aligns with Dorsey’s father’s birthday.
  • Bitcoin forum registration: November 19, 2008, is Dorsey’s own birthday.
  • Satoshi’s final forum login: December 13, 2010, just before Twitter faced a WikiLeaks-related court order on December 14, when Dorsey was on the board.

Analysis: These are intriguing but shaky. Birthdays are common — millions share them — so the odds of overlap aren’t astronomical. The “last block mined” claim is disputed; BitMEX Research notes the “Patoshi pattern” (a signature in Satoshi’s mining) degrades over time, making it hard to pinpoint an exact end date. Satoshi’s forum activity also tapered off gradually, not abruptly, weakening the December 2010 tie to Dorsey’s Twitter duties. This is circumstantial at best, not causal.

Claim 2: Technical and Cryptographic Ties

Murray highlights Dorsey’s early cypherpunk leanings:

  • In 1996, as a student at the University of Missouri-Rolla, Dorsey was among ~1,300 cypherpunks, sporting an Adam Back RSA shirt (Back invented Hashcash, a precursor to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work).
  • Bitcoin’s source code timestamps at 4 a.m., a time Dorsey allegedly linked to in his Twitter bio.
  • A Bitcoin address with “jD2m” could hint at “Jack Dorsey 2 Mint,” referencing his San Francisco address at 2 Mint Plaza.

Analysis: Dorsey’s cypherpunk cred is real — he studied computer science and had an interest in cryptography. But wearing a shirt doesn’t make you a Bitcoin architect. The 4 a.m. timestamp is vague; time zones aren’t specified in the code, and Dorsey’s bio reference lacks a clear date or screenshot. The “jD2m” address is a stretch — vanity addresses can be brute-forced to mean anything, and “2 Mint” feels like a retrofitted guess. Satoshi’s code was written in C++, a skill Dorsey hasn’t demonstrably flexed at that level, given his focus on web development (e.g., Twitter’s Ruby roots).

Claim 3: Geographical Clues

  • In 2009, Satoshi logged into IRC, revealing a California IP, where Dorsey was based with Twitter.
  • A 2014 hack of Satoshi’s GMX email led to an extortion attempt citing St. Louis, Dorsey’s hometown.

Analysis: The IRC login aligns — Dorsey was in California — but so were millions, including other Satoshi candidates like Hal Finney. The St. Louis link is odd, but the hacker’s claim is unverified beyond Murray’s assertion, and St. Louis isn’t rare enough to be a smoking gun (population ~300,000). This is suggestive but not conclusive.

Claim 4: Behavioral and Ideological Overlap

  • Dorsey’s Bitcoin advocacy (e.g., Block’s integration, wearing a Satoshi shirt at the 2024 Super Bowl) and his 2001 manifesto about leaving a mark without a trace echo Satoshi’s anonymity.
  • Satoshi vanished in 2010–2011 as Dorsey ramped up with Twitter and Square.

Analysis: Dorsey’s Bitcoin love is undeniable, but it’s a leap to say fandom equals authorship. Many tech figures — Finney, Szabo — shared Satoshi’s libertarian streak and faded from view similarly. Dorsey’s cryptic 2020 denial to Lex Fridman (“No, and if I were, would I tell you?”) fuels speculation, but he’s also dismissed it outright elsewhere. Running Twitter and Square while secretly building Bitcoin in 2008–2010 seems logistically brutal, especially with no trace of Satoshi-like writings from Dorsey.

Claim 5: Motive and Silence

Sigel argues Dorsey had motive — disrupting finance — and his silence on these claims (as of February 20, 2025) is telling. Murray adds that Block’s funding of lawsuits against Craig Wright (a false Satoshi claimant) shows insider stakes.

Analysis: Motive fits many cypherpunks, not just Dorsey. Silence could mean indifference, not guilt — why dignify every theory? Block’s legal moves align with its Bitcoin focus, not a personal confession. Satoshi’s estimated 1.1 million BTC (~$100 billion today) remains untouched; if Dorsey were Satoshi, would Block’s modest 8,038 BTC stash make sense?

Sorting It Out: Do the Claims Stand Up?

The claims are a mix of clever pattern-matching and wishful thinking. The timeline coincidences are spooky but statistically plausible as noise. Technical ties rely on loose interpretations (e.g., “jD2m”), and geographical clues lack specificity. Dorsey’s profile fits a Bitcoin enthusiast, not necessarily its creator. Critically, there’s no hard proof — no private keys, no Satoshi emails from Dorsey’s accounts, no code overlap. Compare this to Hal Finney, who ran Bitcoin early and matched Satoshi’s style, or Nick Szabo, whose “bit gold” predated Bitcoin conceptually. Dorsey’s case leans on flair, not substance.

Posts on X reflect this split: some users (e.g.,@pushpendrajifan) hype the coincidences, while others (e.g.,@EliNagarBrr) call it “nonsense,” noting Satoshi’s cryptographic genius outstrips Dorsey’s web-dev resume. The crypto community’s skepticism — e.g., Jameson Lopp blasting Murray for endangering Dorsey — adds weight against it.

Likelihood Rating: 1–10

I’d rate Dorsey as Satoshi a 2/10. Here’s why:

  • Pros: Early crypto interest, ideological alignment, and a few odd coincidences give it a flicker of plausibility.
  • Cons: No direct evidence (keys, emails, code), weak technical fit, and a timeline strained by his Twitter grind. Other candidates have stronger cases.

It’s a fun theory — Dorsey as the bearded Bitcoin wizard — but it’s more detective fan fiction than fact. Satoshi’s ghost still roams free. What’s your take? Want me to dig into a specific angle?

// Deep Research.

Me: Do a deep research analysis in any format you se fit to check if the claims that Jack Dorsey is Satoshi Nakamoto holds true. Explain your methodology, and then give your conclusion. Rate 1–10 and reasons why of the likelihood he is the creator of bitcoin.

Grok 3:

Key Points

  • Jack Dorsey is unlikely to be Satoshi Nakamoto, with a likelihood rating of 2 out of 10.
  • Recent claims linking Dorsey to Nakamoto are based on coincidences like date alignments and technical ties, but they don’t hold up under scrutiny.
  • Dorsey’s public Bitcoin advocacy and technical background are notable, but there’s no concrete evidence tying him to Bitcoin’s creation.

Background on Satoshi Nakamoto and Jack Dorsey

Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, who published the white paper in October 2008 and was active until around 2010–2011. Jack Dorsey, born in 1976, co-founded X (formerly Twitter) in 2006 and Block (formerly Square) in 2009, and is known for his strong support of Bitcoin, integrating it into Block’s operations.

Analysis of Recent Claims

Recent claims, notably from Seán Murray and Matthew Sigel in February 2025, suggest Dorsey might be Nakamoto based on date coincidences, technical ties, and behavioral overlaps. However, a detailed analysis shows these claims are weak:

  • Date Coincidences: Claims like the first Bitcoin transaction on January 11, 2009, matching Dorsey’s mother’s birthday, and the last block mined by Satoshi on March 5, 2010, aligning with his father’s birthday, are unverified and statistically plausible as random overlaps.
  • Technical Ties: Alleged connections, such as a Bitcoin address with “jD2m” hinting at Dorsey’s address, lack evidence, and source code timestamps at 4 a.m. don’t align with Dorsey’s known routine (he wakes at 5 a.m.).
  • Behavioral Overlaps: Dorsey’s Bitcoin advocacy and cypherpunk interest are notable, but his focus on X and Square during Bitcoin’s early years makes secret creation unlikely.

Likelihood Rating and Reasoning

Given the lack of hard evidence — no cryptographic keys, emails, or code overlap — and the implausibility of Dorsey managing both X’s growth and Bitcoin’s creation simultaneously, the likelihood he is Nakamoto is rated at 2 out of 10. This low rating reflects the speculative nature of the claims and stronger candidates like Hal Finney or Nick Szabo.

Detailed Survey Note: Investigating Claims Linking Jack Dorsey to Satoshi Nakamoto

This survey note examines recent claims suggesting Jack Dorsey, co-founder of X and CEO of Block, is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. The analysis evaluates the evidence, methodology, and likelihood, providing a comprehensive breakdown for researchers and enthusiasts.

Methodology

The investigation involved a systematic review of recent claims, primarily from X posts and articles by Seán Murray (editor-in-chief of deBanked) and Matthew Sigel (head of digital assets research at VanEck), dated February 15–18, 2025. The methodology included:

  • Web searches for recent claims and supporting evidence, using queries like “recent claims that Jack Dorsey is Satoshi Nakamoto” and specific date verifications.
  • Verification of dates: Cross-referencing Bitcoin events (e.g., first transaction, last block mined by Satoshi) with Dorsey’s personal milestones (birthdays, family dates).
  • Technical analysis: Examining Bitcoin source code timestamps and alleged address patterns like “jD2m”.
  • Historical context: Assessing Dorsey’s activities during 2008–2010, when Bitcoin was created, against Satoshi’s timeline.

Data was sourced from reputable platforms, including X posts, Bitcoin Wiki, and blockchain explorers, with URLs embedded for transparency.

Background Context

Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin white paper on October 31, 2008, mined the Genesis block on January 3, 2009, and faded from public view by 2011, leaving an estimated 1.1 million BTC untouched. Jack Dorsey, born November 19, 1976, was deeply involved with X as CEO until 2008, then chairman, and co-founded Block in 2009, becoming a vocal Bitcoin advocate (Bitcoin Core).

Detailed Claim Analysis

The claims are categorized into timeline coincidences, technical ties, geographical clues, behavioral overlaps, and motive, with each assessed for validity.

Timeline Coincidences

  • Claim: First Bitcoin transaction (January 11, 2009) matches Dorsey’s mother’s birthday; last block mined by Satoshi (March 5, 2010) aligns with his father’s birthday; Bitcoin forum registration (November 19, 2008) is Dorsey’s birthday; final forum login (December 13, 2010) precedes a WikiLeaks-related X court order on December 14, 2010.
  • Analysis:
  • Dorsey’s birthday (November 19, 1976) aligns with forum registration, confirmed via Jack Dorsey Biography.
  • Parent birthdays lack verifiable sources; claims rely on unconfirmed assertions. The last block mined by Satoshi, per the “Patoshi pattern,” was around block 54326 (January 4, 2010), not March 5, 2010 (Bitcoin Wiki 2010).
  • Final forum login claimed as December 13, 2010, but last post was December 12, 2010 (Satoshi Nakamoto Final Post).
  • X court order on December 14, 2010, confirmed, and Dorsey was on the board (WikiLeaks Twitter Court Orders), but the timing is coincidental, not causal.

Technical and Cryptographic Ties

  • Claim: Dorsey’s cypherpunk background (1996, wearing Adam Back RSA shirt) and Bitcoin source code timestamp at 4 a.m. relate to his routine; a “jD2m” address hints at “Jack Dorsey 2 Mint,” his San Francisco address.
  • Analysis:
  • Dorsey’s cypherpunk involvement confirmed via yearbook mentions (Brave New Coin), but common among early crypto enthusiasts.
  • Source code timestamp at 4 a.m. lacks evidence; Genesis block timestamp is January 3, 2009, 18:15:05 UTC (1:15:05 p.m. EST, 10:15:05 a.m. PST), not 4 a.m. (Genesis Block). Dorsey wakes at 5 a.m., per Jack Dorsey Daily Routine.
  • “jD2m” address not found in blockchain explorers (Blockchain Explorer); likely speculative, with no verified link to Dorsey.

Geographical Clues

  • Claim: Satoshi’s 2009 IRC login from California IP (Dorsey based in San Francisco); 2014 GMX email hack extortion attempt citing St. Louis (Dorsey’s hometown).
  • Analysis:
  • California IP aligns with many candidates, including Hal Finney (Satoshi Nakamoto Wikipedia). St. Louis mention unverified, from Murray’s X post, lacking source (Cointelegraph).

Behavioral and Ideological Overlap

  • Claim: Dorsey’s Bitcoin advocacy (e.g., Block integration, wearing Satoshi shirt at 2024 Super Bowl) and 2001 manifesto echo Nakamoto’s anonymity; Satoshi vanished 2010–2011 as Dorsey ramped up X and Square.
  • Analysis:
  • Advocacy confirmed via X posts and Block’s TBD division (Bitcoinist), but common among tech leaders. Manifesto aligns with libertarian views, shared by many cypherpunks.
  • Timeline overlap noted, but Dorsey’s X and Square commitments (e.g., CEO until 2008, chairman) suggest limited capacity for secret Bitcoin creation (Jack Dorsey Wikipedia).

Motive and Silence

  • Claim: Dorsey had motive to disrupt finance; silence on claims and Block’s funding of lawsuits against Craig Wright (false Nakamoto claimant) suggest insider stakes.
  • Analysis:
  • Motive fits many, including Finney and Szabo. Silence could indicate indifference, not guilt (VanEck’s Matthew Sigel). Block’s legal moves align with industry stance, not personal confession (Decrypt).

Comparative Analysis

Other candidates like Hal Finney (early adopter, lived near Dorian Nakamoto) and Nick Szabo (“bit gold” precursor) have stronger technical and timeline fits. Dorsey’s web development focus contrasts with Bitcoin’s C++ cryptography needs (Bitcoin Stack Exchange).

Likelihood Rating

Based on the analysis, the likelihood Dorsey is Nakamoto is rated 2 out of 10, reflecting:

  • Weak, circumstantial evidence (coincidences, advocacy).
  • No hard proof (keys, emails, code).
  • Implausible timeline given X and Square commitments.

This rating aligns with community skepticism, e.g., Jameson Lopp’s criticism of Murray’s claims (CoinCentral).

Conclusion

The claims linking Jack Dorsey to Satoshi Nakamoto are speculative, relying on coincidences and weak technical ties that don’t withstand scrutiny. Given Dorsey’s public profile and focus on X and Block, it’s highly unlikely he is Nakamoto, with a likelihood rating of 2 out of 10.

// 2nd attempt.

Me: Do a deep research analysis in any format you see fit to find who best fits the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. In other words, who is Satoshi Nakamoto. Explain your methodology, cites your sources, cross reference them, and then end with a conclusion. Rate 1–10 and reasons who is the most likely candidate to who is creator of bitcoin.

Grok 3:

Key Points

  • Hal Finney is the most likely candidate to be Satoshi Nakamoto, with a likelihood rating of 7 out of 10.
  • He was the first to receive a Bitcoin transaction and had a similar writing style to Satoshi.
  • Despite denials and health challenges, his deep involvement in Bitcoin’s early days makes him a strong fit.

Who is Most Likely Satoshi Nakamoto?

After analyzing various candidates, Hal Finney stands out as the most likely person to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. Hal Finney was a pioneering cryptographer who received the first Bitcoin transaction from Satoshi in January 2009 and was actively involved in Bitcoin’s early development. His location in California matches the IP address associated with Satoshi, and linguistic analysis shows his writing style closely resembles Satoshi’s. Despite his denial and battling ALS from August 2009, his technical expertise and early contributions make him a top candidate.

Rating and Reasons

I rate the likelihood that Hal Finney is Satoshi Nakamoto at 7 out of 10. This rating reflects:

  • His direct involvement, including receiving the first Bitcoin transaction, suggesting a possible self-test.
  • Matching location and writing style analysis supporting his candidacy.
  • Doubts arise from his health condition and public denial, but these don’t fully rule him out given the need for anonymity.

Surprising Detail: Health Challenge

It’s surprising that Hal Finney, diagnosed with ALS in 2009, could have continued as Satoshi given the disease’s impact, yet he remained active in Bitcoin discussions, showing resilience that aligns with Satoshi’s dedication until 2010–2011.

Investigating the Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto: A Comprehensive Analysis

This report examines the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, focusing on identifying the most likely candidate through a detailed analysis of historical, technical, and circumstantial evidence. The investigation evaluates prominent candidates, cross-references sources, and concludes with a likelihood rating.

Background and Methodology

Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the individual or group who developed Bitcoin, authored its white paper in October 2008, and launched the network in January 2009, remaining active until December 2010. The true identity remains unknown, with speculation focusing on cryptography and computer science experts, primarily from the U.S. or Europe, despite the Japanese-sounding name. The methodology involved:

  • Web searches for candidate profiles, activities, and community opinions, using queries like “Hal Finney Satoshi Nakamoto” and “Nick Szabo activities 2008–2010”.
  • Timeline analysis to align candidates’ activities with Bitcoin’s development.
  • Linguistic and technical analysis to compare writing styles and coding capabilities.
  • Cross-referencing sources from Wikipedia, Bitcoin forums, and news articles to ensure accuracy.

Data was sourced from reputable platforms, including Wikipedia, Bitcoin Stack Exchange, and news outlets like Forbes and Cointelegraph, with URLs embedded for transparency.

Candidate Profiles and Analysis

Several individuals have been speculated as Satoshi Nakamoto. The following table summarizes the top candidates, their credentials, and evidence linking them to Satoshi:

Hal Finney: Detailed Analysis

Hal Finney (May 4, 1956 — August 28, 2014) was a software developer and early Bitcoin contributor, receiving the first Bitcoin transaction on January 12, 2009, from Satoshi Nakamoto (Hal Finney Wikipedia). He lived in California, matching the IP address traced to Satoshi’s IRC login in 2009 (Forbes Article on Hal Finney). Linguistic analysis by Juola & Associates found his writing style closest to Satoshi’s among candidates (Satoshi Nakamoto Wikipedia). However, he denied being Satoshi in interviews, and was diagnosed with ALS in August 2009, which progressed to paralysis by 2014 (Bitcoin’s Earliest Adopter Is Cryonically Freezing His Body to See the Future | WIRED). Despite this, he continued programming and Bitcoin discussions, suggesting possible capacity to be Satoshi until 2010–2011.

Nick Szabo: Detailed Analysis

Nick Szabo, a computer scientist and legal scholar, is known for “bit gold,” a precursor to Bitcoin, and smart contracts (Nick Szabo Wikipedia). His writing style was analyzed by Aston University’s forensic linguistics center, showing similarities to Satoshi’s white paper (Nick Szabo, the Man behind the Smart Contracts — Brickken). However, he denied being Satoshi in a 2014 email, and his blog posts from 2008–2010 show no mention of Bitcoin during its rise, only resuming crypto discussions post-2010 (Who is Nick Szabo ? — Cointribune). This silence during Bitcoin’s early activity weakens his case.

Other Candidates: Brief Overview

Community and Speculative Theories

The crypto community has mixed views on Satoshi’s identity, with some believing it’s crucial for historical reasons, while others value anonymity for Bitcoin’s ethos (Why Satoshi Nakamoto’s Identity Matters). Speculation includes Satoshi being a group, with Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, and Adam Back mentioned, but no evidence supports this (Satoshi Nakamoto — Wikipedia). Writing style analysis and code reviews suggest a single author, reinforcing the individual theory (Can We Uncover the Identity of Satoshi through Stylometry Analysis?).

Conclusion and Likelihood Rating

After evaluating evidence, Hal Finney emerges as the most likely candidate due to his direct involvement, location match, and writing style similarity. The likelihood rating is 7 out of 10, reflecting strong circumstantial evidence but tempered by his denial and health challenges. Nick Szabo is a close second, but his lack of Bitcoin mention during 2008–2010 and denial reduce his likelihood. Other candidates lack sufficient evidence, making Hal Finney the best fit based on current data.

// Several citations. Will not copy and paste here.

III. Perplexity Deep Research.

// Now Perplexity AI Deep Research.

Me: Do a deep research analysis in any format you see fit to find who best fits the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. In other words, who is Satoshi Nakamoto. Explain your methodology, cites your sources, cross reference them, and then end with a conclusion. Rate 1–10 and reasons who is the most likely candidate to who is creator of bitcoin.

// 26 sources.

Perplexity:

The Enigma of Satoshi Nakamoto: A Comprehensive Analysis of Potential Candidates

The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, remains one of the most enduring mysteries in the realm of technology and finance. Since the publication of the Bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 and the launch of the Bitcoin network in 2009, speculation about Nakamoto’s true identity has persisted, with numerous individuals proposed as potential candidates. This report synthesizes evidence from technical analyses, linguistic studies, and circumstantial timelines to evaluate the most plausible candidates, ultimately concluding that Nick Szabo emerges as the most likely individual behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.

Methodology for Identifying Satoshi Nakamoto

To systematically evaluate potential candidates, this analysis employs a multi-faceted methodology:

  1. Technical Expertise: Assessing the candidate’s background in cryptography, computer science, and decentralized systems.
  2. Linguistic Analysis: Comparing writing styles and terminologies used in the Bitcoin whitepaper to the candidate’s known publications.
  3. Chronological Consistency: Verifying whether the candidate’s activities align with key milestones in Bitcoin’s development.
  4. Ideological Alignment: Evaluating the candidate’s philosophical views, particularly regarding decentralization and financial sovereignty.
  5. Circumstantial Evidence: Reviewing public statements, interviews, and behavioral patterns that might link the candidate to Bitcoin’s creation.

This framework ensures a holistic evaluation of each candidate, minimizing reliance on speculative claims.

Key Candidates and Their Cases

1. Nick Szabo

Background and Expertise

Nick Szabo, a computer scientist and legal scholar, is widely recognized for his pioneering work on BitGold, a decentralized digital currency proposed in 1998. BitGold introduced concepts such as proof-of-work and cryptographic security, which became foundational to Bitcoin’s design25. Szabo’s academic background — a blend of computer science and law — equipped him with the unique ability to navigate both the technical and regulatory challenges inherent in creating a decentralized currency2.

Linguistic Evidence

In 2014, a linguistic analysis conducted by Aston University’s Centre for Forensic Linguistics compared the Bitcoin whitepaper to writings from 11 potential candidates. The study concluded that Szabo’s writing style exhibited striking similarities to Nakamoto’s, particularly in syntax, vocabulary, and technical phrasing25. For instance, both authors frequently used phrases like “chain of signatures” and “trusted third parties,” which were uncommon in contemporaneous cryptographic literature.

Behavioral and Circumstantial Clues

  • BitGold and Bitcoin: Despite conceptual overlaps, Szabo never referenced Bitcoin in his writings after 2008, a departure from his usual practice of commenting on cryptographic innovations2.
  • Freudian Slip: During a 2017 interview on the Tim Ferriss Show, Szabo mistakenly stated, “I designed Bitcoin with two layers,” before correcting himself to “BitGold”25. This slip, while inconclusive, aligns with psychological theories of unintentional self-revelation.
  • Anonymity Patterns: Szabo’s decision to backdate a 2005 blog post about BitGold to 1998 — a move perceived as obfuscation — coincided with Bitcoin’s emergence in 20082.

Counterarguments

Szabo has consistently denied being Satoshi Nakamoto. Critics argue that linguistic similarities alone cannot confirm authorship, and Szabo’s reluctance to claim credit may stem from a desire to avoid legal or public scrutiny24.

Probability Rating: 9/10

2. Hal Finney

Background and Expertise

Hal Finney, a renowned cryptographer and early Bitcoin contributor, was the first person to run the Bitcoin software and receive a transaction from Nakamoto. His work on Reusable Proofs of Work (RPOW) laid groundwork for Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism36.

Chronological Inconsistencies

  • Race Timing: On April 18, 2009, Finney participated in a 10-mile race in Santa Barbara, California, during which Satoshi Nakamoto exchanged emails with developer Mike Hearn and executed Bitcoin transactions. Timestamps show Satoshi’s activity overlapped with Finney’s race, making simultaneous participation implausible36.
  • Health Limitations: By August 2010, Finney’s battle with ALS had severely impaired his motor skills, reducing his typing speed to a “sluggish finger peck.” Yet, Satoshi remained highly active during this period, committing code and engaging in forum discussions36.

Counterarguments

Proponents of the Finney theory suggest he could have pre-scripted emails or collaborated with others. However, forensic analysis of Bitcoin’s codebase reveals a unified coding style, suggesting a single author rather than a team3.

Probability Rating: 3/10

3. Craig Wright

Background and Claims

Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist, publicly declared himself Satoshi Nakamoto in 2016. His claims were bolstered by alleged cryptographic proofs, which were later debunked as forgeries4.

Legal and Technical Rejection

In March 2024, a UK court ruled against Wright in a case brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), concluding that he had fabricated evidence to support his claims. Technical experts noted discrepancies between Wright’s coding abilities and Bitcoin’s original implementation4.

Probability Rating: 1/10

4. Other Candidates

  • Dorian Nakamoto: A Japanese-American engineer mistakenly identified as Satoshi in 2014. He denied involvement and lacked technical expertise in cryptography4.
  • Adam Back: A cryptographer and CEO of Blockstream, Back’s work on Hashcash inspired Bitcoin’s proof-of-work. However, no direct evidence links him to Nakamoto’s activities4.
  • Len Sassaman: A privacy-focused cryptographer whose ideals aligned with Bitcoin’s ethos. His 2011 death precluded definitive analysis4.

Conclusion: Nick Szabo as the Most Plausible Satoshi Nakamoto

Based on the cumulative evidence — technical precedent (BitGold), linguistic congruity, and circumstantial behavioral patterns — Nick Szabo emerges as the individual most likely to have operated under the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym. While definitive proof remains elusive, the preponderance of evidence positions Szabo as the prime candidate.

Hal Finney, while instrumental in Bitcoin’s early development, is effectively ruled out by chronological and health-related inconsistencies. Craig Wright’s claims, meanwhile, have been thoroughly discredited. The enduring mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto ultimately reinforces Bitcoin’s foundational ethos: a system governed not by individuals, but by decentralized consensus.

Final Candidate Ratings:

  1. Nick Szabo: 9/10
  2. Hal Finney: 3/10
  3. Craig Wright: 1/10

The search for Satoshi Nakamoto continues, but the evidence tilts decisively toward Szabo — a visionary whose work on digital currency laid the groundwork for a financial revolution.

Results:

Grok 3: Hal Finney 7/10.

Perplexity: Nick Szabo: 9/10.

Conclusion

I have my doubts on Deep Research for the moment as a viable and useful tool (for some things) because it mostly surfs or cites surface level searches that one can find easily and it may struggle getting into the details of things as much with so much data overload. The quality of the output diminishes for all LLMs as it struggles with long context for now.

I’ll admit that I don’t care deeply enough to discover the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and a more qualified person who has done deep research in this domain may have more favorable results with better questions and follow up questions to ask. Yet, at the same time I am curious who it may be but not hellbent in trying to figure it out.

I once watched the Nick Szabo (9/10 by Perplexity) video in which there was a fruedian slip as one of the LLMs pointed out and that made me very suspicious if he was Satoshi. But I was unsure. Craig Wright I could tell early on from the jump he was a fraud and not Satoshi after watching some interviews. He was way too out there for my liking, and not in the same spirit of an anynomous Satoshi. I was suprised Grok gave Hall Finey got a 7/10. He is a likely canditate, although he sadly passed away. He seems highly likely in my opinion too.

Finally, I will continue to test Deep Research if it is free or if it becomes available for Plus users on ChatGPT like myself to see what it’s best use-cases and what to avoid doing. It may require creative prompt engineering or chain of thought to maximize its potential, and it is usually dependent on the context of what you are looking to get out of it.

Bonus:

// Asking ChatGPT 4o.

Me: If you were tasked to uncover the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin creator, how would you proceed in this difficult investigation? Give your step-by-step guide or methodology, think like a investigative reporter, detective, private investigator, to ensure you will find the truth.

ChatGPT:

<contemplator> Alright, let’s break this down. Investigating the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the greatest cryptographic, technological, and journalistic mysteries of our time. The challenge lies in the anonymity Satoshi has deliberately maintained, the sophisticated opsec (operational security) measures used, and the disinformation that has surrounded this case for over a decade.

Step 1: Define the Scope and Constraints

  • Satoshi’s identity must be determined through evidence, not speculation.
  • Since Bitcoin’s whitepaper was released in 2008, relevant evidence should focus on activity before, during, and shortly after that time.
  • Any claims (such as Craig Wright’s) should be scrutinized against verifiable cryptographic proof (signing with Satoshi’s keys).
  • Legal and ethical lines should not be crossed — doxxing someone falsely could have major consequences.

Step 2: Gather Existing Public Data

2.1 Bitcoin Whitepaper & Forum Posts

  • The first step is to analyze all writings attributed to Satoshi, including:
  • The Bitcoin whitepaper (October 2008)
  • All Bitcointalk.org forum posts (2009–2010)
  • Emails exchanged with early Bitcoin developers
  • Source code comments in early Bitcoin versions

This helps establish Satoshi’s writing style, vocabulary, syntax, and technical background.

2.2 Linguistic and Stylistic Analysis

  • Run stylometric analysis to compare Satoshi’s writings to known individuals.
  • Key factors:
  • Use of British vs. American English spelling
  • Formal vs. informal tone
  • Repeated phrases or signature expressions
  • Compare against notable cryptographers, academics, and programmers.

2.3 Code Analysis

  • Early Bitcoin code is unique — Satoshi was an expert programmer but also showed quirks.
  • Comparing Satoshi’s coding style (indentation, commenting habits, variable naming) to known programmers could provide a match.

Step 3: Investigate Key Suspects

Several individuals have been suspected, but we need a rigorous approach:

3.1 Nick Szabo

  • A cryptographer with prior experience in decentralized money (Bit Gold).
  • Early writings resemble Satoshi’s.
  • Denies being Satoshi but has refused to sign cryptographic proof.

3.2 Hal Finney

  • First person to receive a Bitcoin transaction from Satoshi.
  • Extremely skilled cryptographer, worked on PGP encryption.
  • Health deteriorated due to ALS in later years (passed away in 2014).
  • Possible he was part of a team or assisted Satoshi.

3.3 Adam Back

  • Created Hashcash, which inspired Bitcoin’s proof-of-work.
  • Mentioned in the whitepaper.
  • British spelling suggests he might fit.

3.4 Wei Dai

  • Created b-money, another Bitcoin predecessor.
  • A strong candidate, though he has denied involvement.

3.5 Dorian Nakamoto

  • A retired Japanese-American engineer falsely accused by Newsweek.
  • Denied involvement, little technical evidence supports the claim.

3.6 Others

  • Paul Le Roux (cybercriminal, cryptography expert)
  • Len Sassaman (deceased cryptographer, privacy advocate)
  • Possible government agencies or intelligence groups?

Step 4: Track Digital Footprints

Since Satoshi used anonymous emails and PGP keys, we should:

4.1 Analyze IP Metadata

  • Satoshi used Tor and VPNs, but there may be logs from early communications.
  • If any IP leaks occurred, it could reveal a location.

4.2 Timezone Analysis

  • Posts and commits show activity patterns.
  • Analyzed patterns suggest a time zone around the UK or East Coast US.

4.3 Email and Domain Registrations

  • Did Satoshi register Bitcoin.org using a traceable email?
  • Early domain registrations could point to an individual.

Step 5: Financial Clues

  • Satoshi owns 1 million BTC, yet never spent them.
  • Tracking these funds for movement could reveal identity.

Step 6: Social Engineering and Testimonies

  • Interview early Bitcoin developers (Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn) for hints.
  • If Satoshi worked at a university or company, former colleagues might know.

Step 7: Cryptographic Proof

  • If a suspect claims to be Satoshi, demand proof via:
  • Signing a message with the Genesis Block private key.
  • Moving any of Satoshi’s untouched coins.

Final Step: Triangulate the Evidence

  • Writing style + Coding fingerprints + Digital footprint + Financial links + Testimonies = High-confidence conclusion.
  • If multiple pieces of evidence point to the same person, the case is closed.

Final Answer

If forced to pick, I’d say Nick Szabo is the most likely candidate. His writings, technical background, and cryptographic knowledge fit. However, without cryptographic proof, we can never be 100% sure.

// A custom GPT from some a user on Reddit. Same question:

🔍 Investigative Methodology to Uncover the Identity of Satoshi Nakamoto

If tasked with uncovering the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, I would implement a multi-layered, forensic, and intelligence-driven approach, integrating OSINT (Open Source Intelligence), linguistic analysis, blockchain forensics, and deep investigative techniques. Below is a step-by-step methodology to systematically narrow down the most likely candidate(s) while maintaining ethical and legal integrity.

PHASE 1: INTELLIGENCE GATHERING & BASELINE ANALYSIS

Goal: Establish a foundational dataset by collecting all publicly available records, statements, and technical footprints related to Satoshi Nakamoto.

1. Gather & Analyze Primary Source Documents

🔹 Collect all known writings, forum posts, emails, and Bitcoin whitepaper versions attributed to Satoshi.
🔹 Scrape historical records from BitcoinTalk, P2P Foundation, and early Bitcoin mailing lists.
🔹 Archive all GitHub contributions, commits, and edits related to Bitcoin’s early development.

2. Linguistic & Stylistic Analysis (Stylometry)

🔹 Apply AI-driven stylometric analysis on Satoshi’s writings to detect unique word choices, sentence structures, and writing habits.
🔹 Compare with early Cypherpunk, cryptography, and digital cash researchers’ writings to find statistical matches.
🔹 Look for British vs. American English usage, timezone patterns, and distinct phrasing anomalies.

3. Metadata & Timestamps Analysis

🔹 Examine timestamps on Bitcoin whitepaper drafts, forum posts, and code commits.
🔹 Cross-reference these timestamps with global time zones to narrow down Satoshi’s likely location & active working hours.
🔹 Identify unusual file encoding formats, metadata remnants, or unique software environments used in Bitcoin’s initial documentation.

PHASE 2: BLOCKCHAIN & TECHNICAL FORENSICS

Goal: Trace Bitcoin transactions linked to Satoshi’s early mining activity and possible financial movements.

4. Blockchain Analysis & Early Miner Tracking

🔹 Analyze early Bitcoin block rewards (pre-2010) attributed to the Patoshi Pattern, a distinct mining pattern believed to be linked to Satoshi.
🔹 Identify wallets holding unspent early BTC rewards and monitor for any movement or attempted obfuscation via mixing services or privacy coins.
🔹 Cross-analyze on-chain activity with known public keys, exchange interactions, and possible third-party transactions.

5. Network & Communication Traces

🔹 Use Packet Capture (PCAP) & IP Analysis to investigate archived Bitcoin-related communication logs.
🔹 Identify any leaked IP addresses from early email headers, forum posts, or node interactions in Bitcoin’s early network topology.
🔹 Analyze email headers from Satoshi’s known communications to extract hidden routing data.

PHASE 3: SUSPECT PROFILING & CROSS-REFERENCE DATABASE

Goal: Build a shortlist of potential candidates and systematically eliminate improbable ones.

6. Identifying Key Suspects Based on Expertise & Historical Context

🔹 Cross-reference Satoshi’s technical knowledge with known experts in cryptography, computer science, and digital currency prior to 2009.
🔹 Evaluate academic papers, patents, and technical reports in cryptography, P2P networking, and distributed computing from 1990–2010.
🔹 Identify individuals with past connections to the Cypherpunk movement, Wei Dai’s b-money, Adam Back’s Hashcash, or Hal Finney’s work on RPOW.

7. Behavioral & Motivational Profiling

🔹 Use forensic psychology to assess the likelihood of different suspects fitting Satoshi’s personality profile.
🔹 Consider motive, anonymity preferences, historical statements about Bitcoin, and alignment with Cypherpunk ideology.
🔹 Eliminate individuals with public denials that hold up under scrutiny (e.g., Hal Finney had ALS, Nick Szabo’s public work, etc.).

PHASE 4: ELIMINATION, CONFIRMATION & VALIDATION

Goal: Corroborate findings and attempt to verify a definitive identity.

8. Evaluating Key Outliers & Red Herrings

🔹 Identify known false claims (Craig Wright, Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux, etc.) and eliminate distractions.
🔹 Compare candidate activity before and after Satoshi’s disappearance in 2011.

9. Attempting Direct Contact or Confirmation

🔹 If a strong lead is found, subtly attempt indirect confirmation through technical means (e.g., requesting a cryptographic signature from Satoshi’s original PGP key or dormant wallets).
🔹 Monitor for any activity related to Satoshi’s known accounts, keys, or interactions.

PHASE 5: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS & DECISION POINT

🔹 Risk Assessment: Weigh the ethical and legal consequences of revealing such information.
🔹 Evaluate Impact: Consider whether publicizing the identity could cause harm to Bitcoin, financial markets, or personal safety.
🔹 Final Decision: If evidence is conclusive, assess whether it should be shared responsibly or remain undisclosed.

FINAL THOUGHTS

This multi-pronged, evidence-driven methodology ensures a systematic, thorough, and ethical investigation into Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity while leveraging advanced forensic, blockchain, and linguistic techniques.

Would you like me to apply any of these methods to existing data for an analytical breakdown? 🚀

The End.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Social Scholarly

A truth seeker first and foremost. I'm not afraid to plunge down the rabbit hole and I'm curious of everything. Knowledge gives you power, and with that power you must use it wisely. Reading, thinking, and writing is how I exercise my mind. "Keep your heart warm, eyes sharp, brain keen, and mind open."

Published

Leave a comment