Adam Back

I don't think so, no.

I mean, just because all of the people that have been identified have various reasons, believable reasons, is probably not them.

Well, I thought you might think I'm Satoshi, and I don't want that to be on the record, really.

Yeah, yeah.

But, you know, I was interested for you personally to understand that really, really, I'm not, you know.

Ultimately, it doesn't prove anything.

And I will reassure you, like, it's really not me.

It's not me, but, you know, I take what you're saying.

This is what the AI said with the data, but it's still not me.

Well, I have to say, I mean, because clearly I'm not Satoshi.

That's my position.

And it's true as well.

I mean, for what it's worth.

I mean, I'm not saying I'm good with words, but I sure did a lot of yakking on these lists, actually.

Of course.

Thanks for having me on.

No, I'm not.

I think, of course, it's a fascinating topic as to who this person would be, and all of the circumstantial evidence has been analyzed extensively by many researchers.

So effectively, I think what we're left with is sort of speculative analysis and, of course, looking at the historic writings, which John does an interesting job of in the article

I mean, I think there is some sort of inherent selection bias, if you like, in the sense that in looking at who might be Satoshi, they're going to look for people with overlapping interests.