A New York Times reporter claims he’s cracked one of tech’s biggest mysteries by unearthing the real identity of Bitcoin’s elusive founder Satoshi Nakamoto — but the man he fingered flatly denies it.
Times journo John Carreyrou on Wednesday named Adam Back, a 55-year-old British computer scientist and cryptographer, as the real Nakamoto, prompting Back to renew his denials that that’s the case.
“i’m not satoshi, but I was early in laser focus on the positive societal implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic cash,” Back wrote on X, replying to Carreyrou’s claim.
Carreyrou, the former Wall Street Journal reporter who first exposed the Theranos scandal, wrote that he spent more than a year combing through thousands of archived emails, forum posts and early internet records in an effort to identify Nakamoto.
He wrote that emails and posts attributed to Nakamoto used British expressions and spellings — a pattern that suggested a UK-based author like Back.
Carreyrou pointed to a series of other clues linking Back to the Bitcoin creator, including his invention of Hashcash, a precursor cited in the original Bitcoin white paper.
The Times reporter also cited similarities in writing style, technical language and even grammar quirks common to Back and Nakamoto, along with the cryptographer’s silence when Bitcoin first launched and his emergence in the community after Nakamoto apparently disappeared.
Carreyrou used artificial intelligence tools to analyze writing patterns and linguistic quirks in Nakamoto’s posts, though he stressed the findings were not definitive and relied on broader circumstantial evidence.
On social media, however, Carreyrou took a far more confident tone, declaring that the “mystery” of Nakamoto was “not anymore” unsolved and promoting his reporting as having identified Bitcoin’s creator, even teasing that the figure was a 55-year-old British man — signaling a level of certainty that went beyond the more measured case laid out in his article.
Carreyrou’s theory draws in part on evidence that surfaced during a legal fight involving Craig Wright, who falsely claimed to be Bitcoin’s creator.
Materials from that case included 2008 emails showing Nakamoto reaching out to Back ahead of the white paper’s release — correspondence long viewed as evidence that Back was not behind the pseudonym.
But Carreyrou argued the exchange could be misleading, suggesting Back may have authored both sides of the emails to create distance from the Satoshi identity — a contention Back rejects, maintaining the messages are legitimate and that he had no role in creating Bitcoin.
He pointed to his long history in the “cypherpunk” movement, writing on X that his “1992 onwards active interest in applied research on ecash, privacy tech on cypherpunks list … led to hashcash and other ideas.”
Back also dismissed the purported writing similarities, saying: “the rest is a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests.”
He argued the findings reflect “confirmation bias,” writing that because he was active in early digital cash discussions, “there’s some confirmation bias in finding my comments frequently on ecash topics.”
Back further insisted he is not Bitcoin’s creator, adding: “I also don’t know who satoshi is, and I think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case.”
Back repeatedly pushed back on the claim in interviews with the Times, insisting “it’s really not me,” while dismissing the evidence as inconclusive and chalking up the apparent links to coincidence.
Carreyrou remained skeptical of Back’s repeated denials, writing that the cryptographer’s explanations often fell short and his reactions at times appeared “defensive.”
The reporter noted that Back conceded he had the right background and skills to be Bitcoin’s creator and even acknowledged inconsistencies in key emails — but denied any deception, including the idea that he sent messages to himself.
