People have suggested it's possible that the real Satoshi could have destroyed or not kept the original private key, or it belongs with one of the other, now deceased team members. Is there anything to gain by not admitting to it if this were the case?
Even if a message were to be signed with the original key, people suggest that it would still not be proof as it could have been stolen or extorted. It seems there is no way to prove anything at this point.
CSW's backing by "experts" suggests he is not an ordinary conman. Surprisingly, none of the experts have so far backed down on their support of CSW. Even GA's statement does not withdraw support, only expresses regret for posting support too soon. Also CSW's boldness to assume that the real Satoshi would not out him at this point makes it likely that he was involved with the Satoshi team and has some knowledge about his identity (deceased or otherwise). Or, he is gambling.
CSW's writing style in his blogs and elsewhere suggest it cannot be the same person as the author of the white paper, and yet I've heard another say that his academic papers contain a writing style close to the white paper (I have not verified myself).
All of this is obviously bizarre - the backdating of evidence, fraudulent cryptographic proof, etc. Either he severely underestimates his audience, or he wants to be be discredited.
There has been a suggestion that CSW wants to discredit himself to throw off extortionists (reported 6 months ago).
