I've said before the Newsweek story makes no sense. In order to believe it, you need to think this guy hatched a brilliant plan to protect his identity (after 5 years of successfully doing so) by acting like a clueless old man and calling Bitcoin "bitcom." And simultaneously you have to believe, during the execution of his brilliant plan, he goofed and unambiguously confessed to his involvement in Bitcoin. >"I have n…
We are talking about the anonymous person behind Bitcoin. I would put absolutely NOTHING past the original architect. Honestly, I would expect nothing else.
You would expect the original architect to confess to being involved and then deny it hours later. Is there something about the original whitepaper that makes you think this person is mentally ill?