Disclosure of an inventor for Bitcoin is
spectacularly technically interesting!
I've been deploying continent-wide distributed industrial systems and writing, theorizing and producing prototypes for scalable digital money since before 2009 (when Bitcoin was "invented"). It was a gobsmacking breakthrough then -- and it has only gotten more interesting, as we discover the profound insights of its "inventor", by watching other nascent cryptocurrencies and other distributed systems make mistakes that Bitcoin's "inventor" somehow knew to avoid (UTXOs vs. account balances, I'm lookin' at you..., and that's the least of them).
For someone to ex nihilo solve byzantine fault tolerant global consensus w/ robust authority-free rejection of sybils? And then go dark for 15 years? Any non-trivial semi-reliable claim of identification (see: HBO's skin in the game) is automatically almost the most technically interesting claim this year!
So, for some religious (see: beliefs based in faith in a narrative rather than observation, hypothesis and testing) "expert" to "Flag" this post as uninteresting is pretty much the opposite of the credo of the HN of the decade past.
HN seems to have become the "mainstream media" of the technical world -- interested only in findings acceptable to righteously-aligned cultists, boring to everyone actually observing interesting and novel facts about the technical world.