Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Circumstantial" does not mean "weak". Circumstantial evidence is often strong enough and compelling enough to determine court cases. Circumstantial evidence is often better than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence: Stuff like DNA, fingerprints Direct evidence: Bob's memory of the event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence But please, continue using "the evidence is circumstantial" as if it mea…
This is a really good point. Direct evidence of Satoshi's identity can only be in the form of someone claiming to be him, and that just wouldn't be credible. Circumstantial evidence is all we're going to get; even somebody spending Satoshi's BTC wouldn't be direct evidence since, as the article points out, someone else could have obtained (and be in the process of cracking) his hard drives.
You can say that about most evidence. Even the classic "smoking gun" metaphor is an example of circumstantial evidence.
It's just a way for people to dismiss a claim without actually having to argue against a claim. If the evidence is tenuous or weak, explain why.
For instance, the fact that Solotshi is similar to Satoshi. That's just dumb. If you're going to pick a pseudonym to hide your identity for the long term, you don't pick one that's just a variation of your name.
However, if every other piece of evidence was much better, then dude just picked a bad pseudonym.
And we also have to consider that a lot of weak signals can become a strong signal. Like the name thing is what I'd call an extremely weak signal. But if there's an overwhelming flood of such weak signals, then it starts looking much more likely.