We also have this gem:

> And Mr. Back’s thesis project focused on C++ — the same programming language Satoshi used to code the first version of the Bitcoin software.

Amazing! I bet they both for loops too! I heard Bitcoin relies heavily on for loops.

Infuriatingly, to people who don't know much about programming, these pieces of 'evidence' might sound quite compelling, because it will all sound equally obscure to them.

I'm only a quarter of the way through this piece, but I'm finding it very hard to take seriously.

It's strange. I'm sure that he talked to experts who would immediately say, yes many programming languages exist. But two cryptographers who wrote money systems both using C++ is not informative. Today maybe we could expect one to use Rust.

> I'm sure that he talked to experts

A NYTimes journalist? I wouldn't bet on it. The experts might be smelly nerds, they'd cramp his style.

Well .. you probably thought the same when John was unmasking Theranos

So what? We should give him eternal carte blanche because he did good reporting one time?

The leaps here would get one laughed out of an early 2k conspiracy forum.

Bob uses electricity provided from a coal power plant, therefore he must be able to design a Fission plant. Yeah, these are some massive leaps, the question of why, beyond morbid curiosity, one must dox Satoshi not withstanding. Satoshi or the wallets they controlled were never associated with anything beyond the creation of BTC after all, making the value of knowing who they are or were not really great in my view. If these coins suddenly started funding someone or something, there could be an argument, but this coupled with such a layperson approach makes me doubtful about the ethics or approach.