[philsquared_]

Adam Back. Ever notice how anytime anyone mentions his name as possibly being satoshi they get buried? Not a coincidence. Plus Adam had no work history during the dates that Bitcoin was created. Had created the system that bitcoin is based on and never produced the emails of him and Satoshi that supposedly existed. Remember the first email from Satoshi mentions he got "your email from Adam Back". Google also manipulated the search engine results for "Satoshi is Adam Back" for years and basically censored the results for that query.. The list goes on. He is the most obvious candidate and likely the reason he was chosen to head core (I mean he literally wrote hash cash which is basically Bitcoin version 1)

[adastra22]

It is absolutely not Adam Back. The bitcoin protocol is not based on Adam Back's work (though Adam loves to claim otherwise). When Adam came to the bitcoin scene in 2013, he harbored some very large misconceptions about the incentive structure and capabilities of bitcoin.

[reducesuffering]

No. Satoshi IP leaked in LA when Back wasn’t there. Back’s stylometry is way off too. Those two should be enough for you to figure it out with some digging

[IncreasePosts]

I assume a person like Back is familiar enough with opsec that he could intentionally change his writing style, and also "accidentally" leak his IP, (via a VPN), when he is somewhere else in the world.

[thisconnect]

Adam is mentioned in the Bitcoin white paper. Would you he have done that if he was Satoshi?

[defrost]

Without taking a position either way on who Satoshi is; Yes, of course he would have.

Clearly 'Satoshi' intended from the outset to obfuscate their identity.

Given that axiom many behaviours become probable, including referencing a true identity (or three*) in the paper.

* Satoshi could, of course, be Yet Another Nicolas Bourbaki with a shared voting key of sorts; that's an easy explanation for relative silence over the years if a group cannot or will not reach consensus on action.