Personally, I believe Len Sassaman is the likely candidate for Satoshi. I know the "evidence" is largely circumstantial and coincidental timing... but when you take it all in it's a bit much.
I've thought about it, but he could have felt that way about the illegal side of it and things going on... plus there's nothing anonymous about Bitcoin so the idea of it being inherent in Bitcoin IS stupid.
Plus, what would you expect him to do? Praise it and point everyone towards it? :p
Nope, if it's one person, it's gotta be Szabo. Only person in the world who wouldn't cite his work would be himself. (If it's more than one person, of course it could include Len.)
I don't believe Hal was Satoshi (there's no evidence to suggest it), but Bitcoin never would have succeeded without Hal. He deserves as much credit as Satoshi.
I find it stunning when people claim Satoshi to be anyone other than Nick Szabo. Any reasonable person sould come to the conclusion that it is him. There is plenty of direct evedence that points to him.
There's very little circumstantial evidence pointing to Szabo (there is some). I understand why you believe it to be Szabo. He has the skill set and history in that problem domain... but there's far more circumstantial evidence pointing to someone like Len.
> Here is Szabo last post about Bitgold before he renamed it to Bitcoin;
Come to think about it, this Bit gold -> Bitcoin renaming theory would also explain why miners are called miners in Bitcoin. "Minters" (with a t) would be a much more logical name if you started with the coin analogy from the beginning.
None that I am aware of... I have spent more hours than I'd like to admit looking into different candidates and putting my own OSINT skills to the test. Perhaps I should create a wiki!
