When I said 'no proof exists', I didn't mean 'no proof of authority'. I mean no document exists. Assuming Satoshi 'covered ones tracks' is a straw-man because t

When I said 'no proof exists', I didn't mean 'no proof of authority'. I mean no document exists. Assuming Satoshi 'covered ones tracks' is a straw-man because then you open up the possibility to anyone being Satoshi, not an exclusive person. Please understand that many people talked with Satoshi through email as well. Those emails are mostly private. When someone points to an authority, the entire argument is a straw-man, even with someone very relevant to the discussion. > Satoshi seemed to be very good C++ programmer who had interests in electronic cash and cryptography but not a cryptographer. What physical circumstantial evidence exists that is shows Kleiman was good at anything you've described or was even interested in these during 2008 or earlier (heck, I can't find anything prior to 2013)? What about any interest into any digital cash/gold attempts? The argument you're giving is fairly persistent in the crypto community. I'm not entirely sure why, except intellectual laziness. The irony here is 'proof of authority' argument...is an absolute contradiction to what bitcoin's primary function is (trustless 3rd party system). Why are people lifting up a 3rd party and not the code/evidence? An opinion (no matter how relevant) isn't what we're looking for, we are looking for evidence. Did scientific reasoning leave everyone? (edited for grammar)