3 ms·

Even the inventor of Bitcoin can’t hide https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-identity-adam-back.html https://www.nytimes.com/20

Even the inventor of Bitcoin can’t hide https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-identity-adam-back.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...

NamlchakKhandro 5mo ago
This is an old claim, and one that can't be proven.
- illusive4080 5mo ago
  Old claim, from April 2026?
  - satvikpendem 5mo ago
    The claim is old, not the article.
ilikegreen 5mo ago
I immediately thought of this piece, especially the analysis on the writing style of each person. On one hand, it is clear that the mathematical tools for confidently attributing authorship of texts were already present without LLMs. But it is striking that LLMs seem to very accurately identify authorship, through whatever process it might be, with no need for a data scientist in the loop. Other than the uncannyness, I wonder what implications this will have. Public writing is still public; maybe we will require stronger proof of authenticity from an author (but this is arguably in place already; eg. personal websites, social media profiles, etc.). But for, say, public writing that must conserve anonymity, would people pipe their thoughts and writing pieces through a sort of fuzzing (local) LLM, that would strip text of identifying characteristics?
- dsign 5mo ago
  Public writing that must conserve anonymity is either going to disappear or going to require witnesses, notaries, or web-of-trust truestees, i.e., "flesh buffers." In a world with LLMs, every piece of writing that can't authenticate itself in some way will automatically be considered rage bait, eyeball fishing, or, at best, fiction. Just my two cents.
meowface 5mo ago
The attribution is likely incorrect. People have been trying to accuse him for many years, and the evidence is not very strong. This article is the strongest yet, but still commits many stylometric fallacies, and other kinds.

Even the inventor of Bitcoin can’t hide https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto-identity-adam-back.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...

NamlchakKhandro 5mo ago

This is an old claim, and one that can't be proven.

illusive4080 5mo ago
Old claim, from April 2026?
- satvikpendem 5mo ago
  The claim is old, not the article.

ilikegreen 5mo ago

I immediately thought of this piece, especially the analysis on the writing style of each person. On one hand, it is clear that the mathematical tools for confidently attributing authorship of texts were already present without LLMs. But it is striking that LLMs seem to very accurately identify authorship, through whatever process it might be, with no need for a data scientist in the loop. Other than the uncannyness, I wonder what implications this will have. Public writing is still public; maybe we will require stronger proof of authenticity from an author (but this is arguably in place already; eg. personal websites, social media profiles, etc.). But for, say, public writing that must conserve anonymity, would people pipe their thoughts and writing pieces through a sort of fuzzing (local) LLM, that would strip text of identifying characteristics?

dsign 5mo ago
Public writing that must conserve anonymity is either going to disappear or going to require witnesses, notaries, or web-of-trust truestees, i.e., "flesh buffers." In a world with LLMs, every piece of writing that can't authenticate itself in some way will automatically be considered rage bait, eyeball fishing, or, at best, fiction. Just my two cents.

meowface 5mo ago

The attribution is likely incorrect. People have been trying to accuse him for many years, and the evidence is not very strong. This article is the strongest yet, but still commits many stylometric fallacies, and other kinds.