Alternatively, if you're partial to pg's theory that Bitcoin was produced by a government, you might find enough support in the article to keep that idea alive,

Alternatively, if you're partial to pg's theory that Bitcoin was produced by a government, you might find enough support in the article to keep that idea alive, seeing Nakamoto as an agent of influence for people still inside the US government. Some things that seem to suggest otherwise could be explained away (so he wrote the implementation all himself? All the better to hide external influences on the high-level design. He disappears at the mention of a CIA connection? Just what you'd expect of someone trying to obscure his connection with the US "intelligence community"). That said, I don't really feel it's likely. (Partly because my hunch is that if US agencies really did want to run such an agent of influence they'd be more likely to choose someone who was a bit more subtly "mobbed up" (spooked up?) than Nakamoto.) I haven't studied the Bitcoin timeline or this latest article really closely, though.