[Digital Today reporter Jinju Hong] Michael Saylor (마이클 세일러), chairman of Strategy, publicly rejected findings from a New York Times (NYT) investigation that identified Adam Back as Bitcoin (BTC) creator Satoshi Nakamoto.

On April 8, blockchain media outlet BeInCrypto reported that Saylor drew a line by saying stylometric analysis alone cannot prove Satoshi’s identity and that decisive evidence would be a signature using Satoshi’s private key.

Saylor cited emails exchanged in 2008 as grounds that Back and Satoshi are different people. Back received a message from Satoshi in August 2008. The message included content confirming a citation of Hashcash in the Bitcoin white paper that was to be released soon. “Stylometric analysis is interesting, but it is not evidence,” Saylor said. “The emails at the time between Satoshi and Adam Back suggest the two are separate individuals,” he said.

He applied the same standard to various conjectures surrounding Satoshi’s identity. “Until someone signs with Satoshi’s key, every theory is just a narrative,” Saylor said. He reaffirmed his view that no conclusion can be reached based only on investigative articles or circumstantial analysis.

That stance also aligns with the Bitcoin philosophy Saylor has emphasized. Saylor has repeatedly assessed that Satoshi’s departure was intentional and that, as a result, central authority disappeared from Bitcoin. He has also described it in the past by saying, “Satoshi built the road, put it out into the world, and then left.” It reflects a view that Bitcoin should operate as a network that does not rely on a specific founder or leader.

That backdrop also includes Strategy’s large Bitcoin holdings. Strategy bought 766,970 BTC at a cost of about 54.57 billion dollars, and holds the most Bitcoin among companies worldwide. That position rests on the premise that Bitcoin functions not as an asset centered on a specific person but as a decentralised monetary network. It means the network structure matters more than who designed it.

Back himself also strongly denied claims that he is Satoshi. Back cited shared interests within the cypherpunk camp and confirmation bias as reasons his writing may appear similar to Satoshi’s. The stylometric analysis was led by computational linguist Florian Kappeler and concluded Back was the closest match among 12 people of interest. The analysis itself, however, was also assessed as not conclusive.

In the end, Saylor’s position is simple. Unless evidence emerges of a direct signature using Satoshi’s private key, debate over who created Bitcoin may continue but cannot be accepted as established fact. In this situation, whether Bitcoin is maintained as a leaderless network remains a more important criterion than Satoshi’s real name.