Adam Back has denied claims that he is Satoshi Nakamoto after a New York Times story argued that the British cryptographer is the strongest candidate yet for Bitcoin’s BTC$71,689.42 pseudonymous creator.

In a post on X after the article was published, Back said his long record in cryptography, privacy tools and electronic cash research explains why reporters keep finding links between his work and Bitcoin’s design.

“I’m not satoshi,” Back wrote. He said he had been “early in laser focus on the positive societal implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic cash,” and that his work from about 1992 onward, including discussions on the cypherpunks mailing list, led to Hashcash and other ideas later echoed in Bitcoin.

Back, said NYT reporter John Carreyrou, had found “many interesting bitcoin analogs in early attempts to create a decentralized ecash,” adding that early researchers explored concepts such as peer-to-peer systems, proof-of-work, and routing models that looked like prototypes for Bitcoin.

He also disputed one line in the story that treated a comment he made in an interview as a possible slip. Back's remark — “I’m not saying I’m good with words, but I sure did a lot of yakking on these lists actually” — referred to confirmation bias. Because he wrote so often about electronic cash, he said, his old comments are easier to match with Satoshi’s than those of others who posted far less.

“The rest is a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests,” Back wrote.

He added that he does not know who Satoshi is and said that it may be good for Bitcoin. In his view, the mystery helps frame Bitcoin as “a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.”

Others also questioned the conclusions. Joe Weisenthal, a Bloomberg columnist and co-host of the Odd Lots podcast, said he was “not 100% convinced by the evidence or the conclusion.”

“The stylometry is interesting, but on content, ofc all the cypherpunks had similar thoughts on politics and privacy and the architecture of the internet,” he wrote on X. He also questioned why Back would speak openly about earlier work like Hashcash under his real name but use strict anonymity for Bitcoin.

“None of us are that consistent with hyphenization,” Weisenthal added, arguing that shared writing quirks may not be meaningful. He noted that Back was already among those closest to assembling Bitcoin-like ideas before its launch, which could explain his later involvement.

The question of Satoshi’s identity has drawn speculation for years. Several books, documentaries and articles have claimed to have solved it, only for those cases to unravel or fail to persuade the wider Bitcoin community. In 2024, one high-profile documentary pointed to developer Peter Todd, who denied the claim.

Nicholas Gregory, a U.K.-based early Bitcoin participant, also pushed back on the latest theory.

“I don’t believe Adam Back is Satoshi based on my personal interactions with him,” Gregory said. “However, if he were, we would have to respect the extraordinary lengths he has gone to in order to ensure no one thinks it’s him. In that case, we should honor his clear desire for privacy.”

Gregory said the longer the search continues, the more extreme the theories become. He added that many reporters miss key parts of Bitcoin’s early history and make avoidable errors.

He also warned that publicly identifying Satoshi could put that person and their family at risk.