Man, the day we get Satoshi Nakomoto out will be the day we must bow to our privacy destroying overlords. For the moment, they can’t tell me from my posts: unknown rando that I am.
Man, the day we get Satoshi Nakomoto out will be the day we must bow to our privacy destroying overlords. For the moment, they can’t tell me from my posts: unknown rando that I am.
Luckily for Nakamoto, there have been so many attempts at deanonymizing that I bet prediction is too contaminated with noise.
As another user suggested, train on the corpus that ends with the white paper publication.
That’s not feasible. Apparently only SOTA models present this behavior. Having cutoff date at paper publication significantly hinders its capabilities. Besides that, try to convince anyone to spend millions upon millions of dollars to train a model with primary goal of possibly being able to deanonymize one person.
But then compare it to the corpus of any of the suspects since the whitepaper publication.
It's one thing to sound like Satoshi before the whitepaper, but does anyone still sound like Satoshi?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...
Well, feeding Opus 4.7 a bunch of Adam Back texts (which I human-removed his name from) and asking it if Satoshi Nakomoto could have written them results in Claude explaining to me why this is someone else in Nakomoto's circle who is not Satoshi himself. So one of two things are true:
* Adam Back is not Satoshi Nakomoto - as he claims
* Opus 4.7 is not sufficiently a dox-machine yet