Looks impressive, now only one question remains: did you find out what is the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto?
That said, I don't blame people for trying to uncover Satoshi's identity, and it's possible that the techniques in our paper can help. The big caveat, of course, is access to a corpus that includes Satoshi's code labeled with their true identity.
I have to say I'm completely unsurprised at your follow-up result - I've always held that view myself. Code style isn't just about variable names and brace placement, it's also about the abstract design and how you choose to reduce the problem you want to solve to the method that you want to solve it with - and the choices made in that process carry through all the way to the object code, data structures, file formats and beyond. That stylometry may be possible to some degree from object code follows naturally from that viewpoint.
A little romantic as that might be, I've always felt that reverse-engineering can sometimes seem like, via the medium of what they've created, being a few steps removed from reading someone else's thoughts.
In response to your last remarks, the gist of the claim in the Medium article is that state agencies already know Satoshi's identity, and the method used was stylometric analysis of his prose (not code) cross-referenced with personal communications that NSA is purported to have access to. That's the claim, at least.
By the way the hacker news transparency looks really cool!
Actually that was just a joke. I don't need their identity but sometimes I wish there was a way of discussing some design decisions that went into Bitcoin (I did a little bit of technical analysis of Bitcoin and was involved in electronic crypto-based asset projects before Bitcoin was conceived). Unfortunately that would make it harder for Satoshi or stay anonymous.
By making what you made, you've made it possible for LEA to categorize and fingerprint malware/open source anonymous software etc etc.
This will go unnoticed for many years, until the first big player gets busted by it (publically, because many more were busted before in secret).
Once that happens, it will become the standard practice to fuzz your source code with random methods to obscure the author.
In a sense, someone will have to make something that turns "regular" code into unreadable gibberish before compiling... because of what you wrote
At least now the rest of the world knows this is possible and can mount a defense if they feel it is necessary.
Eg, based on this sample, the coder is like American, with experience at X corps, went to school at Y, etc.