https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.10257v14.pdf
If you want the TLDR; the meat is the "Candidates" section about Len Sassaman and the original Bitcoin paper's references (in particular, how Len was the only person with the right skill set, in the right place, at the right time to even get a copy of the referenced work).... among a mountain of other circumstantial evidence.
The one thing that bugs me is that the original bitcoin paper, while amazing, doesn't seem like it was written by a PhD candidate. It cites just eight related works, and the W. Dai citation was famously added only after someone else suggested it, because Satoshi reportedly didn't know about it. A typical paper by a PhD candidate will cite dozens of related works, and Len Sassman would certainly have knowledge of dozens of related works off the top of his head.
Edited to add: I didn't realize until now that Sassaman only finished his master's degree in 2008. Based on some of the work that I see from master's students (albeit none as brilliant and passionate as Sassaman) with thin lists of references, this makes Sassaman a more likely candidate in my mind.
An anonymous whitepaper has no such constraints, so you can just cite what is actually necessary to explain your point, and nothing more.