I think we've passed the point where even if the original Satoshi steps forward with a PGP signed autobiography nobody will believe it's really him. We like our legends I guess.
I beg to differ. If the real Satoshi actually wanted to identify himself, he'd have no trouble convincing us beyond a reasonable doubt even without his original keys.
This situation is not like trying to decide if you believe a person who says he bought the winning lottery ticket for cash but then lost it.
This situation is more like trying to decide if you believe a person who says he's a thoracic surgeon who's an expert in US Constitutional law, speaks Finnish, and can do somersaults while skiing. Ask him to explain in Finnish how to do laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.
Just look at all the things that Satoshi has to answer correctly:
- expert level C++ programmer
- fluent English, excellent grammar
- deep knowledge of cryptography
- extensive knowledge of mathematics (maybe not a PhD, but he's no slouch)
- totally intimate with the original Bitcoin code
- familiar with all the history of Bitcoin (at least the history pre-2010)
- plausible explanations for all his actions
- etc.
We're talking about about a miniscule fraction of the world's population that could convincingly fake all of this knowledge and ability -- maybe a few hundred people at most on the entire Earth.
Suppose Bruce Schneier claimed to be Satoshi, then you could look at other things in Bruce background to rebuff it. (Example: Bruce was on a commercial airplane flying over the Atlantic when one of the Satoshi emails was sent.)
Are you implying the Bitcoin client wasn't a botched up C with classes and the team is still trying to make it not crap?
After this long? Probably not. I'm routinely surprised by the clever things I wrote five years ago.
And in any case, Nakamoto may not be a single person after all.