How Crypto Reacted to HBO's Big Satoshi 'Reveal'

HBO's Satoshi documentary Tuesday got plenty of attention. But experienced hands were not convinced by the show's conclusion.

HBO's Satoshi documentary, which aired Tuesday, got plenty of attention. But experienced hands were not convinced by the show's conclusion.

The history of Satoshi-sleuthing is filled with wrong turns, cul de sacs, and wild goose chases. But HBO's "MONEY ELECTRIC: THE BITCOIN MYSTERY," which aired in the United States Tuesday night, was supposed to be different. It was supposed to provide compelling proof as to who invented Bitcoin, putting the world's greatest mystery to bed, for good.

It didn't.

As soon as leaks emerged Tuesday afternoon that the doc would paint Peter Todd as THE GUY, everyone on X/Twitter with knowledge of the mystery was skeptical. And, on seeing the documentary itself, they were even more skeptical.

Here is a smattering of tweets, reflecting the consensus.

Bitcoin author Eric Yakes had it right:

Coin Center's Neeraj Agrawal:

"Faketoshi" Craig Wright, who has claimed to be Satoshi for years, also said the doc was wrong. For once, said Todd, we could agree with him:

@MevenRekt pointed out many inaccuracies in an otherwise well made piece of TV:

Nic Carter had sympathy for bitcoin outsiders:

@Pledditor said the doc showed how Satoshi sleuths have been going about it the wrong way, thinking they were looking for a single well-placed person, when it really could have been many people:

"This documentary is emblematic of why all of the Satoshi Nakamoto theories are bunk. They all hinge on the belief that only a very small amount of people in the world are capable of building bitcoin, so the theorists just pick a notable person known for their achievements and work backwards retrospectively to find a bunch of "coincidences" in their lifestyle/background to support their confirmation bias. It's a broken methodology which results in stalking and unethical doxxing. In reality, the potential amount of people with the profile and background capable of creating bitcoin in 2008 was in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. The likelihood that Satoshi was any one of these semi-public figures that regularly get accused of being Satoshi is pretty slim. That's why if you don't have concrete proof, you should probably keep your Satoshi Nakamoto identity theories to yourself. All it does is put a $60 billion dollar bounty on the back of what is (most likely) the wrong person."

Fortune's Leo Schwartz:

Journalist Izabella Kaminska said we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the doc's conclusions. After all: body language.

@bitstein said Satoshi is pseudonymous and always will be:

Todd himself had the final word:

Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.

Disclosure

Please note that ourprivacy policy,terms of use,cookies, do not sell my personal information CoinDesk is anaward-winning editorial policies.

Ben Schiller is CoinDesk's managing editor for features and opinion. Previously, he was editor-in-chief at BREAKER Magazine and a staff writer at Fast Company. He holds some ETH, BTC and LINK.