I think the consensus was that he wasn't the guy. The guy didn't have relevant experience and didn't act like the guy, plus it would be very strange to use your real name but then not expect anything to come of it.
According to the article on Newsweek, he did have. He had experience as US army contractor (if I remember well, Tor network was itself the creation of 2 ex-US army contractors...). And he worked extensivelly for the financial sector. Both experiences as a computer engineer.
> it would be very strange to use your real name...
Vanity is a as old sin as the 6 others deadly sins.
That being said, I read reactions by other media outlets ('coin something' websites are not media outlet) and the concensus was the journalist should have let the guy alone and accused him of doxing, which is kind of a funny stance considering the market cap of Bitcoin was already at that time above 100 billions $. I mean, what kind of serious investor would put any money in a 100 billions market cap company created by an anymous guy on the web. In fact it would be impossible because the SEC wouldn't allow the company to be created in the first place.
That said, the word 'consensus' has absolutely no value in case of crypto, because of the shitload of money which has been thrown at paid shills, influencers, financial newspapers, media outlets and celebrities of all kind.
As I said, either the journalist made the whole thing up and should have been fired on the spot, either the whole Bitcoin charade is nothing of the kind we have been told.
reply