The journalist just wants to score with her article. Do you know in what kind of god awful state so called professional journalism is nowadays? Look at all the bullshit they come up with around Syria, Ukraine, the economy and also Bitcoin. And then you are so easily able to accept this story as the truth? Isn't this more like wishful thinking or confirmation bias at work?
I don't care if it is or if it isn't.
My impression of events would lead me to believe that it was. If the journalist is putting arms and legs on her story, and it can be proven, then this will turn out horrendously embarrassing for her and her publication. Sure, the magazine wants publicity, but not for putting out big stories that turn out to be total duff.
I paraphrase Dorian S Nakamoto as quoted in the article as saying "I am no longer involved with Bitcoin, the work has been passed onto other people I have no further involvement", apparently in the presence of two police officers.
If he said that, in relation to a question on Bitcoin (something most people of his generation would never have even heard off), and the reporter wasn't putting words in his mouth or asking him a question in such a way that could be deliberately misconstrued, then it is the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Whether he admits it or not.
