I'm surprised. It looks like this time, even some of the veterans in here tend to believe the Satoshi revelation story, that Wright = Satoshi.
Granted, the Wired/gizmodo article and research behind is somewhat better than that awful Newsweek "Look! Same last name!" story, but aside from that: whatever hard evidence Wired has (or has revealed so far) is rather flimsy as well. As far as I can tell, the major documents containing proof of identity either cannot be verified (cryptographically, say), or haven't been verified (by some indirect method).
All in all, I see very little strong evidence, and mainly just a man whose reaction to the Wired story is consistent with someone who could be Satoshi. But in that case, motivation matters, and it's rather funny how it only seems to cross a few peoples' minds that somebody might actually want to be believed to be Satoshi. The crypto nerds mainly seem to focus on the "He just wants his privacy!" angle, so somebody possibly trying to take credit for Satoshi's work doesn't seem to fit in.
Last observation: Wright's style doesn't pass the sniff test. From the soundbites and writing samples I've seen, there's a big difference between Wright's and Satoshi's style -- the latter's phrasing and argument development being rather modest sounding, never boasting -- which means I personally want to see a lot more hard evidence -- i.e. documents constituting proof of identity between the two, that also have been shown to be authentic and non-tampered with -- before seriously considering that Satoshi has been identified.
I agree for the same reasons outlined. Write has apparently written many white papers so it should be relatively easy to compare formatting, styles of writing, etc. The personality difference makes this candidate questionable at the least.
