“The level of reaching here rivals QAnon stuff (which is pretty ironic if you know what Cullen's previous documentary was about)”
Exactly.
The truth is pretty simple: there's hundreds, even thousands of people who could have created Bitcoin.
We're not going to find Satoshi.
Just finished watching HBO Satoshi documentary.
That was one of the least compelling Satoshi Nakamoto identities I've ever seen.
Early on in the documentary, (around 11 minutes in), the narrator suggests the identity of Satoshi should not be known because it could endanger his safety. Then ironically, he proceeds to recklessly accuse Peter Todd of being Satoshi Nakamoto without actually having proof.
They interviewed Peter Todd, and Peter was trolling Cullen the whole time. At one point, Peter says "I suspect a lot of them [bitcoiners] will be very happy if you go this route [referring to Cullen accusing Peter of being Satoshi], because it's going to be yet another example of journalists really missing the point in a way that's very funny".
Peter was right, this documentary is garbage and shameful.
The ‘strongest’ piece of evidence presented was a reply Peter Todd made to Satoshi [image attached], which the documentary framed Peter Todd as accidentally continuing Satoshi’s thoughts while logged into an alt account. Believe it or not, this was their most compelling argument, and it's not compelling at all. It does not look to me like Peter is continuing Satoshi's thoughts, it just looks like he is correcting Satoshi, as Peter has done many times.
The second best piece of "evidence" was a message from a chat log where Peter Todd once said he's an a uniquely qualified expert in sacrificing coins, because he did exactly one sacrifice before himself.
Again, this is not proof of anything. Just more weak innuendo and circumstance
After that, that's when the evidence starts really falling off in quality (and that's saying something, because the earlier evidence wasn't good at all). Cullen tries to use the John Dillion emails as proof of something, but I'm really not sure how any of it was related. He goes into some insane conspiracy theory where he believes Peter Todd invented the John Dillion identity so he could coverup the tracks of his old forum post and make it easier for him to advocate for RBF. The level of reaching here rivals QAnon stuff (which is pretty ironic if you know what Cullen's previous documentary was about)
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.