And Like That... He's Gone.

Okay, just watched Money Electric, Cullen Hoback's new documentary attempting to uncover the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. A few thoughts.

First and foremost, it's well worth the watch. I also wish I hadn't read anything about it before watching because narratively, it was set up as quite the bait-and-switch to lead you down the path that Adam Back is Nakamoto only to swing the focus entirely to Peter Todd, the sort of annoying, know-it-all kid of the narrative.

Clearly intentionally, it's very reminiscent of the Keyser Söze reveal. But again, every story about the documentary sort of ruins that.

Of course, this is supposed to be a documentary, not a Hollywood whodunit. I mean, I think? I wish Hoback would release all the footage unedited as it could go a long way in seeing just how much this is smart editing to help a narrative framing, versus well, the truth.

To be clear, I'm not saying the conclusion Hoback draws us towards isn't the truth – it would just be a stronger case if the filmmaking wasn't quite so slick, narratively. This reality is exacerbated, at least in my own head, because it reminds me so much of Hoback's last documentary, the also excellent Q Into the Storm. While that was a six-part series and this was a 90-minute film, they feel awfully similar both narratively and stylistically. They even both center on two key conspirators, often together in the shots, oddly – and I do mean oddly – playing off one another.

In this doc, neither Back nor Todd come across as particularly trustworthy, with Todd in particular caught in a number of odd, sometimes random lies/untruths. Again, editing can and probably does, accentuate this, but it doesn't pull it out of thin air. And that makes any denials by either, but especially Todd, ring completely hollow after you watch it. Towards the end, he shifts and squirms in ways that make Ron Watkins seem like a great actor. But even worse is Back's body language.

The doc also doesn't nearly go deep enough into why Hal Finney or Nick Szabo are less likely to be Nakamoto. Again, it's a single documentary film versus a series, but an episode on each could have bolstered (or hampered) the Todd case.

All that said, this would seem to be the most convincing case yet that points towards a Nakamoto explanation. Using an Occam's razor framework, I found myself wondering if the explanation is simply something like:

A young Canadian creates Bitcoin and enlists the help of some older cryptography and cypher experts to help bolster and expand upon it. And lend credibility to the effort, creating a movement. In the early days, when the stakes are low, Todd slips up in a few ways. Ultimately, as a show of solidarity for the movement, the access to the original coins is destroyed, though the coins themselves are not burned. There's a general agreement that it doesn't matter who Satoshi is or was, all that matters is Bitcoin itself.

To alter it slightly, there's perhaps even a case to be made that several of these early key players were all Satoshi in different, important ways. It's possible that Hoback uncovered the 'Mouth of Satoshi' as it were. But no single person is ever going to take credit because it was more of a group effort, so they're also sort of not lying in their denials. One has passed away. Another is a recluse. Overall, it's all very "I am Spartacus" which is all very on brand for the movement.

Related to that, and what all of those involved probably realize by now: anyone who is proven to be Nakamoto will just disappoint the zealots and even the masses because part of the entire appeal is the mystery and the endless possibilities of the mind. And ultimately, it shouldn’t matter anyway — *who* is not the point — is the clear message. But rightly or wrongly, it will matter when Nakamoto is unmasked. And it will deflate the entire movement, even if it’s now too big to completely fail. It's just all far more powerful/interesting as a conspiracy, even if there really is a conspiracy. Albeit a sort of mundane one, as most things are.

So even the strongest case for/against someone will be dismissed. The marching orders are: obfuscate, confuse, just never admit anything. That notion points to the best part of the doc in my eyes. From The Washington Post's story:

In the documentary, Hoback’s dramatic confrontation of Todd during a hike last year through the abandoned ruins of a steelworks plant in the Czech Republic ultimately ends with no clear resolution. Todd laughs off the accusation and denies it, pointing back to the long list of failed investigations from years past.

“I will admit, you’re pretty creative. You come up with some crazy theories,” Todd tells Hoback.

“It’s ludicrous, but it’s the sort of theory someone who spends their time as a documentary journalist would come up with.”

“I’ll warn you, this is going to be very funny when you put this into the documentary and a bunch of bitcoiners watch it,” he adds. “It’s going to be yet another example of journalists really missing the point in a way that’s very funny.”

Asked what that “point” really was, he responds: “The point is to make bitcoin the global currency. And people like you being distracted by nonsense could potentially do good on that.”

The whole "I'll warn you" bit is extremely awkward and weird. Todd is pretty clearly annoyed and upset. He seems downright flustered and almost nervous. He uses "very funny" twice in a way that makes it all seem decidedly unfunny to him. Again, would love to see this footage fully unedited.

And like that... Satoshi Nakamoto is gone.