This guy is not the creator of bitcoin. The pseudonymous ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ who did is almost certainly Nick Szabo; at least, he’s the one who organized and instigated, even if he didn’t write all the code.
The Satoshi Nakamoto in this story shows zero evidence of having the requisite expertise and interests, and for that matter temperament, required to pull this off. Just showing that he did classified work for a long time doesn’t really address the issue.
The journalist publicised details* about someone who wants to remain private, for no better reason than “hey, guess who I found; aren’t I clever?!”.
The public doesn’t have a need to know and, for me, individual privacy/anonymity is paramount.
He wants to be left alone. Leave him alone.
*: Yes, I know the details were technically in the public domain, but drawing them to people’s attention isn’t a neutral act: I consider it pointlessly hostile in this case, and contemptible.
Like Communism, there’s nothing obviously fundamentally impossible about Bitcoin, but when real-world implementations fail again and again and again, a certain healthy skepticism may be called for.
Bitcoin still sound, websites that service Bitcoins still run by incompetents and thieves.
I would argue that the inherent anonymity is a failure of Bitcoin. The very thing that was supposed to give it strength is its undoing. At least with cash you generally have to be physically present to use it, and that counts for something. Bitcoin is inherently too untrustworthy to stand in the long term.
It’s like open email relays. They would be super convenient, but in the real world they’re much too easy to abuse and thus we cannot have them.