I am not going to weigh in yet on whether I think the Newsweek theory is correct. But I wanted to point out that at this point the entire theory is based on circumstantial evidence.
I think this article is "charged" because it appears to contain one piece of real evidence--the quote attributed to Nakamoto near the beginning of the piece:
"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."
People are saying that he "admitted" to being the creator of bitcoin. But if you re-read the quote, you'll see that it makes no reference to bitcoin. Would it be misleading to take this quote out of context to give your reader the idea that Nakamoto was referring to bitcoin here? Yes. Would a journalist do it if it charged her story and was still factually correct? I'll let you decide.
The, " I am no longer involved in that" could mean exactly what it says, he's no longer involved in Bitcoin/moved on to other things Or something totally different.
The, " I cannot discuss it", could mean because he believes he's no longer involved in it, wishes not to discuss it any further, maybe he's an introvert? Dislikes Attention?
Or it could mean something totally different/non-bitcoin related.
Everything else seems legit. except those two lines, at least to me.
2 second theory: The real Satoshi is a cyborg created by the United States Military and created Bitcoin accidentally in the future, then traveled back in time bringing the computer he made Bitcoin with him. He then went back into the future, but not before handing the Bitcoin Protocol to the Satoshi shown in the Newseek article, and he further developed it.
