Satoshi is dead, and there will never be proof that someone is satoshi. Any proof that comes with a private key will not be valid, as it can not be proven that the original person is the one who has access to this key in the future. Therefore, objectively he is dead. Most people have issues with permanent death or near permanent death (I'm looking at you @d5000) and want to dismiss stuff like this on weird grounds instead of accepting the reality.
My point in the other discussion was just that I consider death "permanent" and not "some state where you could recover from, even if it's unlikely".
(So for your original argumentation for example something that's obsolete is "dead" - but look at vinyl records, for example ...) That discussion is not so much about the word "dead" but about "black and white" vs. "grayscale" (or even "colourful") worldviews
And here we've the same problem. I guess that you in general are correct, and that the likelihood that anybody could convince somebody that he's Satoshi is very low. But I would not categorically rule it out that he's found. If someone has access to several private keys of the Satoshi era (as an undiscovered QC which already could run Shor's algorithm, would have difficulties with, as every key would take years even if current maximum qubit numbers would not need error correction at all) _and_ can present timestamped documents (published and/or emailed to other known people) from the pre-AI era, then a lot of people would believe them. I'm sure historians could tell more about accepted methods to prove a fact in the digital past.
Of course you are technically correct, but I and many others can conceive all kinds of utopian and prefect scenarios by which someone could prove that they are Satoshi. However, we are not here in the world of theoretical and as I accuse many others of doing, in worlds from TV shows and movies. How probable is it that someone has made this kind of plan, along with this invention, that they will come out 20 years later or even more after with mathematically sound proof that they are Satoshi? We are talking about proof that is so carefully constructed that there can be no doubt that it was stolen from someone else under whatever circumstances, and that no holes can be made in it. Seriously? When did this happen in reality for something in the scale of that we are talking about here? Once, twice, never? Not even Snoweden had that kind of proof for his things, even though the circumstances are completely different of course.
Realistically speaking, give it a few more years and the key ownership will be completely irrelevant and will not be proof of anything. That means that one of the cornerstone pieces of evidence will fall away soon, and nothing remains other than some movie scenario of perfect proof construction with 15 years of thinking ahead. See, this also relates to your "unlikely" bias relating to your views to death. I am practical with this, and I know because I have retired many identities in the past too and I don't even remember all their names anymore. Satoshi is dead.
I can of course understand your and other Bitcoiners' need to let Satoshi RIP and keep him as a mythological figure. But imo, without some popcorn sometimes, life would be boring.
(As long as no personality rights are violated.)
Popcorn is nice but let's keep things exciting and create new topics and things, and not come back with another wild goose chase that is based on bullshit. The quality of "research" that led to the conclusion that it is Adam Back is the level of an elementary school kid.
