I tilted my head when I saw the news claiming the identity of Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, had been revealed.

I thought, here we go again.

Who created Bitcoin has been a topic that has puzzled people for over a decade.

It is estimated that Satoshi Nakamoto holds about 1 million Bitcoins.

If we calculate this based on current standards, assuming the price of Bitcoin is about $70,000 as of April 2026,

1 million × $70,000 = about $70 billion, which is roughly 100 trillion won...

Based on 100 trillion won, if we simply calculate with an annual interest rate of 5%, it would be about 5 trillion won per year.

Dividing this by a day gives about 137 billion won.

If the interest rate is 3%, it would be about 82 billion won per day, and at 7%, about 191 billion won.

Of course, this is purely theoretical, and in reality, it would be difficult to manage such a large amount at the same interest rate.

Moreover, this would place one among the wealthiest in the world.

But there is an important point. This money is "theoretical value."

In reality, it is not money that can be sold all at once.

The reasons are simple.

✔ The quantity is too large, and if released into the market, the price would crash
✔ Satoshi's wallet has hardly moved
✔ It is uncertain whether he can access it

So, realistically, many people view it as "the largest unused asset in the world."

Anyway, there have been many candidates proposed over the years.

Someone is named, then denied, and another person is pointed out, only to be dismissed again. It's a story that has been repeated almost like an urban legend.

This time, the New York Times has identified British cryptographer Adam Back as a strong candidate.

They investigated for 18 months, analyzed emails, and compared writing habits.

At this point, it sounds like there must be some substantial evidence, right? But if you look closely, it's at the level of "high possibility."

Especially the evidence presented this time is quite interesting.

It's said that the British English spelling, hyphen usage, and sentence style are similar.

But come on, there are plenty of people who use British English.

There are many cryptographers who write similarly, so it's a bit ambiguous to definitively identify a specific individual based on this.

And another point, the history of cypherpunk activities.

This could be said about anyone who was in that community.

The technical aspects are similar as well. Just because he created Hashcash, it suggests a possibility.

That's true, but it doesn't directly lead to the conclusion that "therefore, that person is Satoshi." There were many people doing similar research at that time.

Most importantly, the response from the person involved is crucial. Adam Back himself said, "It's not me."

Of course, in such cases, the likelihood of someone saying "Yes, that's correct" is almost nonexistent.

But it's also a bit strange to ignore the denial and keep pushing forward.

This pattern is always the same. The media throws out possibilities, the person involved denies it, and the conclusion is vague.

Honestly, I feel a bit tired every time I see articles like this.

They are packaged as if something has been revealed, but in reality, there is no decisive evidence.

It feels like they are trying to attract clicks. Especially in a field like Bitcoin, where there is a lot of interest, such speculative articles keep coming out.

On the other hand, I also wonder if it would be a good thing to actually reveal who Satoshi is.

So far, the fact that "we don't know who it is" has acted as a symbol of Bitcoin.

It feels like it exists as a concept rather than a specific individual. If a real person is confirmed, then other issues may arise.

This news should be viewed as "another possibility added" at best.

It's not confirmed, there's no decisive evidence, and the person involved has denied it.

It would be a stretch to accept this as "finally revealed."

In today's world, where information is overflowing, what's truly important seems to be the ability to filter what we see.

Especially with such intriguing topics, we need to be more cautious.

Satoshi is still just Satoshi. There's no need to hastily conclude who he is.