MicroStrategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor dismissed the New York Times investigation identifying Adam Back as Bitcoin's (BTC) pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Saylor said that stylometry is “interesting, but not proof.”

Why Saylor demands cryptographic proof

Saylor pointed to contemporaneous emails from 2008 between Satoshi and Back as evidence that the two were different people.

Back first received a message from Satoshi in August 2008, where Satoshi confirmed the reference to Hashcash in the upcoming white paper.

'Stylometry is interesting, but not proof. The contemporaneous emails between Satoshi and Adam Back suggest they were different people. Until someone signs with Satoshi's keys, any theory is just a narrative,' Saylor said.

This view aligns with his broader philosophy. Saylor has repeatedly described Satoshi's disappearance as a deliberate act that strengthened BTC by removing any central authority figure.

He once wrote that Satoshi 'created something, gave it away, and left it.'

What MicroStrategy has at stake

MicroStrategy owns 766,970 BTC purchased for about $54.57 billion, making it the largest corporate owner in the world.

This position relies on BTC functioning as a decentralized, leaderless money network, not on who created it.

BTC fell about 2.4% after the NYT article, from $68,269 to $66,634. Saylor has previously dismissed such movements as temporary noise and referred to the volatility as 'Satoshi's gift to the believers.'

Back himself firmly denies being Satoshi and explains similarities in writing style with shared cypherpunk interests and confirmation bias.

The stylometric analysis, led by data linguist Florian Cafiero, found Back to be the closest match among 12 suspects, but described the results as inconclusive.

For Saylor, the answer is simple. Without a signature from Satoshi's private keys, no investigation will settle the question.