it could be one of satoshi's friends who has done all those things, just to misdirect traces
i think it is not him, and i'm still with the theory that satoshi nakamoto is a mere pseudo name that identify a group of coders, like skydrow or r.g.mechanics ecc...
I agree with you this man can not be Satoshi.There are two possibilities one what you said and the other one is someone wants to be famous and that's why let the NYT to claim about his identity.Satoshi will never come in front nor will be recognized by anyone.
Why not let him be Satoshi? Isn't the IRS looking for someone to lynch for the amount of coins stored in his wallets?
The first draft of the BitLicense stated that, controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency qualifies as Virtual Currency Business Activity subject to licensing. This remains unchanged in the new draft.
If someone proved he was Satoshi would they go after him for controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency? Can the BitLicense be applied to things that happened before its release? Probably not, but I haven't read the small print yet.
I think the IRS could care less about anything except taxes. Besides, they have no grounds to do anything and Satoshi did nothing wrong. Remember you owe money when you cash out coins, not just for owning them. You could have a billion dollars worth and your tax on them is zero. Now if you sell a billion dollars worth you will owe capitol gains on the growth in value.