Oh, cut me a break, welcome to IGNORE list. Jesus, some people on this forum are just mentally insane. There can't be another explanation for this level of denial and paranoia.
It wasn't even _in_ the software until a year later; by "the software" I mean the actual commit that introduced that selection. Building from source wouldn't have done it, because it wasn't in the source.
Someone can customize their pref hashes; sure; but managing to predict the exact selection and order that the software would use later? While also, later that day, building another key that was bog standard for the time (1024 bit DSA, normal flags) and making that one public. Come on. The forged blog posts should have been enough.
To start with, I see no reason why someone wouldn't generate PGP keys with two different pieces of software. Especially if one was run under Windows and one under a variant of Linux. The "entropy" post made my Mr. Wright that contained a PGP key talks about "/dev/random" and such showing he was working on a Unix (Linux) variant.
However, there is an argument I find more compelling that things have been backdated.
And that is the blog post from 2008.
Specifically, this one:
https://archive.is/HWfzHwhich was grabbed by the crawler in March 2014.
It contains a PGP key with this up front:
"Version: SKS 1.1.4
Comment: Hostname: pgp.mit.edu"
The article stating there may have been backdating states that the key was not in the blog post in 2013 because there was a Google Reader cache version found that showed it was likely modified in 2013. I can't find a Google Reader cache version like that as the Google Reader product was discontinued by Google and the archive they have doesn't appear to have much as far as the web goes.
But ignoring that, the key says "Version: SKS 1.1.4".
That shouldn't have been there until 2012. Specifically:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2012-10/msg00010.htmlThe crawler grabbed it March 2014 so the key would have had to been edited in earlier than March 2014. And I agree that is a sign that posts were modified after the original publish date.
As Mr. Wright and his partner have/had a long background in computer forensics, this will be one tangled and extremely messy pile of spaghetti either way.
My personal belief is that it is him, along with his partner, and the rest of the developers. And I believe the launch post was an unedited post. And I believe the bitcoin community will rally around trying to discredit him as the founder at any cost. But I will also take the facts as they come out. And they will, one way or the other.