Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings. Too dramatic, almost hysterical. But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians. The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.
I don't see it as emotional. (I mean overemotional / hysterical). Strong worded, yes.
The hacker who got hold of Satoshi's email account may have been a smallblockian or Blockstream sympathizer, or may have offered his services to them. (How else would he profit from that "asset"?)
Hm...
Satoshi is either dead, or is much more worried about hiding his identity than about the fate of bitcoin (which he apparently abandoned in 2010).
I find that hard to believe. I mean if he is serious about the "power to the people" concept why would he abandon it? It may seem that way but I'm sure he's following it.
That, by the way, is another reason why I assumed that the letter was fake when it came out: if he did not care to intervene in all the previous critical events, why would he come in just to take a side (the wrong one!) in a relatively minor technical dispute?
If he felt that this (social engineering + coup) genuinely endangers the project, more than any technical issue, to the point where he'd have to declare the project dead if it succeeded, it's not very unbelievable.
It's ironic that you could write good code and still have humans be the weakest component of the system.
By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written.
Not only that, but if you notice that particular post with Wright, he had just
one space between the two sentences. Yet Satoshi was apparently double-spacing even one-liners:
That means a lot coming from you, Hal. Thanks.