I liked to dispute here already the case, when there exists no single conclusive proof.

I was already approaching to another unworkable approach: the intuition. We cannot dispute reasonable our intuitive estimation for the cited reasons. If someone will do anyway, its an endless dispute, where the emotions risk to get high very much, do it please in another thread to keep thisone small.

We are not out of arguments, then.

When the cops cannot proof, they cannot listen to the intuition too not, they need to work with indices.

Thats the what we can dispute here, the indices, what speak for and con, that Dave Kleiman is Satoshi Nakamoto. Its police-work, but we can help to the cops, what are not Bitcoin-cracks apriori.

What we need to observe is, that when we cannot proof doubtfree that Dave is Satoshi, we will probably not be able to show with a sufficient credibility, that Dave only is Satoshi. The group-identity is probably not excludeable, but the group membership of diverse individuals is disputeable again. Some members will maybe get discernable quite well by indices. And others will be undiscernible, where we can exclude the membership for resons of absent indices. Thats not a corrupt approach, we just need to be open to all-kind-of indices. If someone was making no trace in the group, his handmark is absent, he isnt Satoshi, its maybe the coffee-cup fetcher of Satoshi, but not Satoshi. Another candidate of group-membership is Hal Finney. It was getting said somewhere, that Hal's stilistic approach of forming the text is closest to Satoshi of all the candidates until. That is a good indice. The individuality of forming the text is reliable quite as a fingerprint. It just had to get well-presented. But we have not to talk of Hal here. The opening of another thread would be appropriate. I will not do, because I will think about Dave.

Note, that we have masses of text of Satoshi. Hundreds of posts and mails. Thats an easy-game. Its rather too much data than not enough. Then we have tons of programs. It was said now somewhere, that Satoshi wasnt a good programmer. Because of the sloppyness, for example. Thats even excellent, the weaknesses are excellent indices. The excellence is the what everyone tries to do.

But we have not too much data, thats the good-news. We are in the Big-Data-Age. Its not too much at far. The stilistic fingerprints are just getting sharper.

To work with indices, the cops need anyway their intuition. It is not possible to examinate all. The world is too big. The cops need the intuition to find the relevant traces. Not for more. We have to stay honest with the indices, what we find, and not to distort them at will in the direction of our intention. And thats not easy, when our intention is strong.

Excuse me, if you dont like to get addressed like students, its not personal, of course. I dont doubt about someone's intelligence or competiency. Its just to address everyone, and to include everyone in the revealings, especially thisones, what didnt see clear, what is really needed and possible. I see, that the dispute is sometimes very casual, its not a working-group, a forum-thread, I know. And I am not the OP of this thread and will not at all create allures of director. But a thread, what achieves an insight is anyway cool more, than a thread of smalltalk or a thread of rooster-fight. To loose time, we can look TV, its even less arduous.