Regardless, iamnotback is clever enough to realise that his belief that John Nash was Satoshi won't make everyone else believe it. There was an article on bitcoinpricelive and an an article on CoinDesk arguing that this was a likely possibility years ago, but people didn't jump on the train because the "circumstantial evidence" provided is not, in fact, quite strong enough to prove that he was Satoshi and it can't actually be reasonably proven without Nash himself signing a message with the Genesis block (which he can't - he's dead).
My purpose is not to prove or to convince, but rather to measure the behavior of Bitcoin retards. To document it as a form anthropology and market research.
The lack of attention to detailed due diligence and thus the nonsense spoken and voted.
Most of you haven't even begun to scratch surface of analysis of this issue.
My vindication always comes later. Such as when I warned about the centralization of mining in China last year and was told I was crying chicken little. Then I was correct and everyone admits it now.
I have a vindication coming soon on a recent altcoin analysis I made.
Nash designed Bitcoin so that it would be replaced or competed with.