1. Satoshi vanished just about the same time Hal Finney was diagnosed with the terminal disease ALS. There is no any other good reason that Satoshi retired from the project at that particular time.

2. Hal Finney has shown with the PGP project that he was able to turn a good idea into a working software project. He has shown with his running a remailer that he cared deeply about the main reason for developing Bitcoin, which is helping privacy with code.

3. Hal Finney had expert knowledge about the problem of concealing an identity. When denying being Satoshi later on, he produced an e-mail conversation with his "sockpuppet" Satoshi. He would be expected to do exactly that. Having experience with government censure of PGP, he would not want to be exposed to similar criminal prosecution for the Bitcoin project. And having been on record predicting $10 million per bitcoin in January 2009, he was certainly aware of the potential of drawing the unwanted attention of criminals to his wealth early on.

4. Anyone smart enough to come up with Bitcoin certainly would have heard about RPOW in 2008. Not citing it in the whitepaper is an obvious clue that he wanted to avoid calling attention to his real identity.

5. When denying being Satoshi, Hal Finney said that he was more familiar with coding in C, as opposed to the coding style used by Satoshi. Doesn't add up. Guess what language is used in the coding section of the whitepaper? Yes. It was C.

6. Hal Finney is on record for having exactly the same opportunity to mine early bitcoins as his sockpuppet Satoshi. His story later is that he stopped mining after a while because he was worried about his computer overheating. Sure. A lifelong dream to create e-cash. $10 million per coin predicted. But worried about a computer overheating. If there really was such a problem at the time, obviously Hal Finney would have been able to solve it in less than five minutes fully drunk and half asleep. Or Satoshi could have fixed it for him. Hal said he reported bugs to Satoshi and Satoshi fixed them. Why not fix the overheating problem then? Because no such problem existed in the first place. If that part is clearly a false statement, one wonders what else he might have tried to hide?