I recently saw Michael Saylor's comment on The New York Times' investigation into Satoshi Nakamoto's identity, and his perspective is quite interesting. Saylor straightforwardly states that all the theories about who Satoshi Nakamoto is are essentially just narratives, with no concrete evidence to support them.

His logic is quite clear: if you truly want to prove that someone is Satoshi Nakamoto, relying solely on speculation and stylistic analysis isn't enough. Unless that person can produce Satoshi's private key and sign a message to verify it, everything remains just guesswork. This standard is indeed very high, but it’s also the only way to truly confirm the identity.

It makes sense—Satoshi has been so mysterious for so many years for a reason. If someone could genuinely prove they are Satoshi, they would need to present evidence at the key level. No matter how detailed The New York Times' investigation is, it can't change this fundamental fact. Discussions about Satoshi Nakamoto's identity may never cease, but the only real verification method is this one.