The article includes phrases like:

> The case could potentially help shed light on whether he really is Satoshi Nakamoto -- something that many in the cryptocurrency community doubt.

Which, a) it won't and b) the second part is a massive understatement. Also:

> Critics have urged Wright to verify his identity by transferring some coins, a proposal he has refused.

Which would be the obvious way to prove he was Satoshi and by his refusal is quite damning.

----

More broadly, there's a frustrating asymmetry here - now that he's notorious, Craig Wright can say or do just about anything and it makes the news cycle. This is also more generally a problem with, shall we say, some other individuals who are often reported on. Meanwhile, I think most semi-technical people who have read the points raised against Wright will have found them convincing. "Quite a few people on the internet disagree" doesn't make for a great article though. Is there any way to precipitate this guy's return to irrelevance other than "voting with your eyeballs" and not engaging with the content? This strategy seems...diffuse and ineffective.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-says-fortune-inaccessible