Peter Todd Says: I'm Not Satoshi, Adam Back Isn't Either, and Journalists Need to Stop Ruining Our DMs

Bitcoin developer Peter Todd is having a rough few months. After being thrown under the bus by an HBO documentary as a potential Satoshi, he's now defending his colleague Adam Back against a New York Times exposé claiming Back is the real deal. Apparently, getting accidentally doxxed as the world's wealthiest anonymous figure wasn't enough excitement for one quarter—now he's got to play bodyguard for his co-workers' reputations too.

In a post on X, Todd didn't hold back, calling out documentary creators for good old-fashioned bait-and-switch. Apparently, he was told he was just chatting about Bitcoin history. Surprise—he became the main suspect instead. Nothing says "fun Tuesday afternoon" like casually discussing fork semantics and then finding your face on a documentary thumbnail next to a mysterious hoodie silhouette.

"I wasn't told they were making it about finding Satoshi," Todd said. "Someone has to talk to journalists. Failing to do so has even worse outcomes." Classic rock-paper-scissors situation: stay silent and let conspiracy theories run wild, or engage and get labeled as a billionaire cryptographer. Because apparently, in Bitcoin lore, you're either Satoshi or you're just here for the memes.

Todd's latest beef with the NYT piece? He calls it "parasitizing on a productive society." More importantly, he warns these witch hunts create real-world danger. When journalists imply someone holds Satoshi's mythical fortune, that person becomes a target. Not ideal for your physical security. Nothing like a Pulitzer nomination to go along with your new personal security detail.

So why do Todd, Back, and other devs still talk to the press? Todd calls it "choosing the lesser of two evils." Total silence means journalists fill the void with even wilder theories, completely detached from reality. Because "I don't know, ask someone else" apparently doesn't make for compelling front-page material.

The lesson here? In Bitcoin, the only thing more dangerous than a 51% attack might be a journalist with a deadline and a conspiracy theory.