An
HBO
documentary
coming
out
Tuesday
has
reopened
speculation
that
my
late
friend
Len
Sassaman
was
Satoshi
Nakamoto,
the
pseudonymous
inventor
of
Bitcoin.
The
filmmaker
claims
to
have
confronted
the
person
he
believes
is
Satoshi
face-to-face,
which
would
make
it
unlikely
Len,
who
committed
suicide
in
2011,
is
his
suspect.
Nevertheless,
others
have
written
convincingly
and
at
length
about
Len’s
technical
chops
that
made
him
a
logical
Satoshi
candidate.
Whatever
the
film
claims,
I’d
like
to
share
the
Len
that
I
knew,
and
why
I,
too,
think
it’s
plausible
that
he
was
Satoshi.
Justin
Newton
is
the
CEO
of
Netki,
a
provider
of
identity
validation
services.
This
article
is
adapted
from
a
post
published
on
LinkedIn.
When
I
met
Len
Sassaman,
he
was
wearing
a
rumpled
jacket
and
tie.
We
were
in
history
teacher
Thomas
Ruth‘s
living
room
at
the
Hill
School,
a
boarding
school
in
Pottstown,
Pa..
Len
was
in
his
junior
year,
and
I,
an
alumnus
working
in
the
data
center
business,
was
back
from
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
to
visit
Tom
for
a
long
weekend.
Len
sat
on
the
couch.
I
was
in
a
nearby
chair.
Tom,
one
of
my
mentors,
was
known
for
taking
kids
under
his
wing
who
had
a
difficult
upbringing
or
a
hard
time
fitting
in.
Len
was
one
such
kid.
He
was
having
trouble
keeping
regular
eye
contact
and
would
greatly
downplay
his
achievements.
Even
though
he
was
only
16,
Len
showed
great
promise
as
a
computer
scientist,
and
Tom
asked
if
I
would
be
willing
to
be
a
friend
in
the
field
who
could
help
Len
find
his
footing
and
his
way.
I
owe
a
lot
to
Tom,
so
of
course
I
agreed.
That
first
day
we
spent
about
two
and
a
half
hours
in
Tom’s
living
room,
drinking
hot
tea
that
was
the
equivalent
of
Jolt
Cola,
because
it
had
all
of
the
sugar,
and
twice
the
caffeine
that
you
would
expect
in
a
teacup.
As
I
look
back
on
that
conversation,
I
remember
a
number
of
things
we
discussed
that
day,
and
in
retrospect,
Len’s
ideas
aligned
well
with
who
Satoshi
Nakamoto
was
(or
is).
Another
mentor
of
mine
had
pointed
out
to
me
how
technology
and
history
influenced
each
other
in
cycles,
and
how
great
inventions
change
society
and
change
the
world.
I
shared
this
eureka
moment
with
Len:
that
great
skill
in
tech
could
be
the
lever
that,
if
pulled
hard
enough,
can
move
the
world
in
the
direction
we
want
it
to
go.
This
was
the
moment
in
the
discussion
when
Len
went
from
being
passive,
shy,
and
reserved,
to
passionate
and
deeply
engaged.
Until
that
point,
he
had
lived
in
a
world
that
was
shaped
by
the
popular
kids;
seeing
a
path
where
he
could
help
shape
the
future,
without
having
to
be
in
the
limelight,
caused
a
striking
and
immediate
change
in
his
posture,
from
slouching
to
erect
and
leaning
forward
and
his
eyes
from
downcast
to
wide
open
and
looking
directly
at
me.
At
this
point,
Tom
sat
back
in
his
chair
with
a
knowing
smile
on
his
face,
occasionally
getting
up
to
make
sure
Len
and
I
both
had
full
cups
of
his
infamous
rocket
fuel
to
keep
the
conversation
going.
We
spent
the
next
several
hours
talking
about
the
importance
of
freedom
of
communication,
online
anonymity,
and
democratization
of
information.
The
conversation
included
developing
open
source
software
and
standards,
expressing
our
values
through
code,
and
creating
software
that
could
change
the
world,
and
predicting
some
of
those
impacts.
The
Silicon
Valley
Years
Shortly
after
I
moved
to
Los
Angeles
to
work
at
NetZero,
an
internet
service
provider,
Len
moved
to
San
Francisco.
I
introduced
him
to
my
friends
in
the
North
American
Network
Operators’
Group
(NANOG)
and
Internet
Engineering
Task
Force
(IETF)
communities,
connecting
him
to
my
tribe
on
the
path
to
him
finding
his
own.
We
stayed
in
relatively
close
contact
for
about
10
years
after
that.
We
wouldn’t
talk
for
a
while,
and
then
I’d
get
an
email
or
a
text
message
asking
“Do
you
have
time
for
a
call?”
with
no
context.
Some
of
those
calls
were
quick
questions
about
career
advice
as
he
was
considering
job
offers,
or
whether
he
should
stay
at
a
role
that
wasn’t
fully
engaging
to
him.
Those
were
usually
quick
calls
because
he
just
needed
someone
he
trusted
in
the
field
to
validate
what
he
was
thinking
or
seeing.
The
longer
calls
were
similar
to
the
conversations
on
Tom’s
couch.
We
spent
hours
talking
about
the
value
of
open
and
permissionless
innovation,
and
how
important
the
networks
were
that
allowed
people
to
build
without
having
to
ask
permission.
We
talked
for
hours
about
the
trade-offs
of
allowing
bad
actors
to
do
bad
things
versus
the
benefit
of
letting
good
actors
move
quickly
without
waiting
for
slow,
conservative
institutions
to
say
yes.
Ultimately,
we
agreed
that
the
networks
themselves
should
be
completely
open,
and
that
the
controls
should
be
built
at
other
layers,
either
with
technology,
whenever
possible,
or
with
law
when
absolutely
necessary.
This
principle
sits
at
the
core
of
Bitcoin,
and
is
perhaps
its
most
valuable
and
enduring
characteristic.
Satoshi?
Maybe
There
are
many
people
who
give
logical
reasons
that
Len
could
not
have
been
Satoshi,
but
in
my
view,
those
people
don’t
know
who
Len
was.
Here
are
my
responses
to
their
points:
-
“Len
wasn’t
rich,
and
his
family
isn’t
rich
now.”
Len
believed
that
the
purpose
of
working
in
technology
was
not
to
get
rich,
but
instead
to
create
the
future
we
all
want
to
live
in.
This
would
tie
in
well
with
the
fact
that
Satoshi
never
profited
from
Bitcoin
the
way
he
or
she
or
they
could
have,
given
that
the
coins
mined
by
Bitcoin’s
creator
haven’t
moved.
I
can
100%
see
Len
destroying
the
private
keys
to
his
mining
wallets
to
ensure
he
or
anyone
else
couldn’t
cash
in
on
what
he
did. -
“Len
was
a
Bitcoin
skeptic
and
critical
of
it
on
Twitter.”
Len
was
frequently
highly
critical
of
the
projects
he
was
deeply
involved
in.
One
of
the
ways
his
personality
played
itself
out
was
to
believe
that
his
work
wasn’t
good
enough,
even
when
it
was
incredible.
Publicizing
those
criticisms
would
be
a
good
way
for
him
to
keep
the
anonymity
and
distance
he
would
have
sought
if
he
were
indeed
Satoshi.
Some
other
points:
-
Len
was
a
strong
believer
in
building
open
and
permissionless
networks
for
innovation.
It
was
this
feature
of
Bitcoin
that
originally
drew
me
to
it,
and
I
would
not
be
surprised
if
Len
built
a
network
like
that. -
Len
was
100%
a
believer
in
the
rights
of
the
individual
over
the
power
of
authority.
At
the
same
time,
he
was
not
the
type
of
libertarian
who
flocked
to
the
early
Bitcoin
community.
I
can
definitely
see
that
if
he
were
Satoshi,
watching
his
creation
get
co-opted
by
get-rich-quick
types
could
have
led
him
to
walk
away
from
the
project
and
possibly
heighten
his
depression.
To
be
clear:
Len
and
I
never
discussed
Bitcoin
and
if
he
was
Satoshi
I
can
readily
see
why
he
wouldn’t
want
to
discuss
it
with
me
or
any
of
our
friends.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
I
have
no
idea
if
he
was
Satoshi.
He
certainly
could
have
been,
considering
both
his
skills
and
who
he
was
as
a
person.
In
any
case,
Len
was
a
wonderful
person
who
deserved
better
than
the
world
treated
him.
His
memory
shines
brightly
in
my
heart.
Thanks
to
Carl
Jay
Pardini,
one
of
Len’s
close
high
school
friends,
for
reviewing
and
fact
checking
this
article.
Note:
The
views
expressed
in
this
column
are
those
of
the
author
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
those
of
CoinDesk,
Inc.
or
its
owners
and
affiliates.
