This reads like a comment from someone who didn't read the article. To call this piece fawning? And the author provides plenty of reasons for why Wright might not want to sign a message even if he could, and they're interesting and layered reasons that require going into detail into the warped psychology of a man who appears just crazy enough to be Satoshi and refuse to prove it, and just crazy enough to be willing to pull off an incredible elaborate hoax even knowing that he won't get away with it in the end.

Granted, it's a LOT of reading - over 35,000 words. But why is the top comment on HN (at time of this comment) on an article of this length and breadth one that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article's actual specific content?

The point of the piece isn't that herein lies the truth -- this is simply the author's experiences (months of them!) laid bare. You could sum it up in this quote from the piece: "The reason poets dislike each other's books is because they seem wrong, false – a kind of lie. 'If you were telling the truth you would be writing the same poems as me.'"