Satoshi's response wasn't vague though. It was detailed.
* I'm not working on this
* Anymore (i.e., I was before)
* It's been turned over to other people (i.e. there were other parties involved in this work)
* They are in charge of it now (i.e. there was a project to be in charge of, and Satoshi had been the one in charge)
* I no longer have any connection (i.e. he did used to have a connection).
That's not a vague set of facts about something which this libertarian, privacy-minded genius just happened to be mistaken with. It's a detailed accounting, one which is "the exception that proves the rule". By listing what is not true he is definitely implying what is true.
If it was "detailed", you wouldn't need to (put everything that you think in parentheses).
Let me re-paranthesize your quote:
* I'm not working on this * Anymore (he never worked on it) * It's been turned over to other people (this is a public project with dozens of people involved, publicly) * They are in charge of it now (yes, they (as in the publicly acknowledged open source project) are in charge of it now) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he never had a connection).
> he is definitely implying what is true
What evidence do you have that any of his "implications" are worthy of truthfulness? (or that he's a "genius")?
What other "genius" level work has he produced? Or something even close to what would normally be considered "genius".
Even the obscure professor (Yitang Zhang) who came up with the first resolution of the twin prime conjecture was an "obscure" university professor.
I'm not saying that credentials are the only valid proof of capability. The Wright brothers had no degree. But they had decades of documentation of their efforts before they succeeded.
* I'm not working on this * Anymore (i.e., I was before) * It's been turned over to other people (i.e. there were other parties involved in this work) * They are in charge of it now (i.e. there was a project to be in charge of, and Satoshi had been the one in charge) * I no longer have any connection (i.e. he did used to have a connection).
That's not a vague set of facts about something which this libertarian, privacy-minded genius just happened to be mistaken with. It's a detailed accounting, one which is "the exception that proves the rule". By listing what is not true he is definitely implying what is true.