Here's the thing: He picked pretty much the worst pseudonym imaginable if he actually wanted privacy. Considering he's got a unit of currency named after him, he's a public figure. There's no judge on the planet that would accuse you of invading the privacy of a man named Satoshi Nakamoto. Any number of journalists did stories on guys named "el Nino" during a particularly bad winter; the fact that this particular Satoshi Nakamoto turns out to be, well, Satoshi Nakamoto just makes it that much less of an invasion.
I agree that's there's nothing fundamentally wrong (or illegal) with finding out who he is. He started something big, and had to expect the possibility. However, she didn't need to include shots of the house and his license plate. I don't think it added anything in a journalistic sense, and it does increase his personal risk.