From a quick read of the Reddit post and comments, people there seem pretty divided on whether this is legitimate. One person claimed that it's pretty well accepted in Spain that Columbus is Pedro Madruga but it's not accepted in other places because of the translation issues. Another person claimed that there is ample evidence that Columbus has a documented past and is not Pedro Madruga.

flagamuffin, do you have any insight on which side is more widely accepted by the historians?